Are Modern Democrats Just Socialists by Another Name?

[Some Guy]

Socialism is a system whereby the means of production are owned cooperatively by the people and/or the government. Regulating privately owned means of production is not a socialism. It's common sense.

Did i say it was? What i said it that more regulation = more government control and operation of any business that the regulation affects. That pushes that particular business more toward the socialistic side of spectrum.

I also never said that it was a bad thing either. Without a lot of socialistic type policies we have, we'd be a lot worse off. Food safety is an obvious one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again daveyboy mistakes Truth Telling with defending the Far Left.

Help Frank out daveyboy, or you buy into the lie as well.

That's a flat lie, Frank, period.

You cannot support it with the data at all.

But, tell you what: give it a try.

And, oh? Your opinion is not evidence.

Progs are Compulsive Liars Lumping together Harding Coolidge and Hoover is a lie, but what can you do, tell the truth that Harding and Coolidge worked us out of a worse Depression than FDR inherited in record time?

Once again, Fakey jumps to the defense of the far left.

Hardly the sort of thing a moderate Republican would do, isn't it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, SG, more government regulation means more social democracy, not socialism.

Words and terms have particular meanings.

Use them correctly, please.

Socialism is a system whereby the means of production are owned cooperatively by the people and/or the government. Regulating privately owned means of production is not a socialism. It's common sense.

Did i say it was? What i said it that more regulation = more government control and operation of any business that the regulation affects. That pushes that particular business more toward the socialistic side of spectrum.

I also never said that it was a bad thing either. Without a lot of socialistic type policies we have, we'd be a lot worse off. Food safety is an obvious one.

 

[Some Guy]

No, SG, more government regulation means more social democracy, not socialism.

I didn't say it was socialism. Holy shit. I said more regulation = more to the socialistic side of the spectrum. It's like saying someone is far right vs. right of center. More regulation = the closer to you get to socialism on spectrum that has total capitalism on one side and total socialism on the other.

 

[8537]

Did i say it was? What i said it that more regulation = more government control and operation of any business that the regulation affects. That pushes that particular business more toward the socialistic side of spectrum.

I also never said that it was a bad thing either. Without a lot of socialistic type policies we have, we'd be a lot worse off. Food safety is an obvious one.

Fair enough. I'd disagree with your notion that regulation is a move toward socialism, but your general thesis seems correct.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You once again said "solicalistic side", meaning somehow the government was moving toward socialism.

That's a falsehood. Both parties, SG, are progressive, both are statist, both are big government, neither are "socialistic".

No, SG, more government regulation means more social democracy, not socialism.

I didn't say it was socialism. Holy shit. I said more regulation = more to the socialistic side of the spectrum. It's like saying someone is far right vs. right of center. More regulation = the closer to you get to socialism on spectrum that has total capitalism on one side and total socialism on the other.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Three definitions that are pretty much all over the board there. If you use the first two, then the government already is socialist in many ways. Primary and secondary education is largely socialized with the government owning and operating public schools. The post office is owned and operated by the government. Most road and bridge construction is owned and operated by the government. The government operating Medicare and Social Security are socialist in nature as well.

We've seen the takeover of GM, of which the government now owns much of. That's a socialist move. But some things that some would call "socialist" aren't really, by that definition. Taxing the rich and middle class to provide food stamps to the poor doesn't entail the government owning and operating the means of providing food to the poor, just the paying for them to be able to get their own food. Passing laws and policy that basically force coal power plants out of business in favor of wind or solar energy isn't socialism unless the government owns and operates the wind and solar power. So really, passing laws and policies that would do such a thing is more just rigging the game: crony capitalism.

But that's not to say that many democrats don't favor socialism. Maybe they do. Maybe they'd rather see all hospitals owned and operated by the government or maybe they just believe that everyone deserves the same outcomes regardless of their input.

To expand on this. You have two extremes of the spectrum when it comes to business. On the capitalist side, you have business operating completely free and clear of any laws, regulations, etc. They can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with regard to providing their good or service of course. On the other side (socialism), you have complete and total government control: business being owned and operated by the government.

