You kind of whitewashed democratic socialism by describing it in terms of its lofty goals without mentioning how they want to achieve them. I asked your art intern ChatFPT who said:
Socialism is a political and economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange — such as factories, land, and natural resources — are owned or regulated collectively, typically by the state or by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals or corporations.
That's pretty extreme and Mamdani even spoke of “seizing” the means of production to the cheers of fellow democratic socialists.
Maybe you should run your posts by your art intern for a completeness test.
Oxford Dictionary says about the same thing. It it notoriously wrong too?
“a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”
I didnt say it was wrong this. I said it lies often, steals from artists, it was mildly disturbing that you were using it to define basic political terms. I would hope that an elected official could use his noggin when talking about politics but, here we are.
Aside from any single definition, for the last 150 years "socialism" has meant many different things to different people. Nordic countries, for instance, use a brand that permits/encourages private enterprise, but public funds are used to make sure people are covered for health, food (when necessary), and education. In the 60s, even before he was California governor, Ronald Reagan referred to Medicare as socialism. In the 30s, during the Depression, there were a range of parties that called themselves "socialist", that had a range of views about private and public ownership (Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Labor Party, not to mention the wing of the Democratic Party that was considered "socialist" by the Republicans of the time).
Sometimes terms are used so broadly and in so many ways that they no longer have a distinct meaning. But it might not matter - if democratic socialism was renamed "public goodism," opponents would just say it was socialism, as Reagan did about Medicare.
I think Mamdani talked about opening up state grocery stores. We have to remember he works with other members of his council. He needs the votes. He is charismatic, young, smart and energetic. That seems to be where the Dems are going these days. Policy could get sticky.
Seizing the means of production? You mean like Trump is doing, taking a cut in the profits of, or in the shares of Intel, AMD, MP Materials, Lithium Americas Corp., Trilogy Metals, & US Steel?
On a somewhat related note, I'm ready to cancel my NY Times subscription. Any suggestions for good daily national news coverage? WaPo and LATimes are also off my list.
I find it’s what they focus on not how they focus on it. For instance on Fox or Newsmax you would have heard a much different take on last weeks election than on NBC, CBS... Fox talked about the results in Maine, the rest about New York, Virginia, NJ. I like different journalists from different traditional news agencies.
Democrats spend entirely too much time worrying about labeling themselves. "Democratic Socialist" is a term that invites the kind of red meat (actually Red Scare) reaction Republicans are so good at exploiting. Forget labels; just tell us exactly what you want to do and how you plan to accomplish it. Best potential campaign slogan from the article: "People should have widespread access to basic needs." As a Tempe resident and an enrolled Democrat, I'll take a good look at Bobby Nichols, despite the self-inflicted inflammatory label which will give many voters pause.
Socialism in practice, is all about controlling people's behavior. It is sold as "doing the common good" and "health care is a right" BUT if you don't agree you are "against the people" and eventually, a criminal. Capitalism has its flaws and we have a social safety net for the losers who cannot deal with a capitalist system. But socialism makes everyone equally miserable, poor and less free. See Cuba, Venezuela...
Capitalism has its flaws and we have a social safety net for the losers who cannot deal with a capitalist system.
Calling people who work their butts off trying to make a living "losers" is bullsh*t. There are a lot of people who do their best & still can't make it. Part of that is the imposition of artificially low minimum wages. If you have to work a couple of jobs to make ends meet, you're not a loser.
C'mon Doug! You've had a lot of advantages that other less fortunate people don't have . . . for whatever reason. Don't denigrate them for that misfortune.
The national minimum wage in our country is $7.25 an hour. There are 20 "Lazy" states in our country that still have $7.25 an hour as their minimum wage. Simple economics??!! Spare us. And don't be shocked that all of these 20 states are in ruby red Republican states. Why do poor people vote for rich people? It's not lazy, it's uncomprehensible.
And I am not surprised you neither understand simple economics or why the poor for the rich. In fact you are predictable in your shallow understanding of the world.
To make the bigoted statement that poor people are lazy requires a simple-minded effort level. In short, you're being lazy in your assessment. I don't believe that you have the factual basis to back up your claims & I sincerely doubt that you have interacted with more than a handful of poor people so that you could make that claim based on your own lazy efforts.
And to dispel your lazy thinking further, I too am a business owner. And while I have worked hard for my money, I know that many others have worked harder to less effect. If "simple economics" includes the ability to artificially hold down the pricing of labor so that the businessowner always wins - then you are right. But I don't think that that makes your bigotry right.
Go on. I expect that you will spew forth your lazy nonsense to me at least once more so that you can get the last word.
I grew up in rural Southern MN and many were poor in my church and K-12. You are virtue signaling all the time in your posts and it is transparent and frankly nauseating.
