The Long, Gentle Slide To American Socialism

[dblack]

Also: Democratic Socialists for Bernie

The right calls Bernie a socialist or even a communist. Yet he hasn’t called for government to own and control the means of production. Are they stupid?

Bernie calls Bernie a socialist, so they would be stupid to NOT call Bernie a socialist.

.

Democratic socialist. I believe there is a difference.

What "democratic socialism" even mean?

Voluntary misery?

It's a distinction without a difference. Commie gonna commie.

All problems socialism allegedly solves (it doesn't) are caused by too much government power.

.

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

My favorite bit - in the FAQs:

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Read this carefully. Notice what they don't say. They don't say "No, democratic socialism doesn't mean the government will own and run everything". Instead, they give us a list of excuses for why it is, in their view, necessary for government to own and run everything.

 

[basquebromance]

the United States will never never never EEEEEEEEEVER be a socialist country!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

the United States will never never never EEEEEEEEEVER be a socialist country!

As long as we have guns...

never, ever, ever, ever, ever, hee----yeever!!!

.never ever ever ever ever ever heeeee- - - yyee--yyeeever!!!

 

[gipper]

Also: Democratic Socialists for Bernie

The right calls Bernie a socialist or even a communist. Yet he hasn’t called for government to own and control the means of production. Are they stupid?

Bernie calls Bernie a socialist, so they would be stupid to NOT call Bernie a socialist.

.

Democratic socialist. I believe there is a difference.

What "democratic socialism" even mean?

Voluntary misery?

It's a distinction without a difference. Commie gonna commie.

All problems socialism allegedly solves (it doesn't) are caused by too much government power.

.

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

My favorite bit - in the FAQs:

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Read this carefully. Notice what they don't say. They don't say "No, democratic socialism doesn't mean the government will own and run everything". Instead, they give us a list of excuses for why it is, in their view, necessary for government to own and run everything.

Are the economies of Western Europe socialist? Are they socialist nations? Is Canada a socialist nation?

 

[sparky]

The Long, Gentle Slide To American Socialism

more the long slow slide into misapplied, misdirected, and misinterpreted labels ....

~S~

 

[dblack]

Also: Democratic Socialists for Bernie

Bernie calls Bernie a socialist, so they would be stupid to NOT call Bernie a socialist.

.

Democratic socialist. I believe there is a difference.

What "democratic socialism" even mean?

Voluntary misery?

It's a distinction without a difference. Commie gonna commie.

All problems socialism allegedly solves (it doesn't) are caused by too much government power.

.

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

My favorite bit - in the FAQs:

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Read this carefully. Notice what they don't say. They don't say "No, democratic socialism doesn't mean the government will own and run everything". Instead, they give us a list of excuses for why it is, in their view, necessary for government to own and run everything.

Are the economies of Western Europe socialist? Are they socialist nations? Is Canada a socialist nation?

I don't care about the labels so much, gipper. That's just a game you all play to equivocate. You want more socialism in the US. I wan't less. Not much more complicated than that.

 

[gipper]

Also: Democratic Socialists for Bernie

Democratic socialist. I believe there is a difference.

What "democratic socialism" even mean?

Voluntary misery?

It's a distinction without a difference. Commie gonna commie.

All problems socialism allegedly solves (it doesn't) are caused by too much government power.

.

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

My favorite bit - in the FAQs:

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Read this carefully. Notice what they don't say. They don't say "No, democratic socialism doesn't mean the government will own and run everything". Instead, they give us a list of excuses for why it is, in their view, necessary for government to own and run everything.

Are the economies of Western Europe socialist? Are they socialist nations? Is Canada a socialist nation?

I don't care about the labels so much, gipper. That's just a game you all play to equivocate. You want more socialism in the US. I wan't less. Not much more complicated than that.

Please answer my questions.

 

[dblack]

Also: Democratic Socialists for Bernie

What "democratic socialism" even mean?

Voluntary misery?

It's a distinction without a difference. Commie gonna commie.

All problems socialism allegedly solves (it doesn't) are caused by too much government power.

.

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

My favorite bit - in the FAQs:

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Read this carefully. Notice what they don't say. They don't say "No, democratic socialism doesn't mean the government will own and run everything". Instead, they give us a list of excuses for why it is, in their view, necessary for government to own and run everything.

Are the economies of Western Europe socialist? Are they socialist nations? Is Canada a socialist nation?

I don't care about the labels so much, gipper. That's just a game you all play to equivocate. You want more socialism in the US. I wan't less. Not much more complicated than that.

Please answer my questions.

You go first. You've been dodging the question on corporate welfare for days.