Somewhere in the middle, which is what we have, it's business operating under government law and regulation. Business that provides food must adhere to certain regulations regarding food quality, etc. So, let's look at banks after the whole bail-out thing. The reason things got out of control, according to the left, is that banks were operating too independently, and therefore, the solution is more government regulation. More regulation, more laws = more government control, therefore more toward the pure socialist side. Obviously not owned and operated strictly by the government, but by definition, a regulation that a business must abide by is a form of government operation of that business.

If, economically speaking, democrats are pretty consistently on the side of more regulation (thus more government operation of business) isn't it fair to at least suspect that perhaps some democrats favor socialism?

Socialism is a system whereby the means of production are owned cooperatively by the people and/or the government. Regulating privately owned means of production is not a socialism. It's common sense.

And it takes authoritarian/totalitarian government to make that happen dummy - not to mention the means of converting into such a system require fascist policies...

Under communism the people never own dick - they turned into slaves for the government and were provided shitty rations and basically an allowance for their 50 hours a week..... All freedom goes away and the individual is turned into a collectivist robot ..........

It doesn't matter how one distributes wealth - the end result will always be the same...

Socialism/communism will NEVER WORK because those who contribute most to society will always want what they're worth - that's why many fled the USSR - they weren't being treated fairly....

A medical doctor shouldn't have to go to school for 10-12 years and then be rewarded as the same as the janitor who was just assigned a janitorial job because he was too dumb to be a doctor....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mr. Nick continues to reveal his ignorant and foolishness when it comes to politics.

Great Britain, France, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc., have all tried socialism and none of them are totalitarian or authoritarian.

Nickster thinks it is totalitarian because he is libertarian, the flip side of being a communist. Both on the principle of peer leaders, one through cadres the other through societies "of equals". Both lead to authoritarian societies that dominate the average Mr. and Mrs. Nick. That is the final irony of his failure of understanding.

 

[midcan5]

Serendipitously I came across this piece today. I have not explored the author's work - never read him before today - but it was fascinating that an idea of socialism I attempted to convey is noted in his review comment.

"I’m an old-fashioned socialist who has studied the Soviet variation on the theme of communism and the American variation on the theme of capitalism. I figure I’m still on the Left because I can say that capitalism underwrites freedom only insofar as the regulation and socialization of markets become the goals of both public policy and private associations; and that socialism underwrites democracy only insofar as markets become and remain indispensable devices in the allocation of resources. Capitalism is not reducible to free markets; socialism is not reducible to state command or elimination of markets. Socialism resides in and flows from markets; capitalism requires the regulation and reform of markets. In short: social democracy requires functional markets, and vice versa."

U.S. Intellectual History: Livingston Response to Hartman review of The World Turned Inside Out


"Moreover, if we give the matter a moment's thought, we can see that the 20th century morality tale of 'socialism vs. freedom' or 'communism vs. capitalism' is misleading. Capitalism is not a political system; it is a form of economic life, compatible in practice with right wing dictatorships (Chile under Pinochet), left-wing dictatorships (contemporary China), social-democratic monarchies (Sweden), and plutocratic republics (the United States), whether capitalist economies thrive best under conditions of freedom is perhaps more of an open question than we like to think." Tony Judt 'Ill fares the Land'

 

[Mr.Nick]

Serendipitously I came across this piece today. I have not explored the author's work - never read him before today - but it was fascinating that an idea of socialism I attempted to convey is noted in his review comment.

"I’m an old-fashioned socialist who has studied the Soviet variation on the theme of communism and the American variation on the theme of capitalism. I figure I’m still on the Left because I can say that capitalism underwrites freedom only insofar as the regulation and socialization of markets become the goals of both public policy and private associations; and that socialism underwrites democracy only insofar as markets become and remain indispensable devices in the allocation of resources. Capitalism is not reducible to free markets; socialism is not reducible to state command or elimination of markets. Socialism resides in and flows from markets; capitalism requires the regulation and reform of markets. In short: social democracy requires functional markets, and vice versa."

U.S. Intellectual History: Livingston Response to Hartman review of The World Turned Inside Out


"Moreover, if we give the matter a moment's thought, we can see that the 20th century morality tale of 'socialism vs. freedom' or 'communism vs. capitalism' is misleading. Capitalism is not a political system; it is a form of economic life, compatible in practice with right wing dictatorships (Chile under Pinochet), left-wing dictatorships (contemporary China), social-democratic monarchies (Sweden), and plutocratic republics (the United States), whether capitalist economies thrive best under conditions of freedom is perhaps more of an open question than we like to think." Tony Judt 'Ill fares the Land'

I would certainly love to know what type of authoritarian government is on the left?

