What is Democratic Socialism???

[PeterMP]

29 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Can you please expand on this? I'm trying to gauge the context of this comment, outside of defining staying a hell hole, I don't see how this remotely true.  China, despite being a punching bag between opium wars and end of ww2, has an exploding middle class right now.  

 

Two concerns here: 

 

1. We become China where the economy is free enough that it becomes  authoritarian and socialist with little resistance

 

2. US goes through a nasty transiton to socialism that sets the hyperpartisanship in this country on fire and triggers enough instibilty in global economy a recession or worse happens  (which given our voting history could cause a serious swing to the right)

 

The belief that socialism doesn't work because no one is doing it right is a hill I hope some don't choose to die on.

 

Much of China's growth is  a mirage based on deficit spending, currency manipulation, and lax environmental laws (that will have long term costs in terms of quality of life and costs) that is not likely sustainable.  There is not a line of people that want to go live in China and many better off and educated Chinese are still trying very hard to get out.

 

I'd say we and many European countries are trying socialism right now, and it is working (far better than capitalism did).  From child labor laws and enivornmental laws, safety standards, its own direct spending our government has taken over significant control over the means of production.  There is very little produced in the US that a government is not controlling at some level.

 

We are a democratic socialist society.

[Going Commando]

47 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Can you please expand on this? I'm trying to gauge the context of this comment, outside of defining staying a hell hole, I don't see how this remotely true.  China, despite being a punching bag between opium wars and end of ww2, has an exploding middle class right now.  

 

You've got to look at China in the big picture.  The period from the Opium Wars to WW2 is less than a twentieth of their history.  China has been the richest and most powerful and most cosmopolitan civilization on Earth at several points throughout their history.

 

And I'll note that they became so, at several different points, while having a command economy rather than a market economy.

 

Europeans went from being a backwater of the civilized world to controlling over 80% of the land in the span of three hundred years, in no small part because they enthusiastically embraced market economies.  Like I said before, capitalism is very good at driving technological innovation in militarism because the incentive structures it provides become existential in nature.  If I'm Venice in the 1500s and I don't embrace new Dutch principles on musketry and field operations by hiring their experts to reform my army and industry, then I am going to be subjugated and destroyed by someone who does.  And because Europe was in a decentralized, unconsolidated hodge-podge of small states following the Middle Ages, it wasn't in a position to suppress the development of market economies like China and India and the Islamic world were.  And so the continent rapidly progressed in technology and organization to the point where they obtained military superiority over the rest of the world and were able to subjugate and exploit them and form the first transoceanic empires.

 

But the human cost of this progression is absolutely horrific.  The runaway, rapacious military competition of Europe during the Gunpowder Revolution led to four centuries of constant warfare that directly killed millions of people on the continent of Europe itself and caused famines and epidemics that killed tons more.  And then after they started expanding overseas in the 16th century, they killed millions more indigenous peoples around the globe.  And I'm not even considering the gigantic wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, I'm talking only about the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.  War in Europe was endemic and ubiquitous during this time.  You'd have centuries where there were fewer than 8 years out of the 100 where there was peace.

 

I'm agreeing with you that being a hellhole isn't permanent.  Civilization rises and collapses and progress is not linear.  Old civilizations ebb between periods of prosperity, stability, and widespread justice and periods of horror, exploitation, and suffering.  For example, anyone would rather have lived in Pataliputra than Rome in 410 AD, Xian than Paris in the 845, or Gao in 1529 than Vienna.  Civilization is fragile and today's status quo can change entirely within a century.

[Renegade7]

51 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

In terms of what Democratic socialists want, I'd warn against painting with a broad brush. 

 

If Sanders is actually for the state taking over the means of production, I've missed it in terms of what he discusses when he discussed public policy.

****, cache killed post, brb

 

 

Peter, Sanders isn't the future of this DS movement, people like Cortez are.  Here is her platform, how much needs DS vs can be accomplished via social democracy? Curious about the housing idea:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-platform-on-the-issues-2018-6

 

Reason I started this thread is because I don't understand people they support DS over social democracy even though clear goal of DS is to get rid of capitalism, take over means of production, because can't capitalism and rhe rich can't be trusted not to hurt the poor.

