Even When Times Are Tough Keep Socialism as Your North Star, Though Building fully socialist society takes long time, we should never lose sight of it

[Moonglow]

If human beings were selfless angels, capitalism would be vastly less objectionable

But we’re not angels. So we need to be socialists instead

Even When Times Are Tough, Keep Socialism as Your North Star

Achieving a fully socialist society is going to take a long time, and there’s no guarantee of victory. But we should never lose sight of the goal, because every step we take in that direction makes life better for working-class people and deepens democracy.

jacobin.com

Capitalism has proven or can't stand on its own.

 

[Moonglow]

You misread my post

I have not accused democrats of being isolationist

In fact I’m hopeful that biden will extend the Ukraine policy to Taiwan

There declarations and agreements from our past which doesn't allow us to openly do as such.

 

[Moonglow]

'If the US were isolationist as libs dream of china, russia, north korea and iran would take our place........"

Hardly that dream is a rabid republican dream of character assassination.

 

[Oddball]

If human beings were selfless angels, capitalism would be vastly less objectionable

But we’re not angels. So we need to be socialists instead

Even When Times Are Tough, Keep Socialism as Your North Star

Achieving a fully socialist society is going to take a long time, and there’s no guarantee of victory. But we should never lose sight of the goal, because every step we take in that direction makes life better for working-class people and deepens democracy.

jacobin.com

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't think you can accomplish anything by cutting right to the chase and shoving it down their throats like that. First off, most of them have no real concept on what socialism or socially responsible government even means.

It's worth saying though that Biden rammed it up their rear ends when he conned them into saying that they didn't want and never did want to eliminate social security and Medicare!

Now Biden gets to run around like a mad hatter, expounding on his slamdunk.

When in fact, Marjorie and her gang of hoodlums will just turn 180 in the wind and try to say they didn't say it.

Quite a remarkable slamdunk for Biden; that and the rest of his speech. Even though we should all know it was his speech writer.

You are lying:

Are Republicans Trying To Defund Social Security And Medicaid? A State Of The Union Fact Check (Updated: Biden Fires Back)

In a rowdy State of the Union Address, Biden’s claim that some Republicans are trying to cut Social Security and Medicare drew the most animated responses.

www.forbes.com

Democrats Misleadingly Claim 'Republicans' Plan' Would 'End' Social Security, Medicare - FactCheck.org

As part of his plan to downsize the federal government, Republican Sen. Rick Scott says he wants all federal legislation to "sunset" in five years, and "[i]f a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again." Well, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were all created by legislation. And now...

www.factcheck.org

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/07/politics/fact-check-president-biden-state-of-the-union/index.html

Biden on Republicans, Medicare and Social Security​

Biden once again took aim at Republicans in Congress over Social Security and Medicare, accusing some of them of wanting to make changes to the programs. His remarks elicited cheers from Democrats but loud jeers from Republicans, including GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene who shouted “liar.”

Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans, some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. … You know it means – if Congress doesn’t keep the programs the way they are, they would go away.”



Facts First: Biden was referring to Florida GOP Sen. Rick Scott, who last year issued “An 11 Point Plan to Rescue America.” As the president said, Scott’s proposal would sunset all federal legislation – including the two entitlement programs – every five years and require Congress to pass them again. Another GOP senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, last year suggested while campaigning for a third term that entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicare, should be shifted to discretionary spending that Congress has to approve annually.

Scott’s plan didn’t make it far. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly dismissed it, also saying that the GOP will not include in its agenda a bill that sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.

Also, the Republican Study Committee last year put out a budget plan that calls for making several changes to Social Security and Medicare that would amount to cutting the programs’ benefits for future senior citizens.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, however, reiterated in remarks on Monday that “cuts to Medicare and Social Security are off the table” in the debt ceiling discussions.

Fact-Checking Biden’s State of the Union Address

The president’s speech contained no outright falsehoods, but at times omitted crucial context or exaggerated the facts.

www.nytimes.com

“Some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I’m not saying it’s a majority.”

This needs context. President Biden implied that the Republicans who wanted to allow Social Security and Medicare to sunset were tying those demands to the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.