But, regarding your attempt at deflection: I don't really care what other countries are up to, or how you label their government, or how Democrats are redefining "socialism" this week. I'm just not interested in all the evasive shell games. As I said, I want government to have less power over society, not more.

 

[gipper]

Also: Democratic Socialists for Bernie

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

My favorite bit - in the FAQs:

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Read this carefully. Notice what they don't say. They don't say "No, democratic socialism doesn't mean the government will own and run everything". Instead, they give us a list of excuses for why it is, in their view, necessary for government to own and run everything.

Are the economies of Western Europe socialist? Are they socialist nations? Is Canada a socialist nation?

I don't care about the labels so much, gipper. That's just a game you all play to equivocate. You want more socialism in the US. I wan't less. Not much more complicated than that.

Please answer my questions.

You go first. You've been dodging the question on corporate welfare for days.

But, regarding your attempt at deflection: I don't really care what other countries are up to, or how you label their government, or how Democrats are redefining "socialism" this week. I'm just not interested in all the evasive shell games. As I said, I want government to have less power over society, not more.

Bull shit. I told you days ago I don’t support corporate welfare. You have this entirely backwards. You support corporate welfare, but oppose welfare for the poor and working class.

Your turn.

 

[dblack]

Also: Democratic Socialists for Bernie
My favorite bit - in the FAQs:

Read this carefully. Notice what they don't say. They don't say "No, democratic socialism doesn't mean the government will own and run everything". Instead, they give us a list of excuses for why it is, in their view, necessary for government to own and run everything.

Are the economies of Western Europe socialist? Are they socialist nations? Is Canada a socialist nation?

I don't care about the labels so much, gipper. That's just a game you all play to equivocate. You want more socialism in the US. I wan't less. Not much more complicated than that.

Please answer my questions.

You go first. You've been dodging the question on corporate welfare for days.

But, regarding your attempt at deflection: I don't really care what other countries are up to, or how you label their government, or how Democrats are redefining "socialism" this week. I'm just not interested in all the evasive shell games. As I said, I want government to have less power over society, not more.

Bull shit. I told you days ago I don’t support corporate welfare. You have this entirely backwards. You support corporate welfare, but oppose welfare for the poor and working class.

Your turn.

Nope. Still deflecting. The question was why don't you want to get rid of corporate welfare? I can answer for you if you like. I have a pretty good idea why.

 

[gipper]

Are the economies of Western Europe socialist? Are they socialist nations? Is Canada a socialist nation?

I don't care about the labels so much, gipper. That's just a game you all play to equivocate. You want more socialism in the US. I wan't less. Not much more complicated than that.

Please answer my questions.

You go first. You've been dodging the question on corporate welfare for days.

But, regarding your attempt at deflection: I don't really care what other countries are up to, or how you label their government, or how Democrats are redefining "socialism" this week. I'm just not interested in all the evasive shell games. As I said, I want government to have less power over society, not more.

Bull shit. I told you days ago I don’t support corporate welfare. You have this entirely backwards. You support corporate welfare, but oppose welfare for the poor and working class.

Your turn.

Nope. Still deflecting. The question was why don't you want to get rid of corporate welfare? I can answer for you if you like. I have a pretty good idea why.

Deflecting. You have to admit you are wrong. No one in their right mind calls Canada and Western Europe socialist nations.

 

[dblack]

I don't care about the labels so much, gipper. That's just a game you all play to equivocate. You want more socialism in the US. I wan't less. Not much more complicated than that.

Please answer my questions.

You go first. You've been dodging the question on corporate welfare for days.

But, regarding your attempt at deflection: I don't really care what other countries are up to, or how you label their government, or how Democrats are redefining "socialism" this week. I'm just not interested in all the evasive shell games. As I said, I want government to have less power over society, not more.

Bull shit. I told you days ago I don’t support corporate welfare. You have this entirely backwards. You support corporate welfare, but oppose welfare for the poor and working class.

Your turn.

Nope. Still deflecting. The question was why don't you want to get rid of corporate welfare? I can answer for you if you like. I have a pretty good idea why.

Deflecting. You have to admit you are wrong. No one in their right mind calls Canada and Western Europe socialist nations.

You chickenshit. I answered your question three times. But lets boil it down to something simple you can understand. To the question:
"Is country 'XXX' a socialist nation?". Answer: I don't know, nor do I care, how we label them. It's irrelevant.

All of these countries haves some socialism, just like we do. How one chooses to label them is subjective. I know the Democrat talking-point masters have designated this a go-to, gotcha question - but it's meaningless. Just another attempt to muddy the waters and obfuscate.

 

[dblack]

I don't care about the labels so much, gipper. That's just a game you all play to equivocate. You want more socialism in the US. I wan't less. Not much more complicated than that.