 

Here's link I was trying to quote Berne from, he's not helping this at all (see 7 and 13):

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

To confirm, isn't tricare not meant to be used outside of the VA system and most cases can't be?  I'd rather yall have Medicare and go where you want.

Depends on which version of tricare you have (at least regarding dependents and retirees).

 

4 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Our transportation infrastructure:  highways, airports, etc

The USPS

NASA

Social Security

Agricultural subsidies

Environmental regulations

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-postal-service-marks-11-straight-years-of-financial-loss

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/10/16623752/nasa-commercial-cargo-crew-spacex-orbital-atk-boeing-orion

 

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071514/why-social-security-running-out-money.asp

 

Just sayin.......

[Renegade7]

20 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I'm agreeing with you that being a hellhole isn't permanent.  Civilization rises and collapses and progress is not linear.  Old civilizations ebb between periods of prosperity, stability, and widespread justice and periods of horror, exploitation, and suffering.  For example, anyone would rather have lived in Pataliputra than Rome in 410 AD, Xian than Paris in the 845, or Gao in 1529 than Vienna.  Civilization is fragile and today's status quo can change entirely within a century.

 

That's another why I asked that question, the comment that hell holes stay hell holes isn't true unless @PeterMP definition of hell hole is different then ours (as I felt he mean describing something more modern).  China used to have a navy bigger then any in Europe once upon a time yet set them all on fire. 

[PeterMP]

13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

****, cache killed post, brb

 

 

Peter, Sanders isn't the future of this DS movement, people like Cortez are.  Here is her platform, how much needs DS vs can be accomplished via social democracy? Curious about the housing idea:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-platform-on-the-issues-2018-6

 

Reason I started this thread is because I don't understand people they support DS over social democracy even though clear goal of DS is to get rid of capitalism, take over means of production, because can't capitalism and rhe rich can't be trusted not to hurt the poor.

 

Here's link I was trying to quote Berne from, he's not helping this at all (see 7 and 13):

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265

 

I'd say with Ocasio-Cortez, there isn't much there that is really democratic socialism.  Medicare for all isn't really democratic socialism if the government isn't taking more control of the means of production.

 

Certainly, the same is true for free college.  I can have a heavily democratic socialist society where college isn't free.

 

She's mostly talking about goals.  How you achieve those goals is going to dictate whether it is democratic socialism or not, and for example, there's nothing about democratic socialism that guarantees you a job.  Just because the state controls the means of production doesn't mean the state is going to make sure everybody is employed.  Same with housing.  I guess if the state takes control over the means of production to build homes to make sure there are enough homes for everybody, then that's inline with socialism, but you can certainly be a socialist country where the state doesn't provide enough (good) housing for everybody.  

 

I think the better term for the likes of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez is progressive.  I'd say us and the Scandavian countries are both democratic socialist.  The Scandinavian countries tend to be more progressive.

 

I'd say, I'm less progressive, but more of a democratic socialist.  I'd like to see governments open more actual public health care facilities.  I'm not a big fan of Medicare for all.  Medicare for all is probably more progressive, but not more socialist.

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Depends on which version of tricare you have (at least regarding dependents and retirees).

 

Gotcha. Is it declined by non-VA health centers like Medicaid is sometimes based on package and dependents?  A lot of people I know fall under more the one medical coverage depending on the family memeber, but was reading that some doctors are starting to turn down tricare period along with medicaid.  I know reason towards medicaid is coverage is too low, feels fd up for people to say they support the militany yet won't take tricare.

[TradeTheBeal!]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Depends on which version of tricare you have (at least regarding dependents and retirees).

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-postal-service-marks-11-straight-years-of-financial-loss

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/10/16623752/nasa-commercial-cargo-crew-spacex-orbital-atk-boeing-orion

 

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071514/why-social-security-running-out-money.asp

 

Just sayin.......

 

She asked for examples of socialist policy providing long-term benefit.

 

She did not ask for a list of profitable companies.

[PeterMP]

27 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Depends on which version of tricare you have (at least regarding dependents and retirees).

