If socialism is so great, why has almost every country that tried it abandoned it?

[Mac1958]

Great, so we should be having THAT conversation instead of all the phony Venezuela bullshit.
.

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand. When the left does it, it's for brevity. Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

Do you really, truly think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?

Do you truly believe that?

Yes or no?
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Both "wings" believe that they know what the other "wing" wants.

The right tells us that we want to be like Cuba and Venezuela. That we long for authoritarian rule, poverty and hopelessness.

We tell the right that they want to be like America only without the equality, justice for all and the key social programs that have helped make us the most powerful nation in the world.

Which belief is the closest to reality?

Of course you don't want the end result of the policies adopted by Cuba and Venezuela, buy you want to adopt those same exact policies. You're too stupid to realize that those policies get those results.

What? Are you telling me that you believe that "the left" wants what is best for America but is just to stupid to know what that is?

 

[Thinker101]

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Perhaps you just don't pay attention.

Shock and outrage as masked Antifa crowd blocks and shouts at elderly couple in Canada (VIDEO)

Canada spawns its own yellow vest protests – with extra rightwing populism

Naked protesters flood Quebec streets before start of Montreal F1 Grand Prix

So the far right is getting upset. OK.

Yep, not getting upset. Tough getting upset with ignorant people.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand. When the left does it, it's for brevity. Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

Do you really, truly think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?

Do you truly believe that?

Yes or no?
.

I never said any such thing. What the democrats want doesn't define socialism. It's a word with its own meaning that predates the political career of anyone in said party.

 

[Mac1958]

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand. When the left does it, it's for brevity. Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

Do you really, truly think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?

Do you truly believe that?

Yes or no?
.

I never said any such thing. What the democrats want doesn't define socialism. It's a word with its own meaning that predates the political career of anyone in said party.

You didn't answer my question.

bripat9643, I'll ask you both again:

Do you think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?
.

 

[2aguy]

When the government is the sole provider of health care, it literally controls every aspect of your life.

And the same people who want you fired if your political views don't agree with their left wing fantasies, who want you put in jail if you don't believe in the man made global warming cult......will be the same people who will one day say you don't deserve to have healthcare because you are a conservative......

That is one of the major reasons they want to control healthcare.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand. When the left does it, it's for brevity. Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

Do you really, truly think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?

Do you truly believe that?

Yes or no?
.

I never said any such thing. What the democrats want doesn't define socialism. It's a word with its own meaning that predates the political career of anyone in said party.

You didn't answer my question.

bripat9643, I'll ask you both again:

Do you think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?
.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. When I pointed out that I never said any such thing, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was ridiculing you for applying that idea to me. No, I don't think they're using Venezuela as their model. Even if they thought that Chavez's exact moves were all good ideas, our economy isn't fueled by oil money to anywhere NEAR the same degree as theirs. Chavez's maneuvers wouldn't translate in the first place.

Here's the thing, though. Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway. . . they didn't nationalize their economies. They simply have large welfare systems. Most normal democrats prefer that model; a private market with an expansive social safety net. But as long as they keep saying they want "socialism", I'm going to keep countering that statement with the ACTUAL definition of socialism which, in my experience, most lefties (along with most right wingers) don't seem to understand that they're misusing. Politicians have a way of being real vague until the bill comes due, and it pains me to think of what left wing normies are asking for without realizing that they're asking for it.

 

[2aguy]

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand. When the left does it, it's for brevity. Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

Do you really, truly think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?

Do you truly believe that?

Yes or no?
.

I never said any such thing. What the democrats want doesn't define socialism. It's a word with its own meaning that predates the political career of anyone in said party.

You didn't answer my question.

bripat9643, I'll ask you both again:

Do you think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?
.

It doesn't matter....socialism will always end in Venezuela......the immune system of the country may protect them for a while, but it will eventually collapse under socialism.....Those countries can't support their healthcare systems and their welfare states are beginning to collapse....

 

[Mac1958]

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand. When the left does it, it's for brevity. Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

Do you really, truly think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?

Do you truly believe that?

Yes or no?
.

