Democratic Socialists, Do You Support the DSA?

[Grumblenuts]

What have I avoided?? What would you like to know?

Nothing atm.

 

[dblack]

Nothing atm.

Then don't throw out lame accusations. I try to be pretty clear with my political convictions. That's why it annoys me so much when others aren't.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I was addressing the "What would you like to know?" part, not the "What have I avoided??" part that I had clearly addressed previously ["your own economic system preference(s?)"], sparky. But, by all means, you be you.

 

[dblack]

I was addressing the "What would you like to know?" part, not the "What have I avoided??" part that I had clearly addressed previously ["your own economic system preference(s?)"], sparky. But, by all means, you be you.

I prefer freedom, a free market, with as little government interference as possible. I think I've been transparent and consistent about that. Not sure what you think I've avoided. I don't think I'm hiding anything, but feel free to point it out when I am.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I prefer freedom, a free market, with as little government interference as possible. I think I've been transparent and consistent about that. Not sure what you think I've avoided. I don't think I'm hiding anything, but feel free to point it out when I am.

Okay then, expound away upon what you personally mean by:

1. "freedom"?
2. "a free market"?
3. "government interference"?

All politically loaded terms and deliberately clear as mud.

 

[dblack]

Okay then, expound away upon what you personally mean by:

"freedom"?

Lack of coercive interference with your activities.

"a free market"?

A market, where there is minimal coercive interference with your activities.

government interference"?

Laws dictating practices, or banning others, merely for expediency. aka "regulations". Discriminatory tax policy (so-called "incentives" and "penalties") that seeks to manipulate the market, and subsequently society.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Lack of coercive interference with your activities.

So governments can interfere with your activities just so long as they don't do so coercively? How would these governments know what you personally consider coercive or not and why should they care? What if your neighbor feels you've got it all backwards?

A market, where there is minimal coercive interference with your activities.

Again, what if Exxon feels you've got it all backwards? Aren't you just a wee bit worried that the Exxons of he world might have a slight, perhaps even coercive, crushing, competitive advantage over your little piece of shit business in this supposed "free market" capitalist utopia of yours?

Laws dictating practices, or banning others, merely for expediency. aka "regulations". Discriminatory tax policy (so-called "incentives" and "penalties") that seeks to manipulate the market, and subsequently society.

Again, what if most disagree with your personal opinions about all those things? What are you going to do, march in the streets like some commie hippie? Shake your fist or fart in the general direction of Washington, D.C.?

 

[Billiejeens]

Then don't throw out lame accusations. I try to be pretty clear with my political convictions. That's why it annoys me so much when others aren't.

you don't have convictions.

your motto is - can't we all just get along?

 

[dblack]

So governments can interfere with your activities just so long as they don't do so coercively?

Everything government does is coercive. That's the basis of all laws. If you refuse to abide, you face the coercion from the state. That's what makes laws different than "suggestions".

How would these governments know what you personally consider coercive or not and why should they care? What if your neighbor feels you've got it all backwards?

Feelies don't matter. Coercive is another word, like socialism, with a real definition. If my neighbor decides that parking his car in my driveway, or punching me in the face when I have it towed, isn't "coercive" we'll go to court over it. One if us is right, one of us is wrong.

Again, what if most disagree with your personal opinions about all those things? What are you going to do, march in the streets like some commie hippie? Shake your fist or fart in the general direction of Washington, D.C.?

Maybe. I'll also refuse to vote for candidates who don't get it.

 

[d0gbreath]

Asking Democratic Socialists, if they support the Democratic Socialists Association, seems like a fools errand.
Color me surprised. As a Commie, they seem like equality lite to me.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Everything government does is coercive. That's the basis of all laws. If you refuse to abide, you face the coercion from the state. That's what makes laws different than "suggestions".

Yes, you're an anarchist. Why do you suppose governments have been created and allowed to rule over practically everything everywhere from antiquity onward? Feelies?

Feelies don't matter. Coercive is another word, like socialism, with a real definition.

Sure it is. Only you failed to provide it. Gee, how I don't wonder why?