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-postal-service-marks-11-straight-years-of-financial-loss

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/10/16623752/nasa-commercial-cargo-crew-spacex-orbital-atk-boeing-orion

 

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071514/why-social-security-running-out-money.asp

 

Just sayin.......

 

The USPS running at a loss is misleading because of the way they are forced to fund their retirement system by Congress (because private industries lobby for it because it makes them less competitive).  They are having a hard time keeping up with their liability and so run a debt because they are legally required to have fully funded employee retirement accounts now.  They have to have money saved now to pay somebody in 20 years (which no private company has to do).  If you measured profitiably of any company using the same metric, essentially no company would be making a profit.

 

With respect to NASA, the only reason we have a Space X is because the money the government put in for decades (and then for the most part NASA lets private companies use the technology the developed for free).  NASA (for the most part) recognizes and pays because of private companies patents, but lets private companies use their patents for free.  If you flipped the script, much of the aerospace industry would go out of business.

[Renegade7]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think the better term for the likes of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez is progressive.  I'd say us and the Scandavian countries are both democratic socialist.  The Scandinavian countries tend to be more progressive.

 

 

Then they need to say that because the right is going nuts over this, enough to possibly energize them to vote against something that isn't gonna happen.

 

I disagree on calling us or western europe democratic socialist countries.  I'm willing to bend on calling US a mixed economy, as western European countries are classified.  US is far less DS then Western Europe is, think it's more fair to say they pull from that philosophy as their are no pure ideological implementations anywhere (the 4 countries I mentioned earlier are so far over the tipping point you can't call them capitalist country any more, mixed econonmy doesn't do them justice).

 

Cortez housing program looks a lot like government helping to cover difference so more people have housing, but need to make sure she's nit talking about forcing banks to give more loans or forcing house prices down in regards to buying them (rent for affordable housing is out if control, though)

[PeterMP]

21 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Then they need to say that because the right is going nuts over this, enough to possibly energize them to vote against something that isn't gonna happen.

 

I disagree on calling us or western europe democratic socialist countries.  I'm willing to bend on calling US a mixed economy, as western European countries are classified.  US is far less DS then Western Europe is, think it's more fair to say they pull from that philosophy as their are no pure ideological implementations anywhere (the 4 countries I mentioned earlier are so far over the tipping point you can't call them capitalist country any more, mixed econonmy doesn't do them justice).

 

Cortez housing program looks a lot like government helping to cover difference so more people have housing, but need to make sure she's nit talking about forcing banks to give more loans or forcing house prices down in regards to buying them (rent for affordable housing is out if control, though)

 

I think that Sanders openly calls himself a progressive too.

 

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=Tr55W7W6K-y6ggfswb7YCg&q=Sanders+progressive

 

He's a progressive democratic socialist (though, I'd say he more a progressive then a democratic socialist).  I believe all of the countries you listed before are formally communist- not just socialist (and aren't really democratic).

 

There's got be a ground in between where accumulation of private wealth and property is allowed, but the state is actually controlling the means of (most) production.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Much of China's growth is  a mirage based on deficit spending, currency manipulation, and lax environmental laws (that will have long term costs in terms of quality of life and costs) that is not likely sustainable.  There is not a line of people that want to go live in China and many better off and educated Chinese are still trying very hard to get out.

 

 

They will eventually slow down on their rampant infrastructure spending, but I don't believe that's going to cause their economy to collapse and middle class to disappear.

 

Question: you prefer Canada healthcare system or the UKs here in US?  You said MFA wasn't good enough.

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

They will eventually slow down on their rampant infrastructure spending, but I don't believe that's going to cause their economy to collapse and middle class room disappear.

 

Question: you prefer Canada healthcare system or the UKs here in US?  You said MFA wasn't good enough.

 

Medicare for all is going to have big problem (over time), I suspect.  Try reading about what has happened in McCallen Texas.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/06/01/the-cost-conundrum

 

(Though, it has gotten better some because through Obamacare Medicare was able to take more control.)

