Will The Democrats Finally Admit They Are a Socialist Party?

[Tehon]

WAY too sweeping a statement. That could mean Marxism or it could mean civil courts. Define what you mean by "work independent of government."

Any type of influence capitalists have over government policies, campaign contributions would be the most obvious or how about the revolving door that exists between business an government.

 

[kaz]

WAY too sweeping a statement. That could mean Marxism or it could mean civil courts. Define what you mean by "work independent of government."

Any type of influence capitalists have over government policies, campaign contributions would be the most obvious or how about the revolving door that exists between business an government.

Well, in capitalism, they don't have influence over government policy just like consumers and other market players don't. When they do, it's socialism. Bribing corrupt government to harm their competitors and tilt the field is socialism.

What capitalists do have from government are law enforcement to investigate crimes, civil and criminal courts, police, the military. They can only win however by beating their competitors in the marketplace

 

[Tehon]

Fascism/state capitalism/crony capitalism are when industry is in private hands but controlled by government. Socialism is when government just owns them. I don't conflate them, their definitions do. If your title is on your car, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and he has the keys, who really owns the car?

Well, in capitalism, they don't have influence over government policy just like consumers and other market players don't. When they do, it's socialism. Bribing corrupt government to harm their competitors and tilt the field is socialism.

What capitalists do have from government are law enforcement to investigate crimes, civil and criminal courts, police, the military. They can only win however by beating their competitors in the marketplace

Well then, which is it?
Business owning government is not the definition of socialism. It is capitalism run amok.

 

[regent]

Poor people were the responsibility of the states. Then in the Great Depression the states could not provide so the federal government took over.

No, the federal government "took over" simply because FDR wanted it to take over.

Never let a tragedy go to waste!

Isn't that the Democrat motto?

BTW, you just admitted that no one starved before SS.

I didn't say no one starved. When the Great Depression hit, it was a Republican president, Hoover, that began transferring the welfare problem from the states to the national government, RFC. When FDR took over he required the able bodied to work, CCC, WPA, PWA and other work programs.

I'm the one saying no one starved. You're saying people did. provide some examples of people starving to death or shut up.

By "required the able bodied to work" you mean he created some massive welfare programs.

Yep, those massive welfare programs of FDR produced1000 miles of new airport runways, 650,000 miles of highways, 124,000 bridges, 8000 parks, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,000 schools, the TVA, Grand Coulee Dam, the Triborough Bridge. and more. Add to that, the work of the CCC's in our forests.

650,000 miles of highways? Where did you get this data, Dr. Suess?

I thought I'd round off the numbers; because it was actually 651,000 miles of highways, but then Hiltzik, the author of "The New Deal" might have rounded off his numbers too, so it might have been even more than the 651,000.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Democrats are the party of social-democracy! Guess what, the mainstream republicans are also social-democracy but maybe a little more of the capitalist side of doing things.

The nutz in this thread that are arguing for no regulations and pure capitalism are just nutz.

 

[regent]

Perhaps the title of this thread should be: Will the Democrats finally admit they are the party of socialism, whatever socialism is?

 

[bripat9643]

Did I say that? Capitalism is not synonymous with free market.

No you didn't say that because that would be correct and you don't know what capitalism is. Capitalism is when businesses, employees, consumers, suppliers all work out their own best deal. It is distributed decision making. Socialism is central decision making, which can only be done by government because only government can use force to compel market players to act against their own best interest. Fascism and crony capitalism are variations of socialism, the government picks market winners rather than the market

Capitalism is a means of production that is privately held. In your example centralized decision making would constitute state capitalism not socialism which is the common ownership of the means of production.

You seem to think capitalists work independent of government. How naive.

"State capitalism" is a euphemism meaning "socialism. If capitalists don't work independent of government, then they are crony capitalists- fascists, in other words.

Fascists rose up against liberalism and socialism. Conflating the two is moronic. As is conflating state capitalism and socialism.

We've seen this dumb argument posted 1000 times in this forum. I wont bother refuting it since it's already been so thoroughly refuted.

 

[bripat9643]

Fascism/state capitalism/crony capitalism are when industry is in private hands but controlled by government. Socialism is when government just owns them. I don't conflate them, their definitions do. If your title is on your car, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and he has the keys, who really owns the car?