I never said any such thing. What the democrats want doesn't define socialism. It's a word with its own meaning that predates the political career of anyone in said party.

You didn't answer my question.

bripat9643, I'll ask you both again:

Do you think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?
.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. When I pointed out that I never said any such thing, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was ridiculing you for applying that idea to me. No, I don't think they're using Venezuela as their model. Even if they thought that Chavez's exact moves were all good ideas, our economy isn't fueled by oil money to anywhere NEAR the same degree as theirs. Chavez's maneuvers wouldn't translate in the first place.

Here's the thing, though. Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway. . . they didn't nationalize their economies. They simply have large welfare systems. Most normal democrats prefer that model; a private market with an expansive social safety net. But as long as they keep saying they want "socialism", I'm going to keep countering that statement with the ACTUAL definition of socialism which, in my experience, most lefties (along with most right wingers) don't seem to understand that they're misusing.

Yes, the word has been scrambled and mangled pretty well.

But the Right has overused it in its efforts to scare itself and others, and now it can mean pretty much ANYTHING. Just as the Left has done with the term "racism". And it both cases, those words don't scare anyone any more. They're diluted.

So if the Right wants to slow down this clear momentum towards a Euro-social democracy, it had better start using a more honest and intelligent approach to this.
.

 

[bripat9643]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

The true capitalists argue that it should be abolished.

As I note......0005% have no impact on anything.

0005% of what?

 

[pknopp]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

The true capitalists argue that it should be abolished.

As I note......0005% have no impact on anything.

0005% of what?

Of what was being discussed.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand. When the left does it, it's for brevity. Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

Do you really, truly think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?

Do you truly believe that?

Yes or no?
.

I never said any such thing. What the democrats want doesn't define socialism. It's a word with its own meaning that predates the political career of anyone in said party.

You didn't answer my question.

bripat9643, I'll ask you both again:

Do you think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?
.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. When I pointed out that I never said any such thing, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was ridiculing you for applying that idea to me. No, I don't think they're using Venezuela as their model. Even if they thought that Chavez's exact moves were all good ideas, our economy isn't fueled by oil money to anywhere NEAR the same degree as theirs. Chavez's maneuvers wouldn't translate in the first place.

Here's the thing, though. Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway. . . they didn't nationalize their economies. They simply have large welfare systems. Most normal democrats prefer that model; a private market with an expansive social safety net. But as long as they keep saying they want "socialism", I'm going to keep countering that statement with the ACTUAL definition of socialism which, in my experience, most lefties (along with most right wingers) don't seem to understand that they're misusing.

Yes, the word has been scrambled and mangled pretty well.

But the Right has overused it in its efforts to scare itself and others, and now it can mean pretty much ANYTHING. Just as the Left has done with the term "racism". And it both cases, those words don't scare anyone any more. They're diluted.

So if the Right wants to slow down this clear momentum towards a Euro-social democracy, it had better start using a more honest and intelligent approach to this.
.

I'll give you that, the blind fear tactics don't seem to have done the trick with socialism OR racism. Personally, I'm a hardcore proponent of using words, particularly political and legal terms, properly, and upholding their distinction from other similar terms. Language is arguably our most important tool and should be maintained accordingly. But, nobody's perfect, so do feel free to ridicule away if you see me mangling a key term. I promise not to whinge excessively

 

[bripat9643]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

The true capitalists argue that it should be abolished.

As I note......0005% have no impact on anything.

0005% of what?

Of what was being discussed.

And what do you imagine that is?

 

[pknopp]

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

The true capitalists argue that it should be abolished.

As I note......0005% have no impact on anything.

0005% of what?

Of what was being discussed.

And what do you imagine that is?

It's right in the discussion.

 

[dudmuck]

Great, so we should be having THAT conversation instead of all the phony Venezuela bullshit.
.

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand, and it causes the term to become diluted. When the left does it, it's for brevity, and I'm guessing it does no harm to the overall understanding of the word? Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

The reason its diluted, is because its diluted by definition.
Social ownership can mean any of these:
1) public ownership
2) employee ownership
3) cooperative ownership
4) citizen ownership

The "democratic socialists", simply advocate democracy along side those 4 variants.

