Ocasio-Cortez and the “socialist” left

[rickyb]

What does that even mean?

its not like balancing a budget at home

 

[Jones]

To have everything you just said would entail exactly what I said before. Everyone would be so hammered by taxes that we would just be working for the government. Doesn't work.

Well, that's certainly one opinion. I honestly wouldn't worry about it though, there is no way a Sanders style agenda ever get implemented in the US.

 

[rickyb]

Name them.

free college and healthcare is already in a bunch of EU countries

 

[rickyb]

Name any society where everyone does their own thing without helping others at some point?

ayn rand dystopias /LOL

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I remember getting some weird looks when GW Bush was president and I referred to him as a Socialist. I was doing some reading the other day on Upton Sinclair whose books I read many years back and I was reminded of my classification of GW as a Socialist.
I found this quote of Mr Sinclair very interesting, "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."
The way that Socialism will become a major force in politics (at least in the United States) is by not calling it Socialism. People believe too much that it is inherently evil, without knowing what Socialism really is.

The United States has been governed by Socialist (to varying degrees) presidents for 80 years.

What do you think?

Providing for defense is baked into the Constitution. It's not socialist. Using your military to control your own population is very socialist.

Our current military is in large part a jobs program. That’s socialist.

Taxing the population and then using that tax money to pay for programs (like the military) the serve the common good is socialist. The fact that it's baked into the constitution just means that the founding fathers had no problem with socialism. Using the the military to control your own population is authoritarianism, not socialism. The two are not the same.

I will re-post my friend's (Hoaxster) thoughts on this from 5 years or so ago.

I remember getting some weird looks when GW Bush was president and I referred to him as a Socialist. I was doing some reading the other day on Upton Sinclair whose books I read many years back and I was reminded of my classification of GW as a Socialist.
I found this quote of Mr Sinclair very interesting, "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."
The way that Socialism will become a major force in politics (at least in the United States) is by not calling it Socialism. People believe too much that it is inherently evil, without knowing what Socialism really is.

The United States has been governed by Socialist (to varying degrees) presidents for 80 years.

 

[vantexan]

workers pretend to work as employees and are unmotivated when working for capitalists...

And they get poor results in their lives. People who work hard are rewarded. It's on each person to get training and put in the effort. If the government is going to take away most of your income to pay for everything then there's no incentive to innovate, to create. There's no risk taking. Take single payer healthcare that controls everything. Doctors are limited on their ability to make money, and are frustrated by the red tape. Soon you have doctors either retiring or leaving for more lucrative practices in other countries. And the best and brightest don't go into medicine. Soon you have a doctor shortage and you have to ration care. Ask people in these systems how long they have to wait for procedures, or if they're even approved to have a procedure.

 

[vantexan]

its not like balancing a budget at home

So you think a government can just print as much money as it needs, no repercussions?

 

[rickyb]

So you think a government can just print as much money as it needs, no repercussions?

can households print money?

 

[vantexan]

I will re-post my friend's (Hoaxster) thoughts on this from 5 years or so ago.

I remember getting some weird looks when GW Bush was president and I referred to him as a Socialist. I was doing some reading the other day on Upton Sinclair whose books I read many years back and I was reminded of my classification of GW as a Socialist.
I found this quote of Mr Sinclair very interesting, "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."
The way that Socialism will become a major force in politics (at least in the United States) is by not calling it Socialism. People believe too much that it is inherently evil, without knowing what Socialism really is.

The United States has been governed by Socialist (to varying degrees) presidents for 80 years.

Still waiting on the socialist to end poverty in California.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Still waiting on the socialist to end poverty in California.

Cali is the capital of capitalism. Ttku.....

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I would go longer than 80 years but your point is still valid. Americans have yet to grasp IMO that there is both right and left wing socialism but at the same time in the 19th century there were people who called themselves socialists who both called for a vast reduction if not an end to the state as well as advocate for the idea of a free market and yet at the same time were anti-capitalist in the sense that capitalism is today. Benjamin Tucker would be one example.