If my neighbor decides that parking his car in my driveway, or punching me in the face when I have it towed, isn't "coercive" we'll go to court over it. One if us is right, one of us is wrong.

Nope "court" is a government function.. also requiring rules, if not laws.

Maybe. I'll also refuse to vote for candidates who don't get it.

Wow. Powerful threat!

 

[dblack]

Asking Democratic Socialists, if they support the Democratic Socialists Association, seems like a fools errand.
Color me surprised. As a Commie, they seem like equality lite to me.

Well, I'm fine with someone who claims democratic socialism, but disavows the DSA. But if they do, I'd like more details. You know, where the devil hides.

 

[dblack]

Yes, you're an anarchist.

Nope. Not unless you have some "very special" definition of that word too.

Why do you suppose governments have been created and allowed to rule over practically everything everywhere from antiquity onward? Feelies?

Not sure what you're talking about here. Recognizing the government is coercive is not a blanket condemnation. It's just something to consider before we go legislating everything under the sun. We shouldn't resort to it unless it's actually necessary. Sometimes it is. Usually, it's not.

Nope "court" is a government function.. also requiring rules, if not laws.

Yep. Despite your claim, I'm not an anarchist.

Wow. Powerful threat!

Threat??? Voting your conscience is not a threat. It's what we should all be doing.

 

[d0gbreath]

Well, I'm fine with someone who claims democratic socialism, but disavows the DSA. But if they do, I'd like more details. You know, where the devil hides.

I know nothing about that situation either. I want to say 'who cares' but I won't lol.

 

[dblack]

I know nothing about that situation either. I want to say 'who cares' but I won't lol.

The part that worries me about democratic socialism, at least as described by the DSA, isn't so much the socialism. It's the democratic part, or rather their zeal for applying majority rule to every single social decision.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Several people here on the board describe themselves as Democratic Socialists. But there's a bit of a shell game going on with the definition. Some of them want to downplay the socialism, or the democracy, or both. They call it "compassionate capitalism" or otherwise try to spin it as not much different than what we have now. But the Democratic Socialists of America aren't so bashful. They lay out clearly the kinds of changes they want to make, and they're quite radical.

Here's their platform: DSA Political Platform - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

I'm just wondering that those of you who call yourselves Democratic Socialists think about that platform. Does it represent your overall political views and goals? Do you think the DSA is a legitimate standard bearer for democratic socialism? Or is it just a poorly named organization?

No. No. And Yes.

This seems to be one person's perception of Democratic Socialism. A lot of it is more based around current social issues, and has very little valid statements about economics. It's a real "Let's hold Hands and sing Kum-By-YA" statement.

At the heart a any realistic Democratic Socialist system should be a clear statement of the importance of Capitalism as the foundation for any successful society. However, capitalism must be regulated to prevent the abuse of working people.

Besides that, it should emphasize the importance of educating working people. A well-educated working class will enact socialism to the degree that's beneficial through Democracy.

The primary failure of Socialism in America is due to the fact that the vast majority of working Americans are dumbasses.

 

[d0gbreath]

The part that worries me about democratic socialism, at least as described by the DSA, isn't so much the socialism. It's the democratic part, or rather their zeal for applying majority rule to every single social decision.

Up there with the big guys, we have the electoral college, to remind us that we live and thrive in a Republic.
It's always been that way, and will most likely remain. Walk down quite a few rungs, and state, county and local decisions don't have the option of not being Democratic (majority rule) in their voting.
Social decision is an oxymoron IIRC.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Dumbasses" by design. The billionaires desire no competition, just workers disciplined enough to get their sorry asses to work.

I'm not an anarchist.

Who is it I'm thinking of then? sparky?

 

[dblack]

Besides that, it should emphasize the importance of educating working people. A well-educated working class will enact socialism to the degree that's beneficial through Democracy.

LOL - of course.

The primary failure of Socialism in America is due to the fact that the vast majority of working Americans are dumbasses.

Gotta agree with that last part. That's why socialism keeps hanging around.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Even most morons know that socialism comes in various forms and degrees.

That's a nice way of dodging the question. At least the Daily Commie included a definition in the article. A stupid ahistorical definition, but at least a definition.