The reason this becomes an issue is that a greater portion of younger people spend most of their income on rent, cant afford basic healthcare, and drowning in student debt.

If capitalism cant address these issues, then something needs to change. Capitalism has given us great innovations, and we need to preserve that. But its also given us great abuses and inequality, which suppresses further innovation which capitalism has provided in the past.

 

[Mac1958]

Do you really, truly think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?

Do you truly believe that?

Yes or no?
.

I never said any such thing. What the democrats want doesn't define socialism. It's a word with its own meaning that predates the political career of anyone in said party.

You didn't answer my question.

bripat9643, I'll ask you both again:

Do you think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?
.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. When I pointed out that I never said any such thing, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was ridiculing you for applying that idea to me. No, I don't think they're using Venezuela as their model. Even if they thought that Chavez's exact moves were all good ideas, our economy isn't fueled by oil money to anywhere NEAR the same degree as theirs. Chavez's maneuvers wouldn't translate in the first place.

Here's the thing, though. Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway. . . they didn't nationalize their economies. They simply have large welfare systems. Most normal democrats prefer that model; a private market with an expansive social safety net. But as long as they keep saying they want "socialism", I'm going to keep countering that statement with the ACTUAL definition of socialism which, in my experience, most lefties (along with most right wingers) don't seem to understand that they're misusing.

Yes, the word has been scrambled and mangled pretty well.

But the Right has overused it in its efforts to scare itself and others, and now it can mean pretty much ANYTHING. Just as the Left has done with the term "racism". And it both cases, those words don't scare anyone any more. They're diluted.

So if the Right wants to slow down this clear momentum towards a Euro-social democracy, it had better start using a more honest and intelligent approach to this.
.

I'll give you that, the blind fear tactics don't seem to have done the trick with socialism OR racism. Personally, I'm a hardcore proponent of using words, particularly political and legal terms, properly, and upholding their distinction from other similar terms. Language is arguably our most important tool and should be maintained accordingly. But, nobody's perfect, so do feel free to ridicule away if you see me mangling a key term. I promise not to whinge excessively

I have a lot of frustration with our political discourse in general. I don't know how we're going to fix anything when we can't even agree on what terms mean. We can't communicate if we can't even agree on definitions, and we can't fix anything if we can't communicate.
.

 

[Mac1958]

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand, and it causes the term to become diluted. When the left does it, it's for brevity, and I'm guessing it does no harm to the overall understanding of the word? Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

The reason its diluted, is because its diluted by definition.
Social ownership can mean any of these:
1) public ownership
2) employee ownership
3) cooperative ownership
4) citizen ownership

The "democratic socialists", simply advocate democracy along side those 4 variants.

The reason this becomes an issue is that a greater portion of younger people spend most of their income on rent, cant afford basic healthcare, and drowning in student debt.

If capitalism cant address these issues, then something needs to change. Capitalism has given us great innovations, and we need to preserve that. But its also given us great abuses and inequality, which suppresses further innovation which capitalism has provided in the past.

This is why I always say that controls and regulations are not a bane to the proper application of capitalism, they are a critical component of it.

Without the proper controls in place, capitalism spins out of balance and wealth disparities will only increase. As we're watching happen, in real time.

When that happens, an alternative like socialism becomes more attractive and gains momentum in support. As we're watching happen, in real time.

The problem is that we're stuck in this binary, all-or-nothing mindset, and we no longer know how to communicate/collaborate ourselves out of it.
.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand, and it causes the term to become diluted. When the left does it, it's for brevity, and I'm guessing it does no harm to the overall understanding of the word? Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

The reason its diluted, is because its diluted by definition.
Social ownership can mean any of these:
1) public ownership
2) employee ownership
3) cooperative ownership
4) citizen ownership

The "democratic socialists", simply advocate democracy along side those 4 variants.

The reason this becomes an issue is that a greater portion of younger people spend most of their income on rent, cant afford basic healthcare, and drowning in student debt.

