DBT
Contributor
You are confusing label with content.
-
Features
Goddam socialists and their spoiled rich kids
- Thread starter Elixir
- Start date
You are confusing label with content.
DBT
Contributor
Russia or China was nothing like Democratic Socialism and you know it. It just suits your purpose to act obtuse in the vain hope that someone may not notice, so find your fallacy of conflation somehow convincing. Sorry, it doesn't work.
Elixir
Made in America
Looks like the OP triggered a full on right wing extremist snowstorm.
In another universe, one might even assume that there is something like consciousness of guilt.
Maybe their Orange Judas will nuke Norway so they don't have to be confronted with its success. Later of course - he's busy starting a war in the middle east at the moment.
In another universe, one might even assume that there is something like consciousness of guilt.
Maybe their Orange Judas will nuke Norway so they don't have to be confronted with its success. Later of course - he's busy starting a war in the middle east at the moment.
I love how leftists cite Norway (a white ethnostate) as their model society.
Irony meter explosion!
Yeah, because a country's ethnicity determines its GDP and OECD rating.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Let me help you: please google "the means of production". Then you'll understand socialism.
DBT
Contributor
There are extremists on both sides. That doesn't alter the fact that there is a middle, or that in the middle lies Democratic Socialism as defined by its description: no central authoritarian ruling body, people being elected to represent the needs of the many and not serve to further enrich those who already excessively rich. Reward for merit and skill is fine, but not to the degree where a few own or control nearly everything.
DBT
Contributor
Democratic socialism may mean that production is in more hands, not government owned.
Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
''Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.''
Derec
Contributor
It's still public ownership of means of production though. Let's not pretend that this more decentralized socialism is somehow new. No, some actually existing socialism, was organized as worker self-management, or what is sometimes euphemistically called workplace democracy. Didn't really work out either.
DBT
Contributor
The 'public' is composed of people. People own things. Public spaces are there for anyone to occupy. Democratic socialism allows private ownership.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
There are some worker owned companies in the US right now. As long as it's voluntary, they can work fine. They struggle if they aren't allowed to develop effective and dynamic decision making processes. They also struggle in heavy capital asset type of businesses. But some can work. Clearly, forcing all companies within a country into public or worker owned means of production does not work.
DBT
Contributor
Was force mentioned? It is supposed to be a democratic process.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
?? I can't figure out if you are yanking my chain or not. Half-life believes that all people to the slight left and beyond of Trump are socialists. You are feeding into this delusion by calling yourself a socialist. I'll repeat it again for the 50th time, the difference between you and I is that you want people to pay more taxes and have a larger safety net. I would like less taxes, slightly less safety net. That's all. Yea, you don't want to force people into co-ops because you are not a socialist. Socialism is a movement that where the means of production are taken from owners and given away. It's a system where all means of production, distribution and exchange are owned and regulated by the community or collective.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
Rightists say babies taste good with gravy.
DBT, don't engage HL. It's not like there's any sort of intellectual activity going on there. It's just a rebooted stasi-bot from 2016.
DBT
Contributor
I'm not calling myself anything. I am merely pointing out that there are more versions or models of socialism than some posters on this forum seem to realize....who, merely upon seeing or hearing the word, imagine totalitarianism.