It is true that a couple of Republicans have suggested allowing those entitlement programs to sunset as mandatory spending, instead bringing them up for regular renewal. But Republicans have recently distanced themselves from such efforts. Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, has said that cuts to Social Security and Medicare are “off the table” in talks over raising the debt ceiling, which Congress must vote to do in the coming month or risk a default on the government’s bills. Likewise, President Donald J. Trump has warned Republicans to leave the programs alone in the negotiations. Mr. Biden, nodding to lawmakers responding to his speech, acknowledged that it seemed that cuts to the programs were “off the books now.” — Jeanna Smialek

FactChecking the State of the Union - FactCheck.org

Biden's address to Congress included claims that didn't tell the full story.

www.factcheck.org

Medicare and Social Security​

Republicans in Congress booed the president when he suggested that some among them would “sunset” Medicare and Social Security — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene shouted “liar.”

“Some of my Republican friends want to take the economy hostage — I get it — unless I agree to their economic plans,” Biden said. “All of you at home should know what those plans are. Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans, some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I’m not saying it’s the majority. Anybody who doubts it, contact my office. I’ll give you a copy of the proposal.”

We did. His office referred us to a news story that mentioned a proposal from Sen. Rick Scott that would have required all federal legislation to be subject to renewal every five years. Both Medicare and Social Security were created by legislation.

As we’ve written before, Scott didn’t specifically mention Medicare or Social Security in his proposal, but he did acknowledge that they would be included — although he said his aim was to “fix” the programs.

Scott — of Florida, who was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee — said in a March 27 interview on Fox News, “No one that I know of wants to sunset Medicare or Social Security, but what we’re doing is we don’t even talk about it.”

And, at a press conference on March 1, Scott stood behind Sen. Mitch McConnell as he said, “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half of the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years. That will not be part of a Republican Senate majority agenda.”


So, it’s a stretch to claim that there was anything close to significant support for ending the programs among Republicans — not even the proposal’s author supported ending them.

You lost any credibiliary you had, why do you need to lie?

 

[BlackSand]

If human beings were selfless angels, capitalism would be vastly less objectionable

But we’re not angels. So we need to be socialists instead

.

That's fucking amazing right there ... The admission we suck as human beings ...
Combined with the completely ignorant idea that somehow suggests we can do it all better with more Government.
It's like right there in front of you ... And you cannot see it ...

.​

 

[Mac-7]

There declarations and agreements from our past which doesn't allow us to openly do as such.

Meaning what?

That we cant support Taiwan?

I think we can and must

 

[Oddball]

.

That's fucking amazing right there ... The admission we suck as human beings ...
Combined with the completely ignorant idea that somehow suggests we can do it all better with more Government.
It's like right there in front of you ... And you cannot see it ...

.​

 

[Donald H]

Socialism is like any other human edeavor...it depends on humans to administrate it. As long as that remains the case it will also, like any other system administrated by humans, be abused for selfish purposes.

JO

I don't know of a country in the world that practices pure socialism, and in any case that's not what I've proposed is the answer. I've said dozens of times that capitalism is the way to go, but it needs to be socially responsible capitalism.

China is demonstrating huge success with socially responsible capitalism in action.

The system that is being abused for selfish purposes is a capitalist system that shows no social responsibility for the masses.

10% of the people hold 90% of the wealth.

90% of the people hold 10% of the wealth.

And that 10% of the people control and have bought the country's politiciansl

Therefore, is doesn't matter who 90% of the people vote for they're still all just black cats and white cats.

(see Tommy Douglas's story on the cats and the mice)

 

[justoffal]

I don't know of a country in the world that practices pure socialism, and in any case that's not what I've proposed is the answer. I've said dozens of times that capitalism is the way to go, but it needs to be socially responsible capitalism.

China is demonstrating huge success with socially responsible capitalism in action.

The system that is being abused for selfish purposes is a capitalist system that shows no social responsibility for the masses.

10% of the people hold 90% of the wealth.

90% of the people hold 10% of the wealth.

And that 10% of the people control and have bought the country's politiciansl

Therefore, is doesn't matter who 90% of the people vote for they're still all just black cats and white cats.

(see Tommy Douglas's story on the cats and the mice)

 

[justoffal]

I don't know of a country in the world that practices pure socialism, and in any case that's not what I've proposed is the answer. I've said dozens of times that capitalism is the way to go, but it needs to be socially responsible capitalism.

China is demonstrating huge success with socially responsible capitalism in action.

The system that is being abused for selfish purposes is a capitalist system that shows no social responsibility for the masses.

10% of the people hold 90% of the wealth.

90% of the people hold 10% of the wealth.

And that 10% of the people control and have bought the country's politiciansl

Therefore, is doesn't matter who 90% of the people vote for they're still all just black cats and white cats.

(see Tommy Douglas's story on the cats and the mice)

socially responsible capitalism

Yes this is the key to moving forward...abandoning all prior definitions and looking for a new and more effective combination of strategies.

