- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,457
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
-
Features
The party of free speech strikes again by ordering tv stations to remove abortion ad
- Thread starter Axulus
- Start date
Spacetime Inhabitant
Senior Member
Anyone who genuinely opposes socialism should be calling for the disbandment of the US military, the biggest socialist organization in the world.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,949
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Perhaps they should call on Major Harry Kitchener Wellington Truscott.
Derec
Contributor
Still orders of magnitude better than Cuba.
Not him again! And it does not apply here anyway, since I do not subscribe to "all government programs are socialism" anyway, but use the actual definition of socialism that is used by the likes of Cuban government and the Democratic Socialists of America.
Derec
Contributor
I said "many", not "most". You are also conflating party registration for Dems with actual membership for DSA.
Let's look at elected officials. According to wikipedia, there are 5 current DSA members in the Congress. That's ~2% of Congressional Dems. There are also several in Congress that used to be in the DSA but fell out with them.
There are also plenty of state legislators and even a few mayors.
They are also making a lot of noise. AOC is one of the most prominent Democrats of her generation and is an archetypal DSA Congresscritter.
Derec
Contributor
For the millionth time, government institutions and government programs are not "socialism". Defining "socialism" that way would make it a useless designation, as by it any functioning country would be "socialist".
laughing dog
Contributor
Until now, I had never seen 2% described as "many" or "al ot".
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,566
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Sounds like Texas.
Elixir
Made in America
“The national DSA withdrew its conditional endorsement of AOC in July 2024 due to disagreements over her stance on certain issues, although she remains endorsed by the New York City chapter.”
Spacetime Inhabitant
Senior Member
In the USA, socialism is a useless term, as right-wingers apply it to anything they (witlessly) don't like. So, if they didn't like the military (and the police) they would also brand it (them) socialist just as they do other government departments.
They define anything that disagrees with their (wrong) opinions as far-left or woke, making such terms meaningless in their society.
If your definition of "Democrat" is something other than "people registered as Democrats", please clarify...
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,189
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
There are a bunch of words and terms like that. Socialist and Fascist. Democrats and Republicans.
Depending on your definition I might qualify as a Democrat. I've been voting straight Dem ticket for many years. But I've never registered with a political party, it's too much like selling my soul to the devil. So, technically I am an independent conservative.
Who would vote for rotting pumpkin before I'd vote for a Teaparty Republican.
Tom
Shadowy Man
Contributor
Can you please point me to bills that AOC has sponsored that promote Socialism as you would define it (I.e., government control of the means of production, etc.)?
I’m not implying she hasn’t done so I am just curious as to the actual policies she is supporting that are Socialist.
Thanks!
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,189
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
This.
Government ownership of the means of production is communism. Regulating private concerns for the common good is something else, socialism.
But the difference seems misunderstood by enough Americans to keep Trump in the running.
Tom
Elixir
Made in America
lol.
Who do you think you’re addressing?
Anyhow , there IS a short list that libberpublican types identify as promoting socialism, even if they’re not able to identify them or admit that they are no more “socialist” than fire departments.
AOC introduced the Green New Deal, which aims to address climate change and economic inequality through sweeping reforms. Additionally, she introduced the “A Just Society” legislative package, which is totally commie shit that would have put Fred Trump right out of business as it includes measures like national rent control and enhanced tenant protections. Those deadbeat renters wouldn’t be such a problem if they had had the sense to inherit a few hundred million $$$.
Derec
Contributor
In this thread, and more generally on this forum, left-wingers apply "socialism" to anything they (witlessly) like.
It was you who used this wrong and useless definition of socialism, not I, nor any imaginary "right-winger". You can't blame them for things you yourself wrote.
laughing dog
Contributor
In this thread, and more generally on this forum. right wingers apply "leftist: to anyone they (witlessly) dislike, making the term pretty much useless.
Derec
Contributor
"People registered as Democrats" is useless as a definition.
1. Using it, there are zero Democrats in Georgia and other states that do not have party registration.
2. In states with party registration people may register for a party for strategic reasons. Esp. independents may register for one party or the other so that they are not excluded from voting in the primaries.
And as I pointed out, and you have ignored, the problem with your math is that you use a broad definition of Democrat, anybody registered, with a narrow definition of democratic socialist, i.e. that of a dues-paying party member. You need to compare like with like, e.g. self-ifentified Democrats and those in that set that also self-identify as democratic socialists.
Derec
Contributor
No, not this.
Government (or other public/collective such as worker self-management) ownership of means of production is socialism. Communism is a utopian end stage of socialism where the state itself withers and goes away. No actually-existing socialist country had actually achieved communism, which is why they had "socialist" in their name e.g. "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" or "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" even as they were run by parties with names such as "Communist Party" and "League of Communists". I.e. communism was aspirational, socialism a present reality in countries colloquially termed as "communist".
Note that the Democratic Socialists of America advocate for public ownership of means of production and equitable distribution of resources (aka "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need") and reject for-profit business.
This distinction even gave rise to Soviet-era jokes.
Radio Yerevan said:
No, if means of production are mainly privately owned, that's just regulated capitalism.
First and foremost by you, evidently.
Unlike these campus socialists, I actually grew up under actually-existing socialism and know of which I speak.
Last edited: