Socialism in America

[georgephillip]

s it possible? Will the democratic party go all out socialist?

Venezuleans have sent us a message...................“people are eating from trash cans in the streets, so how has socialism helped?

What message is the US sending to Venezuela and the rest of the world?

An Interview the Saker on Venezuela

"The price of the U.S. economic attack on Venezuela is thus to fracture the global monetary system. Maduro’s defensive move is showing other countries the need to protect themselves from becoming 'another Venezuela' by finding a new safe haven and paying agent for their gold, foreign exchange reserves and foreign debt financing, away from the dollar, sterling and euro areas."

'Shelves are fully stocked': Venezuela's 'food crisis' myth revealed -- Sott.net

What stupidity.....did you ever think that maybe most folks down there do not have the money to visit these stores?

If you had been around in the 30's you no doubt would have been one of those describing Stalinist Russia as a workers paradise...in fact you may believe that now.

Telling the Truth about Communism

'Shelves are fully stocked': Venezuela's 'food crisis' myth revealed -- Sott.net

"Speaking with Venezuelan economist Pascualina Curzio, Martin discovers that while there are food shortages in Venezuela, these are a product of an 'economic war.' 'We cannot call it a generalized economic crisis, it's an economic war,'Curzio tells Martin.

"'In the past four years, Venezuela's per capita has been 9 percent higher compared to the per capita in the last 30 years. The unemployment rate is 6.6 percent. So we can't call it a generalized economic crisis,' Pascalina adds.

"'What we see is that there are several aggressions, focused on affecting the entire population and it has to do with market manipulation and of the economy as a whole.'Talking about some of the missing items from the stores' shelves, such as toilet paper, oil, flowers — products that have 'high consumption and are under the control of huge monopolies' — Curzio explains:"

 

[Mac1958]

Ok, thanks. And when OSC and others talk about Democratic Socialism, what does that mean?

You really don't know?

Well, I go by the standard dictionary definition, or the description on wikipedia. But every time I try to talk about socialism, everyone tells me I don't know what it means, so I wanted to clarify. For example, this:

Okay, well, it means a level of government involvement, cost and scope that exists further along towards the left of the continuum than we are now. This is where counties like Sweden, Finland, Canada, Germany, France and England are - more government (the socialist element), but also a strong component of free market capitalism, personal freedom and private property (the democratic element). Quite unlike actual socialist countries like Venezuela and Cuba.

... is significantly different than various dictionary definitions or wikipedia.

The distinction should be clear, but it appears to completely flummox our conservative Right, at least in the conservative Right's present condition. Somehow the thought of a continuum of government involvement just doesn't appear to register. For them, this complex, dynamic continuum appears to be reduced to some kind of simplistic on/off switch that requires virtually no intellectual elasticity.

I don't think that's the issue so much as the desired endgame. It's the direction you want to push things along that continuum that matter. Conservatives and libertarians want less socialism, people who call themselves "democratic socialists", presumably, want more.

But this business where everyone has a different definition of socialism is a copout. For a conversation between the two of us, I'm fine with any definition you want to use, as along as it's clear and we're not equivocating. But other people are more likely to use nominally neutral sources like wikipedia. From the terminology they use there, it sounds like what you're advocating is social democracy, rather than democratic socialism:

Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism. In contrast to social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise. As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production.

Anyway, I realize you're using a different definition, but I don't see how you can shame people for going with wikipedia rather than your version. In the above definition, democratic socialists aren't advocating for a mixed economy. They're straight up socialists, they just want it to be less authoritarian.

Use whatever definition you'd like. You asked, I answered.
.

 

[dblack]

Ok, thanks. And when OSC and others talk about Democratic Socialism, what does that mean?

You really don't know?

Well, I go by the standard dictionary definition, or the description on wikipedia. But every time I try to talk about socialism, everyone tells me I don't know what it means, so I wanted to clarify. For example, this:

Okay, well, it means a level of government involvement, cost and scope that exists further along towards the left of the continuum than we are now. This is where counties like Sweden, Finland, Canada, Germany, France and England are - more government (the socialist element), but also a strong component of free market capitalism, personal freedom and private property (the democratic element). Quite unlike actual socialist countries like Venezuela and Cuba.

... is significantly different than various dictionary definitions or wikipedia.

The distinction should be clear, but it appears to completely flummox our conservative Right, at least in the conservative Right's present condition. Somehow the thought of a continuum of government involvement just doesn't appear to register. For them, this complex, dynamic continuum appears to be reduced to some kind of simplistic on/off switch that requires virtually no intellectual elasticity.

I don't think that's the issue so much as the desired endgame. It's the direction you want to push things along that continuum that matter. Conservatives and libertarians want less socialism, people who call themselves "democratic socialists", presumably, want more.

But this business where everyone has a different definition of socialism is a copout. For a conversation between the two of us, I'm fine with any definition you want to use, as along as it's clear and we're not equivocating. But other people are more likely to use nominally neutral sources like wikipedia. From the terminology they use there, it sounds like what you're advocating is social democracy, rather than democratic socialism:

Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism. In contrast to social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise. As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production.

Anyway, I realize you're using a different definition, but I don't see how you can shame people for going with wikipedia rather than your version. In the above definition, democratic socialists aren't advocating for a mixed economy. They're straight up socialists, they just want it to be less authoritarian.

Use whatever definition you'd like. You asked, I answered.
.

Then what does this mean?:

Here we go again.
A word that now means nothing. Or anything.

It seems like you're trying to dismiss the argument.

I'm not sure how to respond to this new evasion technique that socialism advocates are playing with. But I'm seeing it everywhere. They seem intent on undermining the definition of the word in order to undermine opposition to their policy goals - to obscure rather than to clarify. That's annoying as well as dishonest.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but appeals to emotional fallacies.

That's just idiocy. AOC's Green New Deal is a dangerous horribly naive mistake and just on the most basic level it's a suicide pact for any nation dumb enough to engage in it. No emotional fallacies there.

Have you ever posted anything of worth? No.

One representative. Is the whole and entire right wing really just plain useless when they don't come up with better solutions at lower cost?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Ok, thanks. And when OSC and others talk about Democratic Socialism, what does that mean?

You really don't know?

Well, I go by the standard dictionary definition, or the description on wikipedia. But every time I try to talk about socialism, everyone tells me I don't know what it means, so I wanted to clarify. For example, this:

Okay, well, it means a level of government involvement, cost and scope that exists further along towards the left of the continuum than we are now. This is where counties like Sweden, Finland, Canada, Germany, France and England are - more government (the socialist element), but also a strong component of free market capitalism, personal freedom and private property (the democratic element). Quite unlike actual socialist countries like Venezuela and Cuba.

... is significantly different than various dictionary definitions or wikipedia.

The distinction should be clear, but it appears to completely flummox our conservative Right, at least in the conservative Right's present condition. Somehow the thought of a continuum of government involvement just doesn't appear to register. For them, this complex, dynamic continuum appears to be reduced to some kind of simplistic on/off switch that requires virtually no intellectual elasticity.

I don't think that's the issue so much as the desired endgame. It's the direction you want to push things along that continuum that matter. Conservatives and libertarians want less socialism, people who call themselves "democratic socialists", presumably, want more.

But this business where everyone has a different definition of socialism is a copout. For a conversation between the two of us, I'm fine with any definition you want to use, as along as it's clear and we're not equivocating. But other people are more likely to use nominally neutral sources like wikipedia. From the terminology they use there, it sounds like what you're advocating is social democracy, rather than democratic socialism:

Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism. In contrast to social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise. As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production.

Anyway, I realize you're using a different definition, but I don't see how you can shame people for going with wikipedia rather than your version. In the above definition, democratic socialists aren't advocating for a mixed economy. They're straight up socialists, they just want it to be less authoritarian.

