Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Water Cooler' started by Univee2, Feb 12, 2020.
But under our version of capitalism I must buy my electricity for my light bulbs from an monopoly regulated by the goverment.
Sorta like socialism when it comes to utilities.
It's even worse than that, hoot. There are some things you can't buy unless you buy it on Amazon.
In an econ class at IU years ago I read a book - a series of essays, really - that included one that was about "socialism from the right". It was exactly what our posts in this thread are about. The editor compiling the essays was Mermelstein . . . sadly, I can't recall much else about the book . . . .
Yeah, there's a possum out in the yard some nights. I don't mind because they eat their weight in ticks and slugs, etc. I wouldn't want to find it in the basement though.
Socialism Sucks is an excellent and amusing book about socialism. There are no socialist success stories in history.
Buy a generator.
I know that it's a typo, but it connects to a new family saying. My bride was taking her 92-year-old father back to his assisted living facility on Sunday evening several weeks ago after dinner at our home. As Amy was waiting at a light, in order to make a left turn, a woman attempted to make a right turn onto the street and crashed into my bride's car. A lot of damage but no one was hurt. Swearing (WTF!? What the hell's the matter with you?) a blue streak while getting out of her car, my bride confronted the woman, who said, slurringly, "I .... had ... a .... accident."
My bride's retort was, "you didn't have a accident; you had an accident, bitch!" The lesson is: use a and an appropriately or someone you know might go medieval on your ass.
This happened on the corner by the police station so there was justice as the perp was arrested for drunk driving.
Woe to any sportscaster or any person on television who says something along the lines of "that was a excellent pitch."
I never consider infrastructure and services like water, sewer, and power Socialist concepts. We pay for those services by the amount we consume. I will consider it Socialism when we pay utilities through city or state taxes and not by how much we use. It would then be like free college education and healthcare paid through taxation. We would use the services more than needed and run costs up and up.
I take it you volunteer to pay tolls to use the local roads too?
I am happy to pay tolls on I-355 in Chicago. It cost more and the traffic is less than on the other roads I could use. I avoid tolls when I can, but I'll pay to save time and aggravation.
The alternative is that taxes are raised and everyone pays for the road even if they don't have a car or use the highway. Kind of like paying for your neighbor with an IQ the same as his shoe size to go to college.
Ask my family in southern Illinois how they like getting their roads surfaced with chip and seal while Chicago sucks the state dry. They are happy the people in Chicago are paying tolls.
Unlike other Western democracies which tried various forms of socialism the United States never quite took to it.
It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States offers some interesting reasons why we never quite took to it.
Which western democracies tried socialism?
If you are going to to suggest some of the Scandinavian countries, I’ll preemptively state that welfare states are not socialism. Socialism is the absence of free markets and where the state indirectly or directly controls prices, wages, distribution, ROI and a host of other economic factors.
Did you know that Sweden and Denmark score higher than US on the economic freedom index?
Here is an essay on democratic socialism with the following related to some European attempts at what some consider socialism. The link in part states the following....
When the British Labour Party and the French Socialist Party were in power during the post-war period, some commentators claimed that Britain and France were socialist countries and the same claim is now applied to Nordic countries who apply the Nordic model, although the laws of capitalism still operated fully as in the rest of Europe and private enterprise dominated the economy. In the 1980s, the government of President François Mitterrand aimed to expand dirigisme by attempting to nationalise all French banks, but this attempt faced opposition from the European Economic Community which demanded a capitalist free-market economy among its members. Nevertheless, public ownership in France and the United Kingdom during the height of nationalisation in the 1960s and 1970s never accounted for more than 15–20% of capital formation.
The subject of socialism is difficult to discuss as the definition varies depending on who is using it and for what purpose. Everything from fascism and communism to nations with welfare states and government regulations are called socialistic. I pretty much avoid the label "socialism" because of this, but a good many Americans would say Sweden and Denmark are examples of socialist states.
If that's how you're going to define socialism, then who cares? Neither Bernie nor anyone else is promoting such a thing, so what's it matter? The entire discussion of socialism is only relevant if we're talking about the version of socialism that is implemented in, for example, the Nordic countries.
it’s hard to tell what Bernie favors. He literally screams about everything. He screams about too many rich people. He screams about the labor-value of goods instead of market value which is a socialist concept.
I don’t think the Nordic countries are at all socialist. Private business and free markets abound in those countries.
in any event I think the term “Democratic Socialist” is like saying “Democratic Nazi”. Neither is possible.
Well, bully for you Mr. Webster. Here in the real world, "democratic socialism" is a term that does have a recognized meaning, and that meaning includes promotion of the types of policies that are common in European countries, especially exemplified by the Nordic countries. When someone - say a Senator from Vermont, for example - calls himself a "democratic socialist" and specifically points to those countries as examples of the kinds of policies he's promoting, then it isn't at all difficult to tell what he favors. If you're having problems with that, that's on you.