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/health-cares-cost-conundrum-squared

 

A simple medicare for all system, where the government doesn't actually put much controls on the means of production (e.g. isn't overseeing what tests can be done, prices paid for drugs, etc.) is a recipe for disaster.

 

I'd much rather go to a system where largely the employees are government employees, are salaried (not paid based on how many tests they order or do), and there are clearly described "best practices" that are followed in the vast majority of situations (and if you make an honest effort to follow them, you are covered in the case of a lawsuit).  I wouldn't be for eliminating all private health care facilities, but I think if the government got more active in the health care industry (in an honest way-not like has happened with the USPS (where they have to pre-fund all of their liabilities), you could see a positive impact on health care costs.

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think that Sanders openly calls himself a progressive too.

 

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=Tr55W7W6K-y6ggfswb7YCg&q=Sanders+progressive

 

He's a progress democratic socialist (though, I'd say he more a progressive then a democratic socialist).  I believe all of the countries you listed before are formally communist- not just socialist (and aren't really democratic).

 

There's got be a ground in between where accumulation of private wealth and property is allowed, but the state is actually controlling the means of (most) production.

 

He does, though I just want to point out that i looked it up and progress democratic socialist isn't a word. 

 

All those countries did identify as communist before, though big chunk of DS definition is implementing socialism via democratic means vs revolution. My understanding big reason communism evolved was full socialsm couldnt be enforced without going to another level. Is there a single historical example of a country that took total control of means of production and didn't head in this direction?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

@PeterMP you are probably correct.

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

He does, though I just want to point out that i looked it up and progress democratic socialist isn't a word. 

 

All those countries did identify as communist before, though big chunk of DS definition is implementing socialism via democratic means vs revolution. My understanding big reason communism evolved was full socialsm couldnt be enforced without going to another level. Is there a single historical example of a country that took total control of means of production and didn't head in this direction?

 

I dropped the ive off the end.  progressive democratic socialist.

 

The governments in the US have been slowly taking control over the means of production for the last 100 years.  There's very little produced in the US today that isn't subject to government regulations (i.e. the government isn't controlling the means of production).

 

Nobody from the late 1800s looking at the US today would describe it is a capitalistic.

 

From my earlier post:

 

"“In the socialist system, there's a mix of both. The government operates the system to help all, but there is opportunity for private property and private wealth. That's generally how we talk about it.”"

 

That's what is happening in the US right now.

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Medicare for all is going to have big problem (over time)

 

My understanding is government isn't allowed to negotiate drug prices, gotta believe that will change with MFA in.  I'd rather try this first because the earthquake MFA would cause to private insurance companies would reach another level if Feds started absorbing the Senteras of the country. Right now UK is largest example of such a nationwide system and they are about the size of one state.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I dropped the ive off the end.  progressive democratic socialist.

 

The governments in the US have been slowly taking control over the means of production for the last 100 years.  There's very little produced in the US today that isn't subject to government regulations (i.e. the government isn't controlling the means of production).

 

Nobody from the late 1800s looking at the US today would describe it is a capitalistic.

Just to make sure, you aren't equating higher regulation to control of an industry, are you? I'm sure guys like Marx would stay still not good enough.  Maybe not full capitalism, but mostly, clearly mostly.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

There's very little produced in the US today that isn't subject to government regulations (i.e. the government isn't controlling the means of production).

I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.

7 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Also, the public school system is better than nothing, but it’s just OK. Anyone who has the resources to the their kid to a private school does it.

Well that's far from true but it's also exactly the point. Not everybody has the resources to send their kids to an awesome private school. You can guess how things would look if there was no public option and people could only send their kids to the school that they can afford.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

8 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

It's funny the way people view the VA.  I prefer to use the VA as the perfect example of why I DON'T want government run health care. 

The problems that have occurred in the VA haven't stemmed from a socialist philosophy. They've been caused by politicalization, mismanagement, and a lack of oversight / accountability.

[bearrock]

There's a difference between government regulating means of production and government controlling it.  Just because the movie industry is subject to OSHA and host of other regulations, doesn't mean that government is deciding which movies get green lighted.  