Well, in capitalism, they don't have influence over government policy just like consumers and other market players don't. When they do, it's socialism. Bribing corrupt government to harm their competitors and tilt the field is socialism.

What capitalists do have from government are law enforcement to investigate crimes, civil and criminal courts, police, the military. They can only win however by beating their competitors in the marketplace

Well then, which is it?
Business owning government is not the definition of socialism. It is capitalism run amok.

Business never "owns" government. That term is meaningless with respect to government. It's typical leftist mumbo-jumbo signifying nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

No, the federal government "took over" simply because FDR wanted it to take over.

Never let a tragedy go to waste!

Isn't that the Democrat motto?

BTW, you just admitted that no one starved before SS.

I didn't say no one starved. When the Great Depression hit, it was a Republican president, Hoover, that began transferring the welfare problem from the states to the national government, RFC. When FDR took over he required the able bodied to work, CCC, WPA, PWA and other work programs.

I'm the one saying no one starved. You're saying people did. provide some examples of people starving to death or shut up.

By "required the able bodied to work" you mean he created some massive welfare programs.

Yep, those massive welfare programs of FDR produced1000 miles of new airport runways, 650,000 miles of highways, 124,000 bridges, 8000 parks, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,000 schools, the TVA, Grand Coulee Dam, the Triborough Bridge. and more. Add to that, the work of the CCC's in our forests.

650,000 miles of highways? Where did you get this data, Dr. Suess?

I thought I'd round off the numbers; because it was actually 651,000 miles of highways, but then Hiltzik, the author of "The New Deal" might have rounded off his numbers too, so it might have been even more than the 651,000.

That's enough to criss-cross the United States 200 times. I hardly think that figure is anywhere near reality.

 

[kaz]

Fascism/state capitalism/crony capitalism are when industry is in private hands but controlled by government. Socialism is when government just owns them. I don't conflate them, their definitions do. If your title is on your car, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and he has the keys, who really owns the car?

Well, in capitalism, they don't have influence over government policy just like consumers and other market players don't. When they do, it's socialism. Bribing corrupt government to harm their competitors and tilt the field is socialism.

What capitalists do have from government are law enforcement to investigate crimes, civil and criminal courts, police, the military. They can only win however by beating their competitors in the marketplace

Well then, which is it?
Business owning government is not the definition of socialism. It is capitalism run amok.

Those statements are completely consistent. Businesses buying corrupt government is still clearly government control. They are just selling favors to the highest bidder. If the businesses and government conflict under the arrangement, then you'll see it's government clearly in charge. Government controls business for a lot of reasons. The competitors of those buying government don't really give a shit why they are being harmed by government, they are

 

[kaz]

Fascism/state capitalism/crony capitalism are when industry is in private hands but controlled by government. Socialism is when government just owns them. I don't conflate them, their definitions do. If your title is on your car, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and he has the keys, who really owns the car?

Well, in capitalism, they don't have influence over government policy just like consumers and other market players don't. When they do, it's socialism. Bribing corrupt government to harm their competitors and tilt the field is socialism.

What capitalists do have from government are law enforcement to investigate crimes, civil and criminal courts, police, the military. They can only win however by beating their competitors in the marketplace

Well then, which is it?
Business owning government is not the definition of socialism. It is capitalism run amok.

Business never "owns" government. That term is meaningless with respect to government. It's typical leftist mumbo-jumbo signifying nothing.

Yes, government is selling favors, but the business in the end can't force government to do anything. Government can completely control business. That's why some bribe them, government can harm their competitors in ways they can't

 

[hazlnut]

It's kind of hard to get offended by the label anymore when you've got thousands of enthusiastic Democrats lining up to hear Bernie Sanders' populist Scandinavian style welfare state plan for our nation. The man is, after all, the only self admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate and he is edging closer and closer to toppling Hillary each day.

Why, they're not even close.

Only a total friggin' retard would think that.

**** me, you must be stupid.

 

[Tehon]

Let's see if I learned anything from this illuminating conversation.

That's crony capitalism, which is a form of socialism, not capitalism, Holmes

-Crony capitalism, despite what the name implies is not capitalist in nature it is socialist.

