When exactly does the Democrats' socialism kick in?

[EvilCat Breath]

Yes, that's true, but high communism, which is the type of communism we will have in the future, unlike the primitive communism of our ancestors, will require advanced technology, which we don't have at the moment. We might have it in the next few decades, but at the moment, we can;'t automate to the degree necessary for there to be high-communism. Eventually, the individual consumer has access to the production technology operated by the state and no longer needs the government to manage production. The individual will produce everything they consume, using APMMs, Atomic Precision Manufacturing Machines, nanobots, and robotics. artificial intelligence..etc.

You are 12 years old playing video games.

 

[john doe 101]

Per my latest thread: when conservative/independent school teachers--57% of us in total--stop spending the average $650 to supply our own rooms, that will be a start.

That's over ONE BILLION DOLLARS every school year

You all want socialism? We should give you JUST what you want.

You should be nowhere near a classroom of any sort.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You are 12 years old playing video games.

No, I'm well-informed and capable of thought, unlike you.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No, I'm well-informed and capable of thought, unlike you.

Then express yourself better.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Then express yourself better.

How did I not express myself well? Be specific, and explain.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

How did I not express myself well? Be specific, and explain.

You come across confusing communism with the Star Command Federation. There is no high communism. But there's a Trek convention somewhere waiting for you to show them all how a Replicator works.

 

[dblack]

That's a tough call, because their definition of "socialism" appears to be "doesn't think exactly like me on everything".

(For convenience, that definition also applies to "communism", "fascism", "Hitler", "evil", "Satanic" and "demonic".)

Not me. The core of socialism is to the desire for state control of labor and resources. Dems push for that pretty consistently.

 

[BackAgain]

When exactly does the Democrats' socialism kick in?​

It was several decades ago.

 

[rightwinger]

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
com·mu·nism
/ˈkämyəˌniz(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Is there a glimmer of understanding there?

So where in the US do you see communism

 

[struth]

I disagree with your assessment of socialism. Socialism doesn't have to limit economic freedom, anymore than the limits we have now. To pretend that limits don't exist now under our current system and do with socialism, is misleading at best. When socialists are being threatened by the American capitalist empire, they hunker down and centralize power, becoming more authoritarian. That occurred here in the USA, during the civil war, and also the 1st and 2nd World Wars. The US became much more authoritarian, forcing Japanese Americans into concentration camps in the 1940s. There were government mandates with respect to rationing and price controls, among other intrusive policies, like the draft.

Socialism in many ways can be much more democratic than what we have now in America under capitalism or perhaps I should say, plutocratic oligarchy.

Now as far as what you said about state control of the major centers of economic power, that is true. I'm not going to contest that. In socialism, we believe there are certain sectors of the economy that should be publicly owned by the people or the working class, and managed by their government. The profits of those industries should be deposited in the public treasury and reinvested into the company to create more jobs and expand the operation or allocated to healthcare, education, and national infrastructure in general. However, I disagree on your claim that healthcare, education, and other services can't have a private sector.

It should be noted that socialism doesn't necessarily prohibit private healthcare and education. You can have a type of Medicare coverage with the state, and the healthcare is provided by private enterprises, or we can have a government run healthcare system like exists in the UK, or here in the United States with our VA, and also allow a private healthcare sector to exist alongside the public sector.

Moreover, although I'm not the type of socialist who interprets what Marx said regarding state and private sector cooperation in the area of vital goods and services, like energy, banking..etc. to mean that the private sector can exist in those areas of the economy, I do acknowledge that I have comrades who do believe that there can be a type of partnership between the state and those so-called "commanding heights of the economy", industries that are vital to the nation's infrastructure. The military-industrial complex, energy production, and other industries can be privatized up to a certain degree and enter into a partnership with the state. I subscribe to the former position, of complete state control of the commanding heights of the economy, allowing privatization only in the non-vital goods and services sector.

I'm still waiting for the Democrats to become socialists. Where are all of the Dem socialists? I can only count maybe a handful, about four or five socialists in the US federal government. At best, maybe not even that.

The democrats are definitely

How can a system where individuals have no right to private property be "more democratic?" then what we have now?

Your comrades who do believe that there can be a type of partnership between the state and those so-called "commanding heights of the economy", industries that are vital to the nation's infrastructure, aren't socialist, they are fascist. That's what fascsim is

 

[Mac1958]

Not me. The core of socialism is to the desire for state control of labor and resources. Dems push for that pretty consistently.

My standards for the term are higher. Actual Socialism is actual state ownership and control of all production, distribution and property.

The Dems want too much government, particularly in health care, they're obviously to the left of the spectrum on this topic, but simply labeling it "socialism" is as bad as the way the Left labels any criticism of minorities as "racism".

Although, in fairness, the GQP's push for some kind of ersatz pseudo-theocracy involves the government stepping in as well. Not to mention their interest in giving the President more power.

We can't fix anything when we can't recognize that the role of our government is going to exist on a continuum, and that our task is to thoughtfully and intelligently find the optimal point on that continuum.

 

[dblack]

My standards for the term are higher. Actual Socialism is actual state ownership and control of all production, distribution and property.

Well, that seems personal and arbitrary. I just go with the common dictionary definitions, most of which go something like

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

or

policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
"the debate over whether to move away from free markets and toward socialism"

Anyway, equivocating over definitions isn't much fun. By your definition, I'd wager no country has ever qualified as socialist, so it's not very useful.

Although, in fairness, the GQP's push for some kind of ersatz pseudo-theocracy involves the government stepping in as well. Not to mention their interest in giving the President more power.

Yep.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You come across confusing communism with the Star Command Federation. There is no high communism. But there's a Trek convention somewhere waiting for you to show them all how a Replicator works.

To a person who's ignorant, has an ax to grind against communism, and often resorts to ad hominem, cheap gas-lighting polemics, then yes, I "come across confusing communism with the Star Command Federation". There is indeed high communism or high-tech communism (vs the primitive communism of the stone age - hunter-gatherer society) and APMMs or Atomic Precision Manufacturing Machines that are being worked on now, at MIT and in other university labs as well:

​

You're an ignorant old fart brainwashed by decades of Cold War capitalist crap propaganda.

Until we get to "Star Trek" tech, we have something called "socialism", which is the process that leads to high communism. The withering away of the state, doesn't happen until each consumer has the ability through technology to produce everything they need, without government infrastructure or assistance. Socialism is the means through which the working class takes collective ownership of the means of production. Due to the following current technologies:

​

Socialism is now a necessity, whether you like it or not Bubba. Do I have to give you a lesson in economics? The billionaires see the writing on the wall:

​

We don't have to have Star Trek technology, to need socialism. Our advanced 21st-century technology in the area of robotics, artificial intelligence, and cybernetics, is more than enough for us to find ourselves needing socialist marketless production. Society is forced by necessity to adopt socialism. The problem is that you identify socialism with LGBTQA+++, with all of this repulsive shit:

​

That's the problem. You think a person has to be into all of that crap to be a socialist. Atheist, pro willy-nilly abortion..etc. not true. I'm an agnostic-atheist, but you can be a devout Christian and socialist. I personally know them, some of them are my friends.

You need to better inform yourself about socialism and communism, because it's the future.