This is tricky as I grew up during the Cold War. The Cold War is over and my interpretation of democratic socialism is that capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. We can go back to Eisenhower, a Republican. He built the great American highway system and the tax rate was high for high earners. FDR of course the father of democratic socialism with lasting programs that are the third rail of politics. The pendulum has swung. Musk with his trillion dollar package, Trump tearing down the East wing as a dictator and the 1% that own most of the country. The internet where everyone has an opinion? When 1 in 8 people need food assistance and also work, when children and their parents can’t afford health care, we are in trouble. Insurance companies profit and horribly people drop out. Is this a government responsibility, keeping people healthy so they can work and make this country great? What makes us the greatest country in the world?
True. I grew up then too ... truth is, if you define those terms as who owns the means of production etc, there are no advanced countries that have pure socialism or pure capitalism. All of them, including us, have some mixture; it's more a question of the balance between private and public ownership. I think it's fair to have debate about what functions should be assigned to each. As you note, Carolyn, Eisenhower did a lot in the public sphere that would be called socialist by today's Republicans. He was called that then by the John Birch Society, but at the time they were considered fringe.
I agree. When I truly think about capitalism I don’t think working class Americans thought the Uber wealthy would not be sufficiently taxed to keep a middle class viable. This has not turned into capitalism by ingenuity, hard work and a little luck but by greed and Americans are realizing that. Affordability is not only higher wages, it’s the whole economic ball game.Those men marching in parades all over America today, many who work for the federal government, were never told they or their families would be fired by a man with a TRILLION dollar package coming his way. On top of already being the wealthiest man in the world and of South African decent. Can’t make this stuff up.
You kind of whitewashed democratic socialism by describing it in terms of its lofty goals without mentioning how they want to achieve them. I asked your art intern ChatFPT who said:
Socialism is a political and economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange — such as factories, land, and natural resources — are owned or regulated collectively, typically by the state or by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals or corporations.
That's pretty extreme and Mamdani even spoke of “seizing” the means of production to the cheers of fellow democratic socialists.
Maybe you should run your posts by your art intern for a completeness test.
Chat GPT is notorious for lying as well as stealing from artists, which is probably why The Agenda doesn't use them anymore.
A state lawmaker using it to define basic political terms though? Mildly disturbing.
How was it wrong this time?
Oxford Dictionary says about the same thing. It it notoriously wrong too?
“a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”
I didnt say it was wrong this. I said it lies often, steals from artists, it was mildly disturbing that you were using it to define basic political terms. I would hope that an elected official could use his noggin when talking about politics but, here we are.
John...exit Overreaction BL. and turn onto Main St. Not many trust "private individuals" or "corporations". Especially corporations.
You can trust me. I'm from the government!
When you’re sick, hungry and poor, yes we trust the government to help. Regan only got it when his, friend Rock Hudson, was dying of aids.
Aside from any single definition, for the last 150 years "socialism" has meant many different things to different people. Nordic countries, for instance, use a brand that permits/encourages private enterprise, but public funds are used to make sure people are covered for health, food (when necessary), and education. In the 60s, even before he was California governor, Ronald Reagan referred to Medicare as socialism. In the 30s, during the Depression, there were a range of parties that called themselves "socialist", that had a range of views about private and public ownership (Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Labor Party, not to mention the wing of the Democratic Party that was considered "socialist" by the Republicans of the time).
Sometimes terms are used so broadly and in so many ways that they no longer have a distinct meaning. But it might not matter - if democratic socialism was renamed "public goodism," opponents would just say it was socialism, as Reagan did about Medicare.
I think Mamdani talked about opening up state grocery stores. We have to remember he works with other members of his council. He needs the votes. He is charismatic, young, smart and energetic. That seems to be where the Dems are going these days. Policy could get sticky.
Rather than stick with his big-tent conciliatory positions after election day, he bolted hard left. U-Haul is gonna make a lot of money off of him.
Going which way, that’s the question…
Seizing the means of production? You mean like Trump is doing, taking a cut in the profits of, or in the shares of Intel, AMD, MP Materials, Lithium Americas Corp., Trilogy Metals, & US Steel?
On a somewhat related note, I'm ready to cancel my NY Times subscription. Any suggestions for good daily national news coverage? WaPo and LATimes are also off my list.
Here are a few on Substack: The Contrarian, Meidas brothers, Aaron Parnas, Adam kinzinger, Heather Cox Richardson.
Agree. Plus The Guardian.
I find it’s what they focus on not how they focus on it. For instance on Fox or Newsmax you would have heard a much different take on last weeks election than on NBC, CBS... Fox talked about the results in Maine, the rest about New York, Virginia, NJ. I like different journalists from different traditional news agencies.