Fascism and Crony capitalism are essentially the same thing, Holmes. Industry is technically in private hands, but the market is controlled by government. Both of them are forms of socialism.

-Crony capitalism essentially equates to fascism and are both forms of socialism because government controls the market.

No you didn't say that because that would be correct and you don't know what capitalism is. Capitalism is when businesses, employees, consumers, suppliers all work out their own best deal. It is distributed decision making. Socialism is central decision making, which can only be done by government because only government can use force to compel market players to act against their own best interest. Fascism and crony capitalism are variations of socialism, the government picks market winners rather than the market

-Capitalism is when businesses, employees, consumers, suppliers all work out their own best deal. Wow, what a great system, everyone wins! Why should crony capitalism even exist in the land of unicorns and rainbows.

Fascism/state capitalism/crony capitalism are when industry is in private hands but controlled by government. Socialism is when government just owns them. I don't conflate them, their definitions do. If your title is on your car, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and he has the keys, who really owns the car?

-Wait a minute now, maybe there is a distinction between fascism/crony capitalism and socialism. Socialism is when government owns business rather than just controlling it. That would lead me to infer that we are not socialist but instead fascist.

Well, in capitalism, they don't have influence over government policy just like consumers and other market players don't. When they do, it's socialism. Bribing corrupt government to harm their competitors and tilt the field is socialism.

What capitalists do have from government are law enforcement to investigate crimes, civil and criminal courts, police, the military. They can only win however by beating their competitors in the marketplace

-Nope, now we're back to calling crony capitalism socialism again. Are we also going back to conflating it with fascism.

Those statements are completely consistent. Businesses buying corrupt government is still clearly government control. They are just selling favors to the highest bidder. If the businesses and government conflict under the arrangement, then you'll see it's government clearly in charge. Government controls business for a lot of reasons. The competitors of those buying government don't really give a shit why they are being harmed by government, they are

-Pay no attention to the revolving door or outright bribery it has no correlation to government policies, government is still in charge. I think this infers fascism or socialism or both, just for good measure.

Forgive me if I take nothing away from our exchange.

Crony capitalism is as it's name suggests, capitalists creating favorable conditions for profit generation. It has nothing in common with socialism or fascism, two distinctly different ideologies, and concepts which you have clearly shown to be ignorant of.

 

[regent]

I didn't say no one starved. When the Great Depression hit, it was a Republican president, Hoover, that began transferring the welfare problem from the states to the national government, RFC. When FDR took over he required the able bodied to work, CCC, WPA, PWA and other work programs.

I'm the one saying no one starved. You're saying people did. provide some examples of people starving to death or shut up.

By "required the able bodied to work" you mean he created some massive welfare programs.

Yep, those massive welfare programs of FDR produced1000 miles of new airport runways, 650,000 miles of highways, 124,000 bridges, 8000 parks, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,000 schools, the TVA, Grand Coulee Dam, the Triborough Bridge. and more. Add to that, the work of the CCC's in our forests.

650,000 miles of highways? Where did you get this data, Dr. Suess?

I thought I'd round off the numbers; because it was actually 651,000 miles of highways, but then Hiltzik, the author of "The New Deal" might have rounded off his numbers too, so it might have been even more than the 651,000.

That's enough to criss-cross the United States 200 times. I hardly think that figure is anywhere near reality.

Well let's walk through this shall we, or you may not sleep tonight. First the word is highways not freeways, then check some of the state highway mileage, maybe Texas and get an idea of the miles of highways in some of the states.

 

[kaz]

-Wait a minute now, maybe there is a distinction between fascism/crony capitalism and socialism. Socialism is when government owns business rather than just controlling it. That would lead me to infer that we are not socialist but instead fascist

Exactly, Holmes. Both parties are fascist.

Crony capitalism is as it's name suggests, capitalists creating favorable conditions for profit generation. It has nothing in common with socialism or fascism, two distinctly different ideologies, and concepts which you have clearly shown to be ignorant of.

Sorry, guy, you don't get to make up your own definition for words

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Fascism and Crony capitalism are essentially the same thing, Holmes

I'm glad we can agree on that Watson

Industry is technically in private hands, but the market is controlled by government.