Please answer my questions.

You go first. You've been dodging the question on corporate welfare for days.

But, regarding your attempt at deflection: I don't really care what other countries are up to, or how you label their government, or how Democrats are redefining "socialism" this week. I'm just not interested in all the evasive shell games. As I said, I want government to have less power over society, not more.

Bull shit. I told you days ago I don’t support corporate welfare. You have this entirely backwards. You support corporate welfare, but oppose welfare for the poor and working class.

Your turn.

Nope. Still deflecting. The question was why don't you want to get rid of corporate welfare? I can answer for you if you like. I have a pretty good idea why.

Deflecting. You have to admit you are wrong. No one in their right mind calls Canada and Western Europe socialist nations.

Alright, since you're too cowardly to answer - here's why you don't want to get rid of corporate welfare: because you like it. You like the idea of expanding government power, and corporate welfare accomplishes that.

 

[task0778]

Please answer my questions.

You go first. You've been dodging the question on corporate welfare for days.

But, regarding your attempt at deflection: I don't really care what other countries are up to, or how you label their government, or how Democrats are redefining "socialism" this week. I'm just not interested in all the evasive shell games. As I said, I want government to have less power over society, not more.

Bull shit. I told you days ago I don’t support corporate welfare. You have this entirely backwards. You support corporate welfare, but oppose welfare for the poor and working class.

Your turn.

Nope. Still deflecting. The question was why don't you want to get rid of corporate welfare? I can answer for you if you like. I have a pretty good idea why.

Deflecting. You have to admit you are wrong. No one in their right mind calls Canada and Western Europe socialist nations.

Alright, since you're too cowardly to answer - here's why you don't want to get rid of corporate welfare: because you like it. You like the idea of expanding government power, and corporate welfare accomplishes that.

My 2 cents about that: I sure as hell don't want or like the idea of expanding gov't power, certainly it needs to be reined in quite a bit and reformed. Doing that constitutionally might be quite a challenge, can you lawfully give any sort of CW to a small business but deny it to a larger one? Or pick and choose who is helped and who isn't? Some small businesses, farms, and ranches probably would go out of business without some kind of assistance. So, do we totally get rid of CW? Well...

That means we can't bailout GM the next time, right? Or the failing banking system that is pretty important to the entire economy. Some say that's fine, but there are consequences that shouldn't be ignored. The greenies would go nuts if there had been no gov't assistance for high speed rail, solar panels, electric cars, and other programs and projects that impact the environment. So we want to watch our steel industry disappear cuz they can't compete with foreign steel? What does that mean for our defense industry if we have depend of other countries to get the materials and commodities we need? No more tariffs, quotas, tax breaks, or incentives, right? How badly would our domestic businesses be hurt, other countries support their businesses, wouldn't give them an unfair advantage? Or are we okay with that? What would inflation be like then, or the cost of living?

 

[dblack]

My 2 cents about that: I sure as hell don't want or like the idea of expanding gov't power, certainly it needs to be reined in quite a bit and reformed. Doing that constitutionally might be quite a challenge, can you lawfully give any sort of CW to a small business but deny it to a larger one? Or pick and choose who is helped and who isn't? Some small businesses, farms, and ranches probably would go out of business without some kind of assistance. So, do we totally get rid of CW? Well...

Exactly. That's what I was getting at with my answer. Liberals, and frankly most "conservatives", don't actually want to get rid of CW because of the perceived power that it affords the government over wealthy interests. They never seem to integrate this with their observation that wealthy interests control government.

That means we can't bailout GM the next time, right? Or the failing banking system that is pretty important to the entire economy. Some say that's fine, but there are consequences that shouldn't be ignored. The greenies would go nuts if there had been no gov't assistance for high speed rail, solar panels, electric cars, and other programs and projects that impact the environment. So we want to watch our steel industry disappear cuz they can't compete with foreign steel? What does that mean for our defense industry if we have depend of other countries to get the materials and commodities we need? No more tariffs, quotas, tax breaks, or incentives, right? How badly would our domestic businesses be hurt, other countries support their businesses, wouldn't give them an unfair advantage? Or are we okay with that? What would inflation be like then, or the cost of living?

I'd be fine with that. And yes, I think we'd be okay in general. Better, in the long run. We don't need the government running society to thrive. We need government to prevent bullying, to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want. When, instead, we use government to force the matter, to force everyone to comply with one vision of how society ought to be, then government becomes the bully and freedom is lost.