Agreed.

JO

 

[Doug1943]

Why do teabaggers always confuse socialism with dictatorships?

The most common destination for the exports of Venezuela are India ($2.03B), China ($464M), Malaysia ($387M), Spain ($302M), and Italy ($184M).

The following types of Venezuelan product shipments represent positive net exports or a trade balance surplus. Investopedia defines net exports as the value of a country’s total exports minus the value of its total imports.

In a nutshell, net exports represent the amount by which foreign spending on a home country’s goods or services exceeds or lags the home country’s spending on foreign goods or services.

1. Iron, steel: US$920.7 million (Up by 130.4% since 2020)
2. Organic chemicals: $479.6 million (Up by 165.7%)
3. Ores, slag, ash: $385.3 million (Up by 324.6%)
4. Fish: $294.5 million (Up by 23.5%)
5. Aluminum: $118.3 million (Up by 242.7%)
6. Live animals: $79.7 million (Down by -1907.3%)
7. Copper: $63.8 million (Up by 81.8%)
8. Fertilizers: $41.4 million (Up by 48.2%)
9. Salt, sulphur, stone, cement: $41 million (Up by 4366.9%)
10. Beverages, spirits, vinegar: $34.6 million (Up by 89.7%)

Sounds pretty capitalistic to me.

But....................

Extreme poverty and lack of food and medicines has pushed more than three million Venezuelans to leave the country in recent years.
Andres Bello Catholic University conducted a study of poverty that found the poorest 20% of Venezuelans had 1.4% of the nation's wealth, down from 3.4% in 2014, while the richest 10% had 61% of the nation's wealth, up from 30%.

Looks so familiar.

I guess we teabaggers confuse socialism with dictatorships because every single genuinely socialist country -- ie one where the means of production and distribution are in their great majority owned by the state -- has been a dictatorship.

Of course, that's the weakness of inductive logic: just because something has always been true, doesn't mean that it has to be true. We can, in theory, imagine a democratic state with a completely socialist economy. As soon as the implications of such an economy began to make themselves felt, the socialist government would be voted out.

There are certainly plenty of countries that are not genuinely socialist, but which have some socialist features. The United States is one. We have had nationalized industries, and even today the government owns huge amounts of land, including the wonderful National Parks. Only the Libertarian Party wants to auction off the latter.

The American transportation system -- the highways, airports and rail -- get heavy government subsidies. The wonderful Amtrak system (highly recommended by me) gets over a billion dollars of Federal subsidy every year.

Many democratic European governments nationalized some of their heavy industry after the war. Even though they operated within the framework of a free-market economy, they were still largely inefficient, and, over the last thirty years, have been largely returned to private ownership.

There is a lot of confusion in the use of the words 'socialism', 'socialist', 'communism', and 'communist', by both Left and Right -- most of whom aren't interested in clarity but are using language as a weapon.

Call it what you will, there have been -- and still remain in a few countries -- economies where almost all of what the people consume, is the result of Central Planning Board giving directives to state-owned industries. Even these countries typically allow a bit of private ownership.

But in most countries, the production of almost all consumer goods, and quite a lot of capital goods, is the result of private enterprise.

One complication is natural resources: oil, coal, metal ores, etc. In many countries these are owned by the government. In countries which are too backward and corrupt to sustain a really vigorous private sector, income from the sale of these natural resources is the main source of government revenue (a lot which goes into Swiss bank accounts).

Like running a highway or a National Park, the benefits of competition don't apply very much to extractive industries. (Although even there, government corruption often makes them less efficient than they would be in private hands.)

Venezuela is not one of the countries where the whole economy is in the hands of the state. Like many Third World countries, it has extreme poverty, huge corruption, grossly inefficient nationalized industries. But it's not 'socialist' in the sense that Cuba or North Korea are.

 

[Donald H]

Yes this is the key to moving forward...abandoning all prior definitions and looking for a new and more effective combination of strategies.

Agreed.

JO

You'll enjoy this JO!

 

[Mac-7]

'If the US were isolationist as libs dream of china, russia, north korea and iran would take our place........"

You'll enjoy this JO!

Mice are dirty and disgusting

The human food that they dont steal they poop all over and ruin for human consumption

 

[Donald H]

There are certainly plenty of countries that are not genuinely socialist, but which have some socialist features. The United States is one. We have had nationalized industries, and even today the government owns huge amounts of land, including the wonderful National Parks. Only the Libertarian Party wants to auction off the latter.