If capitalism cant address these issues, then something needs to change. Capitalism has given us great innovations, and we need to preserve that. But its also given us great abuses and inequality, which suppresses further innovation which capitalism has provided in the past.

The social ownership thing definitely offers up its own fog, but that's not the crux of the misunderstanding in English speaking politics. The primary confusion seems to hinge on the misconception that welfare = socialism, and completely overlooks the social ownership concept.

I definitely think that the government had a big hand in the student loan crisis. Student aid has played a big part in driving up tuition prices, and the fact that banks giving out student loans aren't legally allowed to discriminate based on the planned major of the student in question is a recipe for financial heartbreak. Loaning a kid 200k to study fly fishing for 4 years and then go work as a barista is dumb as fuck from the word go. Here's a little secret for you: Banks don't give out loans that people aren't likely to be able to pay back except when the government forces them to or guarantees the loan. The student loan crisis is one that an unregulated free market wouldn't have produced. Mind you, I'm not advocating for anarcho capitalism, which has its own problems, just saying that capitalism doesn't seem to be the culprit in this case.

You might be right about the rent bit. The degree to which rapidly rising rent prices in some cities are the result of foreign investors parking their money in housing units that they have no intention of renting out or living in seems to suggest that some regulation could help ease that, but I don't know enough to understand what the fallout would be from limiting realty speculation even in just the housing market, so it's hard to wrap my mind around that particular issue. Depending on that fallout, it might actually be preferable to let those bubbles pop themselves and balance back out. At any rate, there's way more at play in housing prices than just, capitalists running wild and charging unfair prices.

Healthcare costs also aren't just a function of capitalism. A big part of the reason the US pays so much for pharmecudicals is because of the liability that pharmecudical companies face for side effects combined with the urgency to get new cures to market to satisfy the even more urgent demand for them. Hard to imagine how more regulation could bring medical costs down without absolutely destroying any remaining financial incentive to develop new medicines.

Main point, though. . . capitalism didn't give us inequality. It simply didn't eliminate inequality. No system has. I'm not sure you'd want any system to do so. There's only one status wherein humans are all truly equal, because, at some point, even the worst off among us is more privileged than a still born.

 

[bripat9643]

The true capitalists argue that it should be abolished.

As I note......0005% have no impact on anything.

0005% of what?

Of what was being discussed.

And what do you imagine that is?

It's right in the discussion.

Obviously you're going to be a jackass about this because you don't want to be clear. That's the sure sign of a weasel.

 

[bripat9643]

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand, and it causes the term to become diluted. When the left does it, it's for brevity, and I'm guessing it does no harm to the overall understanding of the word? Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

The reason its diluted, is because its diluted by definition.
Social ownership can mean any of these:
1) public ownership
2) employee ownership
3) cooperative ownership
4) citizen ownership

The "democratic socialists", simply advocate democracy along side those 4 variants.

The reason this becomes an issue is that a greater portion of younger people spend most of their income on rent, cant afford basic healthcare, and drowning in student debt.

If capitalism cant address these issues, then something needs to change. Capitalism has given us great innovations, and we need to preserve that. But its also given us great abuses and inequality, which suppresses further innovation which capitalism has provided in the past.

This is why I always say that controls and regulations are not a bane to the proper application of capitalism, they are a critical component of it.

That's pure bullshit. If regulations are so beneficial, then why has our economy boomed since Trump eliminated so many of them?

Without the proper controls in place, capitalism spins out of balance and wealth disparities will only increase. As we're watching happen, in real time.

Terms like "out of balance" are meaningless pablum used by those who don't know anything about economics. Wealth disparities are a fact of life, even in socialist countries. In fact, they are probably worse. Just consider that while her countrymen starve that Hugo Chavez's daughter is worth $4 billion.

When that happens, an alternative like socialism becomes more attractive and gains momentum in support. As we're watching happen, in real time.

The problem is that we're stuck in this binary, all-or-nothing mindset, and we no longer know how to communicate/collaborate ourselves out of it.
.

Brainwashing is the only thing that makes socialism attractive.