Not exactly, industry and the government have become the same. Capitalists control the government that controls the markets. No more free market crap, just a happy moneymaking machine run by the oligarchs for the benefit of the oligarchs.

Both of them are forms of socialism.

No, socialism works the other way. In it's most extreme form the government (which is "we, the people" in theory, "we, the communist dictatorship" in practice) controls everything. No more free market anymore but exactly the opposite of fascism.

Capitalism is economic freedom. That government controls free markets is an oxymoron

Economic freedom is an illusion, capitalists always want more $$$ and seek to eliminate the competition. The end result is fascism. Pure socialism is also an illusion, it's simply incompatible with human nature to expect them to share everything. If that ideal is forced on a population by (well meaning?) revolutionaries the end result is communism.

The only thing that will work is a combination of the two

 

[NYcarbineer]

After 500 posts,

did anyone make a post showing why the Democrats are a socialist party?

 

[kaz]

Not exactly, industry and the government have become the same. Capitalists control the government that controls the markets

Then why can another capitalist come along, offer them more money and get their way? You're full of it. Government is allowing themselves to be controlled for their own benefit, not the business's benefit. And they do so only as long as that's the best option for them. Only one of them has guns, Holmes. And they are fully aware of that...

That's why it is a form of socialism. It is clearly not capitalism, you can't have free markets controlled by government, it's a complete oxymoron

 

[BlackSand]

Fascism and Crony capitalism are essentially the same thing, Holmes

I'm glad we can agree on that Watson

Industry is technically in private hands, but the market is controlled by government.

Not exactly, industry and the government have become the same. Capitalists control the government that controls the markets. No more free market crap, just a happy moneymaking machine run by the oligarchs for the benefit of the oligarchs.

Both of them are forms of socialism.

No, socialism works the other way. In it's most extreme form the government (which is "we, the people" in theory, "we, the communist dictatorship" in practice) controls everything. No more free market anymore but exactly the opposite of fascism.

Capitalism is economic freedom. That government controls free markets is an oxymoron

Economic freedom is an illusion, capitalists always want more $$$ and seek to eliminate the competition. The end result is fascism. Pure socialism is also an illusion, it's simply incompatible with human nature to expect them to share everything. If that ideal is forced on a population by (well meaning?) revolutionaries the end result is communism.

The only thing that will work is a combination of the two

Yeah ... Pick me up a pizza from La Gaetano's ... Deliver it here by 16:00 my time ... And I will explain a few thing about capitalism you may not know.

.

 

[Tehon]

-Wait a minute now, maybe there is a distinction between fascism/crony capitalism and socialism. Socialism is when government owns business rather than just controlling it. That would lead me to infer that we are not socialist but instead fascist

Exactly, Holmes. Both parties are fascist.

Crony capitalism is as it's name suggests, capitalists creating favorable conditions for profit generation. It has nothing in common with socialism or fascism, two distinctly different ideologies, and concepts which you have clearly shown to be ignorant of.

Sorry, guy, you don't get to make up your own definition for words

Redefining words seems to be your talent. I'm using historical definitions for words, you are redefining them to suit your agenda.

XXVII. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE MARKET I. The Idea of a Third System P RIVATE ownership of the means of production (market economy or capitalism) and public ownership of the means of production (socialism or communism or "planning") can be neatly distinguished. Each of these two systems of society's econonlic organization is open to a precise and unambiguous description and definition. They can never be confounded with one another; they cannot be mixid or combined; no gradual transition leads from one of thcm to the other; their obversion is contradictory. With regard to the same factors of production there can only exist private control or public control. If in the frame of a system of social cooperation only some means of production are subject to public ownership while the rest are controlled by privatc individuals, this does not make for a mixed system combining socialism and private ownership. The system remains a market society, provided the socialized sector does not become entirely separated from the non-socialized sector and Iead a strictly autarkic existence. (In this latter case there are two systems independently coexisting side by side-a capitalist and a socialist.) Publicly owned enterprises, operating within a system in which there are privatcly owned enterprises and a market, and socialized countries, exchanging goods and services with nonsocialist countries, are integrated into a system of market economy. They are subject to the law of the market and have the opportunity of resorting to economic cal~ulation.~

– Ludwig von Mises, Human Action