Or roads and streets. Or police and fire. Or public schools. Or parks. Or do you pay a set price for all of these things based upon usage?
You are giving Bernie too much credit. You can put whatever label you want on Nordic economics, but it isn’t socialism in the way the socialist pioneers applied it and the way it has been, and is, practiced in the world.
Take a look at China as a clear cut example of the difference between socialism and free markets. It devolved from socialist to free market almost at the speed of light in the last couple of decades of the twentieth century. The contrast is very enlightening.
Which brings us back to what I said before. Who freaking cares? The Economic and Social System Common in Nordic Countries (since we can't call it "democratic socialism," according to you) is the political system that is promoted by Bernie and those like him. If that's not socialism, then there's no reason for you to be worried about socialism.
According to most Republican, Democratic politicians are almost all socialists.
CoH adds a new wrinkle. Even Sweden and Denmark are less socialistic than Bernie and the Democrats as proven by the Index of Economic Freedom. The last time I looked at the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark ranked below the U.S. with Hong Kong being at the top. The rioting HK college students might question this.
I’ll agree Bernie is hard to pin down. But I think he believes in classical Marx socialism in addition to welfare state which you and he sees as socialism. He said this about wage inequality:
What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels. This is a rigged economy, which works for the rich and the powerful, and is not working for ordinary Americans ... You know, this country just does not belong to a handful of billionaires.This sounds remarkably like the Marx theory of labor and exploitation—one of the pillars of socialism.
I don't understand why conservatives think so poorly of our military.
Interesting. Care to explain. I’m missing your point.
You have a tendency to agree with things that I never said. It's really very annoying.
Again, Bernie isn't hard to pin down at all. He's quite open about what he believes in. You're just not interested in reality. You're interested in burning straw men.
It will be perfect socialism when the government tells you how much you can use these utilities. Chavez chided his people for taking too long of showers. He said 5 minutes was enough so the people had to comply. If you want to in our system take a 20 minute shower. It's your right, but you have to be responsible to pay for it. I will take that system every day and twice on Sunday.
Bernie calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Here, according to Wiki, is what he means:
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates for political democracy alongside a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on workers' self-management and democraticcontrol of economic institutions within a market socialist economy or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.
I haven’t heard Bernie reject a “socially owned economy” or “democratic control of institutions within a market socialist economy”. None of that sounds like the Nordic countries. So yeah, Bernie is hard to pin down.
As I said, he's specifically named these countries as examples of his political ideology in practice. He's not hard to pin down. If you're having trouble, it's a you problem.
Pedantic note: As has been pointed out numerous times since 2016, if we want to be dictionary accurate, Sanders isn't really a democratic socialist as much as he's a social democrat. Nowadays, people tend to use the terms interchangeably.
I’m going by Bernie’s self identification. Isn’t it bad manners to use descriptors different from what an individual uses.
It's also bad manners to purposefully misrepresent someone, but you don't seem to have a problem doing that.
Going around in circles. I don’t think Sanders rejects some of the pillars of socialism as Marx explained and as Sanders talked about when he wasn’t running for POTUS. As is with any candidate, he has laundered his positions. He has a staff and he isn’t a total dumbass.
Well, at least you've gone from "We know" to "I think." That's progress for you.
I guess that makes you the smart one then cuz I have no clue.
I said what I think of Bernie’s labor quote. You jumped immediately to bullshit without passing go.
There should be a lot more toll roads than currently exist. Like exponentially.... particularly with how we can use technology to pay for them without the hassle of stopping at toll booths.
No legitimate reason to compare mono-racial and mono-cultural tiny nations to the US. It's intellectually dishonest and a total fairytale.
The population and size of all the Scandinavian countries put together is something like Texas.
Or more comparable.... it would be like most of New England.... and nothing much else.
We have several states here that are larger than those individual countries. California is a major nation state on its own. States are free and able to enact any of these types of policies they want. Should Scandinavia be driving the policy of Italy or Spain?
Top down is a terrible solution for a giant nation like the US.
What's intellectually dishonest is refusing to address what someone actually says about his policy preferences, and then taking half of a label that he uses for himself, redefining it in a way that suits you, and then attacking him over it. You want to have a discussion about how much of an analogy can be drawn between the Nordic countries and the U.S.? Well, the discussion I was having with CO isn't even remotely close to that point yet, because CO is steadfastly refusing to accept that's even what Bernie is talking about.
What does the mono-racial mono-cultural have to do with the debate? I do not think you are saying what follows, but if you are, I agree. Are you saying white Americans would have a different opinion of social welfare if they knew the recipient was of the same race/culture?
How long have you had a stuck-down seven?
To wax philosophical, is it intellectually honest to debate with a known tergiversator? If so, does it at any point in time become dishonest? Finally, when does it become tantamount to wanking?