Stalin only culled, purged or executed 40,000,000-60,000,000 people...

I don't know how that is "liberal."

The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 is another good example...

The communists/socialists are right wing not left - left ideologies are the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta (1215) - that is true left and true liberalism...

 

[daveman]

Once again daveyboy mistakes Truth Telling with defending the Far Left.

Help Frank out daveyboy, or you buy into the lie as well.

Funny how you never seem to Tell Truth about leftists, innit?

 

[JakeStarkey]

All the time. Go ask bfrgn for the latest.

But i consider the far right of you, and Frank, and Akin, and the wacks who want to go back to the 1950s to be very, very dangerous, and have no trouble pointing that out.

Remember: all that dave is dave.

 

[Publius1787]

Wow, I noticed that you are defending socialism. It’s almost that you’re lamenting that people are just too stupid to accept the idea of socialism. And sure, socialism is a form of dictatorial governance, where individual liberty takes second place to forced equality. Where no matter how hard you work or how skilled you become, you’re just the same as the next Joe over (See why unions denounce merit in favor of seniority). There is a reason why most socialist and communist countries are run by hard line dictators....

Accomplished nothing for America? Private Property rights, individual liberty, and the idea that if you succeed, the success is your own, and if you fail, the failure is your own, is the driving force on what makes America Great. We put individual liberty before equality and we have a great deal of both. In all countries where equality has been placed before liberty they received neither. Whereas we have the unalienable, indisputable, irrefutable, self-evident right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness, and not the “guarantee” of happiness. The value of my life is not how much I can contribute to society, but how much I can contribute to myself via hard work. No one owes you a dime for squirting out babies that you cant afford and no one owes you a living. Thats what makes America Great!

You remind me of the pampered children I know who have never worked a hard day in their life but somehow have made it on their own. The last time republicans ran America under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover we had the great depression, do you think that was some sort of accident? And please no revisionist history, if you blame democrats then be honest enough to look at your own. Reagan / Bush = bailouts, economic failure, Clinton / Bush = great recession. Unless you are rip van winkle you must have noticed the party in charge during these crashes.

As for liberty and success they mean nothing outside of context. You write and sound like an ad on TV. Cliches that are separate from the reality of the lives many Americans lead today. To repeat republicans after Lincoln did nothing for all of America, I do give credit to Eisenhower for the Keynesian highway project, and Reagan for supporting one of FDR's greatest accomplishment social security. All you need is freedom is meaningless blather, it is still the pudding that matters.

"We're always saying that “children are our nation’s most valuable resource.” Unfortunately, we don’t behave as if we believe it. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of children living in poverty in America increased by 41 percent, and now includes nearly one-quarter of our kids. Growing up in poverty is bad. It leads to lower graduation rates (a third of these children will not graduate from high school); lower incomes (nearly half will still be living in poverty at age 35); and lower life expectancy (by about eight years)." Ezekiel J. Emanuel Share the Wealth - NYTimes.com


"The historical evidence is clear: welfare reduces poverty, and the lack of it increases it. In the 1920s, fully half of all Americans could not make ends meet. Roosevelt's New Deal programs had reduced poverty to about 20 percent in the 50s. Johnson's Great Society reduced this to 11.1 percent by 1973. Since the rise of the corporate special interest system in 1975, individual welfare benefits have been shrinking, and poverty has been steadily rising, to over 15 percent today." Welfare increases poverty


"As John Paul II has already observed, the demarcation line between rich and poor countries is no longer as clear as it was at the time of Populorum Progressio. The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase. In rich countries, new sectors of society are succumbing to poverty and new forms of poverty are emerging. In poorer areas some groups enjoy a sort of “superdevelopment” of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation. “The scandal of glaring inequalities” continues. Corruption and illegality are unfortunately evident in the conduct of the economic and political class in rich countries, both old and new, as well as in poor ones. Among those who sometimes fail to respect the human rights of workers are large multinational companies as well as local producers. International aid has often been diverted from its proper ends, through irresponsible actions both within the chain of donors and within that of the beneficiaries. Similarly, in the context of immaterial or cultural causes of development and underdevelopment, we find these same patterns of responsibility reproduced. On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care. At the same time, in some poor countries, cultural models and social norms of behaviour persist which hinder the process of development."
"Caritas in veritate" - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI


"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara

Hey, if you cant have children you can afford then don't have them. But nevertheless, I will avoid the name calling and argue on the merits.