Socialist comes from the french Socialiste and in reference to the teachings of Comte de Saint-Simon. Comte de Saint-Simon believed in an aristocratic, technocratic ruling class to rule society and never some "all for one and one for all" egalitarian ideal. The socialism was about protecting their own moneyed, industrial and power interests under the guise of social well being. They felt the masses had and needed to be controlled. This form of socialism grew to influence the likes of Marx as well as the british Fabians to what became State socialism as opposed to the ideas of Mikhail Bakunin and Joseph Pierre Proudhon who advocated a non-state or anti-state form of socialism. Marx even had Bakunin expelled from the First International as Bakunin opposed the idea of using the state to bring socialism to the masses. From these roots (Bakunin/Proudhon) anarchism, mutualism, libertarianism (created a right wing strain with opposition to FDR's New Deal and the cold war) and the more recent voluntaryism all sprang forth.

Comte seem to anticipate both Marx (class theory) and the Fabians (rules by hierarchy and aristocracy) and you could say the rest is history. Seems now to some degree that Marx and the Fabians won the day.

Interesting read on Comte and Charles Fourier.

Well, that's certainly one opinion. I honestly wouldn't worry about it though, there is no way a Sanders style agenda ever get implemented in the US.

I wonder if @wkmac would agree?

 

[vantexan]

can households print money?

No, they have to maintain a budget. But that's neither here nor there. Governments have to deal with macroeconomic issues way beyond any household.

 

[It will be fine]

And they get poor results in their lives. People who work hard are rewarded. It's on each person to get training and put in the effort. If the government is going to take away most of your income to pay for everything then there's no incentive to innovate, to create. There's no risk taking. Take single payer healthcare that controls everything. Doctors are limited on their ability to make money, and are frustrated by the red tape. Soon you have doctors either retiring or leaving for more lucrative practices in other countries. And the best and brightest don't go into medicine. Soon you have a doctor shortage and you have to ration care. Ask people in these systems how long they have to wait for procedures, or if they're even approved to have a procedure.

Single payer lowers red tape for doctors. The current American system forces doctors to hire additional staff just to fight with various insurance companies to figure out what they’ll get paid for. All that extra staff of the doctors and insurance companies are waste in the system limiting doctor’s incomes.

 

[vantexan]

Cali is the capital of capitalism. Ttku.....

Did you not read the post I was responding to?

 

[MAKAVELI]

Did you not read the post I was responding to?

My point is right wing nuts like you call California socialist. But you couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[rickyb]

And they get poor results in their lives. People who work hard are rewarded. It's on each person to get training and put in the effort. If the government is going to take away most of your income to pay for everything then there's no incentive to innovate, to create. There's no risk taking. Take single payer healthcare that controls everything. Doctors are limited on their ability to make money, and are frustrated by the red tape. Soon you have doctors either retiring or leaving for more lucrative practices in other countries. And the best and brightest don't go into medicine. Soon you have a doctor shortage and you have to ration care. Ask people in these systems how long they have to wait for procedures, or if they're even approved to have a procedure.

americas best and brightest goes to wall street i believe. thats ing great!

people who work hard are not necessarily rewarded

you can do bare min effort on the job and work hard at school, gym, party hard, and have a big heart / volunteer for ur country

speaking of which i broke my arm last week, got an xray and cat scan, cast, almost surgery in the first 24 hours, did a follow up xray today and consulted with more docs. today was 2 hours. next xray and follow up is 7 days. hospital has only 66% approval rating tho. there was no insurance bureacracy. i liked the docs and all other healthcare pros i met.

in terms of retirement there are lots of older docs here...they are not all fleeing LOL

 

[Catatonic]

You wouldn't know a liberal if you bit yourself in the ass.

Well if he did, he would know liberals taste like !

 

[El Correcto]

I will re-post my friend's (Hoaxster) thoughts on this from 5 years or so ago.

I remember getting some weird looks when GW Bush was president and I referred to him as a Socialist. I was doing some reading the other day on Upton Sinclair whose books I read many years back and I was reminded of my classification of GW as a Socialist.
I found this quote of Mr Sinclair very interesting, "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."
The way that Socialism will become a major force in politics (at least in the United States) is by not calling it Socialism. People believe too much that it is inherently evil, without knowing what Socialism really is.

The United States has been governed by Socialist (to varying degrees) presidents for 80 years.

I wouldn’t vote for someone promising that.

I’d vote for someone promising to dismantle the programs that promise those things.

 

[vantexan]

My point is right wing nuts like you call California socialist. But you couldn't be further from the truth.

Man you love your state. I wasn't calling California socialist, I was referring to that article where the guy said he got more votes in California using a different slogan than socialism. Vote for him to end poverty! So, has he?

 

[vantexan]

Well if he did, he would know liberals taste like !

Thought you were going to say tastes like chicken.