Wall b Street Journal is not too bad.
Democrats spend entirely too much time worrying about labeling themselves. "Democratic Socialist" is a term that invites the kind of red meat (actually Red Scare) reaction Republicans are so good at exploiting. Forget labels; just tell us exactly what you want to do and how you plan to accomplish it. Best potential campaign slogan from the article: "People should have widespread access to basic needs." As a Tempe resident and an enrolled Democrat, I'll take a good look at Bobby Nichols, despite the self-inflicted inflammatory label which will give many voters pause.
Mamdani said he wants to seize the means of production. His Democrat Socialists of Americs crowd cheered. So that's the plan. Like it?
Socialism in practice, is all about controlling people's behavior. It is sold as "doing the common good" and "health care is a right" BUT if you don't agree you are "against the people" and eventually, a criminal. Capitalism has its flaws and we have a social safety net for the losers who cannot deal with a capitalist system. But socialism makes everyone equally miserable, poor and less free. See Cuba, Venezuela...
Those countries are not democratic socialists.
Capitalism has its flaws and we have a social safety net for the losers who cannot deal with a capitalist system.
Calling people who work their butts off trying to make a living "losers" is bullsh*t. There are a lot of people who do their best & still can't make it. Part of that is the imposition of artificially low minimum wages. If you have to work a couple of jobs to make ends meet, you're not a loser.
C'mon Doug! You've had a lot of advantages that other less fortunate people don't have . . . for whatever reason. Don't denigrate them for that misfortune.
Most people who are poor are lazy. If a person is a minimum wage worker they are not producing enough to pay them more, simple economics.
Apparently, Nick, you have never signed the FRONT of a paycheck as I did for 30 years.
I had to work for everything I have. I worked my way through college with 3 jobs.
I am a social Darwinist and history is on my side.
The national minimum wage in our country is $7.25 an hour. There are 20 "Lazy" states in our country that still have $7.25 an hour as their minimum wage. Simple economics??!! Spare us. And don't be shocked that all of these 20 states are in ruby red Republican states. Why do poor people vote for rich people? It's not lazy, it's uncomprehensible.
Nobody works for that wage very long.
And I am not surprised you neither understand simple economics or why the poor for the rich. In fact you are predictable in your shallow understanding of the world.
Wow Doug! Prejudice much?
To make the bigoted statement that poor people are lazy requires a simple-minded effort level. In short, you're being lazy in your assessment. I don't believe that you have the factual basis to back up your claims & I sincerely doubt that you have interacted with more than a handful of poor people so that you could make that claim based on your own lazy efforts.
And to dispel your lazy thinking further, I too am a business owner. And while I have worked hard for my money, I know that many others have worked harder to less effect. If "simple economics" includes the ability to artificially hold down the pricing of labor so that the businessowner always wins - then you are right. But I don't think that that makes your bigotry right.
Go on. I expect that you will spew forth your lazy nonsense to me at least once more so that you can get the last word.
I grew up in rural Southern MN and many were poor in my church and K-12. You are virtue signaling all the time in your posts and it is transparent and frankly nauseating.
This is tricky as I grew up during the Cold War. The Cold War is over and my interpretation of democratic socialism is that capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. We can go back to Eisenhower, a Republican. He built the great American highway system and the tax rate was high for high earners. FDR of course the father of democratic socialism with lasting programs that are the third rail of politics. The pendulum has swung. Musk with his trillion dollar package, Trump tearing down the East wing as a dictator and the 1% that own most of the country. The internet where everyone has an opinion? When 1 in 8 people need food assistance and also work, when children and their parents can’t afford health care, we are in trouble. Insurance companies profit and horribly people drop out. Is this a government responsibility, keeping people healthy so they can work and make this country great? What makes us the greatest country in the world?
True. I grew up then too ... truth is, if you define those terms as who owns the means of production etc, there are no advanced countries that have pure socialism or pure capitalism. All of them, including us, have some mixture; it's more a question of the balance between private and public ownership. I think it's fair to have debate about what functions should be assigned to each. As you note, Carolyn, Eisenhower did a lot in the public sphere that would be called socialist by today's Republicans. He was called that then by the John Birch Society, but at the time they were considered fringe.
I agree. When I truly think about capitalism I don’t think working class Americans thought the Uber wealthy would not be sufficiently taxed to keep a middle class viable. This has not turned into capitalism by ingenuity, hard work and a little luck but by greed and Americans are realizing that. Affordability is not only higher wages, it’s the whole economic ball game.Those men marching in parades all over America today, many who work for the federal government, were never told they or their families would be fired by a man with a TRILLION dollar package coming his way. On top of already being the wealthiest man in the world and of South African decent. Can’t make this stuff up.