 

If you think government can take over and totally control means of production in every facet of the economy and still be as remotely motivated and innovative as private decision makers who have a vested interest in those decisions, you probably have way too much faith in human nature.  Just as naive as those who think lassez-affair capitalism will lead to maximum efficiency.  Problem we have is abuse of capital.  Big swing of the pendulum the other way won't be utopia either.

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

There's a difference between government regulating means of production and government controlling it.  Just because the movie industry is subject to OSHA and host of other regulations, doesn't mean that government is deciding which movies get green lighted.  

 

If you think government can take over and totally control means of production in every facet of the economy and still be as remotely motivated and innovative as private decision makers who have a vested interest in those decisions, you probably have way too much faith in human nature.  Just as naive as those who think lassez-affair capitalism will lead to maximum efficiency.  Problem we have is abuse of capital.  Big swing of the pendulum the other way won't be utopia either.

 

Nobody would argue that grant panels for federal funding are capitalist or aren't socialist, but the "government" isn't actually deciding who gets funded.  The government has set up a process where outside people come in and score grants and those scores determine who gets funded (for the most part).

 

Government control doesn't mean that some representative of the government is over seeing every little detail.  I can have government control of the crabbing industry by regulating what crabs (e.g. size) and how many crabs can be taken from what areas without having a government employee on every boat making decisions about every crab.

 

No socialist ever thought that's what socialism meant.

 

If you took somebody from the Fabian society from 1900 and brought them even to the US today (much less the UK), they'd tell you they are winning (and maybe had even won).

 

If your view of socialism is that a government employee has to read every script of every movie made and give it an okay, I don't think anybody is really socialist.  But the government can control the movie industry without having to do that.

[bearrock]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Nobody would argue that grant panels for federal funding are capitalist or aren't socialist, but the "government" isn't actually deciding who gets funded.  The government has set up a process where outside people come in and score grants and those scores determine who gets funded (for the most part).

 

Government control doesn't mean that some representative of the government is over seeing every little detail.  I can have government control of the crabbing industry by regulating what crabs (e.g. size) and how many crabs can be taken from what areas without having a government employee on every boat making decisions about every crab.

 

No socialist ever thought that's what socialism meant.

 

If you took somebody from the Fabian society from 1900 and brought them even to the US today (much less the UK), they'd tell you they are winning (and maybe had even won).

 

If your view of socialism is that a government employee has to read every script of every movie made and give it an okay, I don't think anybody is really socialist.  But the government can control the movie industry without having to do that.

 

By your definition, anything other than complete lassez-affair capitalism would be socialism.  I believe most would understand the regulatory state as mixed economy.  Furthermore, if US is already a socialist country, what exactly are the Democratic Socialist distinguishing themselves from?

[PeterMP]

22 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Just to make sure, you aren't equating higher regulation to control of an industry, are you? I'm sure guys like Marx would stay still not good enough.  Maybe not full capitalism, but mostly, clearly mostly.

 

Marx isn't the first or only socialist in history, and he wasn't only a socialist.  He was a communist.  Marx didn't support private ownership at all.  There's a long history of socialist that support ownership of private property, payment for labor, and accumulation of wealth.

 

You can be socialist and not be Marxist.

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

By your definition, anything other than complete lassez-affair capitalism would be socialism.  I believe most would understand the regulatory state as mixed economy.  Furthermore, if US is already a socialist country, what exactly are the Democratic Socialist distinguishing themselves from?

 

I think there's a lot more industries that are under government control than there are not.  I don't think there is much produced in the US that is not subject to government regulation so I'd say we lean heavily towards socialism than not.  I'll point out, that Marx and early communist thinkers even thought of the government withering away.  The idea of the government okaying every script for Hollywood to produce isn't even compatible with their ideas.  Marx wouldn't be happy with where we are today, but he'd not be happy with what you described either.

 

I'm not sure.  You'd have to talk to them.  From what has been posted in this thread, they are mostly progressives so they seem to be differentiating themselves from non-progressives.  I'm for the government controlling higher education.  I strongly support public higher education institutions and government regulations on non-public higher education institutions. 

 

I'm not for free college tuition for everybody.