People tend to look at collusion between business and government from one perspective, or from the other. They either think of it as government bullying private business, or businesses buying off government to do their bidding. In reality, it's almost always both. When government reaches out to regulate an industry, vested interests in that industry send in their lobbyists to make sure things go their way. Even if you completely merge government and business under socialism, you still have the same power struggles - you still have greedy, ambitious people who want power.

The only way to prevent the collusion is to maintain a "wall of separation" between political power and economic power. We need to deal with it in roughly the same way we dealt with the collusion between government and religion. In that arena, we finally figured out that the only way to keep religion out of government was to keep government out of religion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Bull shit. I told you days ago I don’t support corporate welfare. You have this entirely backwards. You support corporate welfare, but oppose welfare for the poor and working class.

Your turn.

If your argument is against crony bullshit, corporate welfare, and the military/industrial complex, I am right there with you. We are on the same page.

.

 

[task0778]

"The only way to prevent the collusion is to maintain a "wall of separation" between political power and economic power."

Easier said than done I'm afraid, and I'm sure you know that. It is maybe the single biggest tool at the disposal of an incumbent politician in either party, if you're not fighting for the best interests of your constituents and your state then you ain't going to last long in politics. Which means the pols aren't going to give away their ability to bring home the bacon so to speak.

And that doesn't address the problem of free speech as defined by the SCOTUS in Citizens v United. Businesses large and small are allowed to lobby individually or collectively for their best interests and contribute whatever amount they are allowed to a party or candidate. It's not like crony capitalism and corporate welfare were unknown prior to CvU, the big ones still influenced the pols in their states considerably. So would it matter if that decision was overturned? Dunno, money didn't help Bloomberg or Hillary, and both parties pander to the rich and powerful one way or another.

So, what is to be done? Ending Corp Welfare isn't going to happen, and probably shouldn't anyway because of the consequences. Would it be lawful under the constitution to limit contributions to businesses with less than say $1 million income? OR discriminating between X and Y, possibly for political reasons? Let's not pretend that wouldn't happen. Don't know, probably would wind up in court. Should tax credits or exemptions be granted in perpetuity? Some already are, in practice anyway. Politics. IOW, we're fucked.

 

[Picaro]

They can think of many in Venezuela.

The government does not own the farms.

The government doesn't need technical ownership to control something. If government is footing the bill, government is calling the shots.

Wait … haven't you been whining that gov't is controlled by super-wealthy interests? Now you claim the gov't is calling the shots?

Why is it these discussions are always filled with misguided, poorly considered, and downright ignorant POVs?

Why do you seem to think that those two things are mutually exclusive?

Because right wing tards shills will always support socialism for the rich, no matter how expensive and harmful it is, while sniveling about minimum wage and food stamps, which amounts to a drop in the bucket compared to Wall Street's subsidies and tax shelters. They think the GOP or the Kochs will eventually see their cognitively dissonant ass kissing and make their duaghters marry them and give them big companies to run n stuff.

Dems voted for bailouts...

And the GOP initiated them to bail out their buddies, and still do. They're still going on, nobody stopped them. They're part of that government debt all the 'free traders' never volunteer to pay off and never will.

 

[Picaro]

They can think of many in Venezuela.

The government does not own the farms.

The government doesn't need technical ownership to control something. If government is footing the bill, government is calling the shots.

Wait … haven't you been whining that gov't is controlled by super-wealthy interests? Now you claim the gov't is calling the shots?

Why is it these discussions are always filled with misguided, poorly considered, and downright ignorant POVs?

Why do you seem to think that those two things are mutually exclusive?

Because right wing tards shills will always support socialism for the rich, no matter how expensive and harmful it is, while sniveling about minimum wage and food stamps, which amounts to a drop in the bucket compared to Wall Street's

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

This post is offensively dumb.

Only an idiot could confuse farm subsidies with socialism. Farm subsidies are given to make sure a country can produce food for itself. Socialism is an ideology of total government control, and the pact between the low classes and government to obliterate everyone else.

Even Gator for sure understands the difference even though pretends to be dumb in every instance it is possible.

Farm subsides are used by the government to control what is grown, how much is grown and what the price to the consumer is.

Can you think of another program by the Fed Gvot that has that much control over production and distribution?

They can think of many in Venezuela.

The government does not own the farms. The subsidies are paid so we don't have to rely on China... so that when a global pandemic hits we aren't screwed.

Annoying when people pretend to not understand glaring distinctions.

subsidies and tax shelters. They think the GOP or the Kochs will eventually see their cognitively dissonant ass kissing and make their duaghters marry them and give them big companies to run n stuff.

Dems voted for bailouts...

And the GOP initiated them to bail out their buddies, and still do. They're still going on, nobody stopped them. They're part of that government debt all the 'free traders' never volunteer to pay off and never will.