UCLA Study: The New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression for 7 years.

And Hoover started the government spending that FDR adopted later.

Your Postal Service Example

All I need to do with respect to Harding and Coolidge is point to the Roaring 20's, the Revenue Act of 1924, the dramatic reduction in government spending, and the 1/4th reduction in national debt.

As for the Great Depression well ..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7pnjzCuSv8]Milton Friedman explains role of gold in Great Depression. - YouTube[/ame]


I still can't figure out any article in the U.S. Constitution that allows for welfare style socialism at the federal level. But hey, you haven't ever read the document have you?

 

[Billo_Really]

And republican's are just un-informed democrats.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There's no question in my mind these bastards are socialist. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to say otherwise.

I understand Canada, British and French politics as I watch it. So you can't effin tell me that these people don't act like them.


These people are pushing failed bull shit that is simply not economically variable.

 

[rdean]

Democrats are a coalition party with many different groups.

Republicans are 90% white. The real question here is, "Do Republicans, with their extreme hatred for women's rights and minorities, want to turn this country into a type of "American Christian Taliban"?

 

[Publius1787]

Democrats are a coalition party with many different groups.

Republicans are 90% white. The real question here is, "Do Republicans, with their extreme hatred for women's rights and minorities, want to turn this country into a type of "American Christian Taliban"?

Seeing as how blacks are a minority, and most blacks are Democrats, couldn't the argument be reversed? Nevertheless, your "real question" has nothing to do with the merits of anything posted in this thread.

 

[Unkotare]

I understand Canada, British and French politics as I watch it.

You watch Sesame Street everyday and you can't understand that. Face it, you're just bone-stupid.

 

[Charles_Main]

Are modern Democrats Just Socialists by Another Name?

Upton Sinclair: "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."

Socialists in Congress: LINK

American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

More Socialists

Elena Kagan’s Socialist College Thesis Dedicated to her Radical Brother HERE
Obamas' Former Car Czars' Socialist Publications HERE AND HERE
Hillary Clintons' College thesison Saul Alinsky HERE
Obamas' Communication Directer Praising Mao HERE
Obamas' Communist Green Czar Van Jones HERE
Other Radicals in the White House HERE AND HERE
More on the Congressional Progressive Caucus HERE.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O00vEv8QXLU]Maxine Waters Admits She's a Socialist - YouTube[/ame]

Obama Supreme Court justice Quoting Socialist Norman Thomas

Appointees by Barack Obama who were Members of the Democratic Socialists of America

Ron Bloom Manufacturing Czar.
David Bonior Member of the Obama Economic Transition Team-now delegated by president Obama to negotiate the unification of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations.
Rosa Brooks Senior advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy.
Carol Browner Energy Czar/Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.
Heather Higginbottom Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, formerly with the Obama for America campaign
Samantha Power National Security Council, as director for multilateral affairs.
Hilda Solis Secretary of Labor.

DSA Members who worked/works on Obamas Election Campaign

Harry Boyte Co-chairof the Civic Engagement Group of Barack Obama’s U.S. presidential campaign.
Eliseo Medina Served on Obama's Latino Advisory Council.
Cornel West Served on Obama's National Black Advisory Council.
Jose LaLuz also served as president of Latinos for Obama.

More on Obama and the Democratic Socialists of America HERE


.

Some of them clearly are. Though I don't actually think Most of their base believe it, or they would not support it.

 

[Charles_Main]

Mr. Nick continues to reveal his ignorant and foolishness when it comes to politics.

Great Britain, France, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc., have all tried socialism and none of them are totalitarian or authoritarian.

Nickster thinks it is totalitarian because he is libertarian, the flip side of being a communist. Both on the principle of peer leaders, one through cadres the other through societies "of equals". Both lead to authoritarian societies that dominate the average Mr. and Mrs. Nick. That is the final irony of his failure of understanding.

Have you been to London lately? It may not be Totalitarian over there, but it is Damn Sure more Authoritarian there here. Cameras Everywhere, The Cops have much more leway as far as holding you with out charge, Etc etc.