These countries you're talking about aren't socialist countries, they are capitalist countries with a healthy mix of socialism and they don't and haven't become dictatorships.

I guess we teabaggers confuse socialism with dictatorships because every single genuinely socialist country -- ie one where the means of production and distribution are in their great majority owned by the state -- has been a dictatorship.

 

[Doug1943]

Socialism is like any other human edeavor...it depends on humans to administrate it. As long as that remains the case it will also, like any other system administrated by humans, be abused for selfish purposes.

JO

Well, use. Under normal circumstances, when their tribe is not seen to be under threat, almost all human beings act to increase their own well being.

This is true in a fully socialist society, and in a capitalist society. The trick is to make these self-interested individuals act, while they pursue their own self-interest, in the greater good. A kind of social judo.

Adam Smith described it very well over 250 years ago, in
Book I, Chapter 2 of Wealth of Nations:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

And that's why ardent socialists [ the real kind, the ones who see total socialism as a 'North Start' ]sit in nice apartments, in front of amazing pieces of technology, and, in between eating satisfying meals, urge us all to abandon the system that has brought us these things, and adopt a system which has failed every time it has been tried.

 

[Doug1943]

These countries you're talking about aren't socialist countries, they are capitalist countries with a healthy mix of socialism and they don't and haven't become dictatorships.

Yes. Exactly what I said.

 

[Smokin' OP]

I guess we teabaggers confuse socialism with dictatorships because every single genuinely socialist country -- ie one where the means of production and distribution are in their great majority owned by the state -- has been a dictatorship.

Of course, that's the weakness of inductive logic: just because something has always been true, doesn't mean that it has to be true. We can, in theory, imagine a democratic state with a completely socialist economy. As soon as the implications of such an economy began to make themselves felt, the socialist government would be voted out.

There are certainly plenty of countries that are not genuinely socialist, but which have some socialist features. The United States is one. We have had nationalized industries, and even today the government owns huge amounts of land, including the wonderful National Parks. Only the Libertarian Party wants to auction off the latter.

The American transportation system -- the highways, airports and rail -- get heavy government subsidies. The wonderful Amtrak system (highly recommended by me) gets over a billion dollars of Federal subsidy every year.

Many democratic European governments nationalized some of their heavy industry after the war. Even though they operated within the framework of a free-market economy, they were still largely inefficient, and, over the last thirty years, have been largely returned to private ownership.

There is a lot of confusion in the use of the words 'socialism', 'socialist', 'communism', and 'communist', by both Left and Right -- most of whom aren't interested in clarity but are using language as a weapon.

Call it what you will, there have been -- and still remain in a few countries -- economies where almost all of what the people consume, is the result of Central Planning Board giving directives to state-owned industries. Even these countries typically allow a bit of private ownership.

But in most countries, the production of almost all consumer goods, and quite a lot of capital goods, is the result of private enterprise.

One complication is natural resources: oil, coal, metal ores, etc. In many countries these are owned by the government. In countries which are too backward and corrupt to sustain a really vigorous private sector, income from the sale of these natural resources is the main source of government revenue (a lot which goes into Swiss bank accounts).

Like running a highway or a National Park, the benefits of competition don't apply very much to extractive industries. (Although even there, government corruption often makes them less efficient than they would be in private hands.)

Venezuela is not one of the countries where the whole economy is in the hands of the state. Like many Third World countries, it has extreme poverty, huge corruption, grossly inefficient nationalized industries. But it's not 'socialist' in the sense that Cuba or North Korea are.

You have done your research.
Very well put.

 

[BackAgain]

Capitalism has proven or can't stand on its own.

Huh?

 

[francoHFW]

If human beings were selfless angels, capitalism would be vastly less objectionable

But we’re not angels. So we need to be socialists instead

Even When Times Are Tough, Keep Socialism as Your North Star

Achieving a fully socialist society is going to take a long time, and there’s no guarantee of victory. But we should never lose sight of the goal, because every step we take in that direction makes life better for working-class people and deepens democracy.

jacobin.com

socialism is always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net, communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and has never been voted in anywhere and never works. You are a brainwashed English speaker, you carry around a century of antisocialist English propaganda,,,, during World War One, socialist parties were destroyed in UK/USA because they were against the war, and since the USSR, savage capitalist propaganda and communist propaganda have gone hand in hand conflating socialism and communism. Ditto with Nazis. Nazis and communists are the worst liars in history for crying out loud, at least until Rupert Murdoch and trump came along.....