Use whatever definition you'd like. You asked, I answered.
.

Then what does this mean?:

Here we go again.
A word that now means nothing. Or anything.

It seems like you're trying to dismiss the argument.

I'm not sure how to respond to this new, evasion technique that socialism advocates are playing with. But I'm seeing it everywhere. They seem intent on undermining the definition of the word in order to undermine opposition to their policy goals - to obscure rather than to clarify. That's annoying as well as dishonest.

Newspeak. See Orwell.

 

[Mac1958]

Ok, thanks. And when OSC and others talk about Democratic Socialism, what does that mean?

You really don't know?

Well, I go by the standard dictionary definition, or the description on wikipedia. But every time I try to talk about socialism, everyone tells me I don't know what it means, so I wanted to clarify. For example, this:

Okay, well, it means a level of government involvement, cost and scope that exists further along towards the left of the continuum than we are now. This is where counties like Sweden, Finland, Canada, Germany, France and England are - more government (the socialist element), but also a strong component of free market capitalism, personal freedom and private property (the democratic element). Quite unlike actual socialist countries like Venezuela and Cuba.

... is significantly different than various dictionary definitions or wikipedia.

The distinction should be clear, but it appears to completely flummox our conservative Right, at least in the conservative Right's present condition. Somehow the thought of a continuum of government involvement just doesn't appear to register. For them, this complex, dynamic continuum appears to be reduced to some kind of simplistic on/off switch that requires virtually no intellectual elasticity.

I don't think that's the issue so much as the desired endgame. It's the direction you want to push things along that continuum that matter. Conservatives and libertarians want less socialism, people who call themselves "democratic socialists", presumably, want more.

But this business where everyone has a different definition of socialism is a copout. For a conversation between the two of us, I'm fine with any definition you want to use, as along as it's clear and we're not equivocating. But other people are more likely to use nominally neutral sources like wikipedia. From the terminology they use there, it sounds like what you're advocating is social democracy, rather than democratic socialism:

Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism. In contrast to social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise. As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production.

Anyway, I realize you're using a different definition, but I don't see how you can shame people for going with wikipedia rather than your version. In the above definition, democratic socialists aren't advocating for a mixed economy. They're straight up socialists, they just want it to be less authoritarian.

Use whatever definition you'd like. You asked, I answered.
.

Then what does this mean?:

Here we go again.
A word that now means nothing. Or anything.

It seems like you're trying to dismiss the argument.

I'm not sure how to respond to this new evasion technique that socialism advocates are playing with. But I'm seeing it everywhere. They seem intent on undermining the definition of the word in order to undermine opposition to their policy goals - to obscure rather than to clarify. That's annoying as well as dishonest.

As I say all the time, the term "socialism" has been as over-used and diluted and trivialized as badly as the term "racism".

I don't know what the person actually means when I hear either term, and I'm not sure they do either. I general, I think they're just babbling.
.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

One representative. Is the whole and entire right wing really just plain useless when they don't come up with better solutions at lower cost?

Just one representative who has dozens of others of leftist lunatic politicians who have signed onto her brainless suicide pact, you mean?
You just aren't that smart apparently and at that even you are distancing yourself from the idiocy of the "Green New Deal".

 

[JoeB131]

Just one representative who has dozens of others of leftist lunatic politicians who have signed onto her brainless suicide pact, you mean?
You just aren't that smart apparently and at that even you are distancing yourself from the idiocy of the "Green New Deal".

Again, you nuts are all shitting yourself over this girl... which says a lot.

 

[danielpalos]

One representative. Is the whole and entire right wing really just plain useless when they don't come up with better solutions at lower cost?

Just one representative who has dozens of others of leftist lunatic politicians who have signed onto her brainless suicide pact, you mean?
You just aren't that smart apparently and at that even you are distancing yourself from the idiocy of the "Green New Deal".

You seem to be missing the capital point that makes capitalism worthwhile.

competition for better solutions at lower cost.

 

[Tehon]

Ok, thanks. And when OSC and others talk about Democratic Socialism, what does that mean?

You really don't know?

Well, I go by the standard dictionary definition, or the description on wikipedia. But every time I try to talk about socialism, everyone tells me I don't know what it means, so I wanted to clarify. For example, this:

Okay, well, it means a level of government involvement, cost and scope that exists further along towards the left of the continuum than we are now. This is where counties like Sweden, Finland, Canada, Germany, France and England are - more government (the socialist element), but also a strong component of free market capitalism, personal freedom and private property (the democratic element). Quite unlike actual socialist countries like Venezuela and Cuba.

... is significantly different than various dictionary definitions or wikipedia.

The distinction should be clear, but it appears to completely flummox our conservative Right, at least in the conservative Right's present condition. Somehow the thought of a continuum of government involvement just doesn't appear to register. For them, this complex, dynamic continuum appears to be reduced to some kind of simplistic on/off switch that requires virtually no intellectual elasticity.

I don't think that's the issue so much as the desired endgame. It's the direction you want to push things along that continuum that matter. Conservatives and libertarians want less socialism, people who call themselves "democratic socialists", presumably, want more.

But this business where everyone has a different definition of socialism is a copout. For a conversation between the two of us, I'm fine with any definition you want to use, as along as it's clear and we're not equivocating. But other people are more likely to use nominally neutral sources like wikipedia. From the terminology they use there, it sounds like what you're advocating is social democracy, rather than democratic socialism:

Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism. In contrast to social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise. As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production.

Anyway, I realize you're using a different definition, but I don't see how you can shame people for going with wikipedia rather than your version. In the above definition, democratic socialists aren't advocating for a mixed economy. They're straight up socialists, they just want it to be less authoritarian.

Use whatever definition you'd like. You asked, I answered.
.

Then what does this mean?:

Here we go again.
A word that now means nothing. Or anything.

It seems like you're trying to dismiss the argument.

I'm not sure how to respond to this new evasion technique that socialism advocates are playing with. But I'm seeing it everywhere. They seem intent on undermining the definition of the word in order to undermine opposition to their policy goals - to obscure rather than to clarify. That's annoying as well as dishonest.

As I say all the time, the term "socialism" has been as over-used and diluted and trivialized as badly as the term "racism".

I don't know what the person actually means when I hear either term, and I'm not sure they do either. I general, I think they're just babbling.
.

It comes down to a failure to understand fundamentally what capitalism is. Everyone thinks that systems of production are defined by how they relate to government. They are not.

 

[dblack]

As I say all the time, the term "socialism" has been as over-used and diluted and trivialized as badly as the term "racism".

I don't know what the person actually means when I hear either term, and I'm not sure they do either. I general, I think they're just babbling

That just seems like a convenient excuse to dismiss criticism or opposition - and shut down otherwise productive discussion.

Sure, most Trumpsters are dummies and don't understand what socialism is about. They don't understand free markets either. And the same can be said of most Democrats. But that doesn't mean socialists aren't real, with a real agenda and real goals. AOC is a member of Democratic Socialists of America. They are very clear about their goals and they don't want the kind of mixed-economy, regulated capitalism you described.

 

[danielpalos]

As I say all the time, the term "socialism" has been as over-used and diluted and trivialized as badly as the term "racism".

I don't know what the person actually means when I hear either term, and I'm not sure they do either. I general, I think they're just babbling

That just seems like a convenient excuse to dismiss criticism or opposition - and shut down otherwise productive discussion.

Sure, most Trumpsters are dummies and don't understand what socialism is about. They don't understand free markets either. And the same can be said of most Democrats. But that doesn't mean socialists aren't real, with a real agenda and real goals. AOC is a member of Democratic Socialists of America. They are very clear about their goals and they don't want the kind of mixed-economy, regulated capitalism you described.

insist on the SimCity version first.