Posted on 11/04/2015 12:19:44 PM PST by wastedyears
Anthony, what exactly do you think Democratic Socialism is? Nationalizing commercial production? Centralized public planning? It's the 21st Century. We are no more trying to apply the failed ideologies of the old Soviet republic to America today than we were trying to apply the ancient Athenian concept of Democracy when we created our democratic republic.
Social Democracy is about reasonable, responsible reforms to round off the rough edges of capitalism. These reforms are fueled by the free market, and require a thriving market to exist. No one is trying to impose a burden upon the free market.
The whole point of Social Democratic programs (Think: National Parks program, Public Education, Social Security, public roads, etc.) is to ensure that our society benefits from well maintained programs that are built for the benefit of society, and not just a wealthy few.
These things can't be trusted to the forces of runaway laissez-faire capitalism. We realized that with big tycoons and trusts during the Industrial revolution, and again during the Great Depression. That's why we had all of these labor standards and big social policies instated in the first place.
Runaway Capitalism is just as dangerous as runaway Socialism, as unfettered Capitalism leaves all wealth and power unobstructed to follow it's natural course -- that is, to be gravitationally drawn toward itself, creating small pockets of extreme concentrations of wealth, drawing wealth UP from the common people, contrary to popular conceptions from the 80s and on that it should somehow "tricke-down".
We aren't talking about taking from the rich to feed the poor. We're talking about compelling the super-rich to pay their fair share. We're not talking about nationalizing the economy, we're talking about reasonable social reforms for the benefit of a flourishing society. Unless you are part of the top 1% of super-rich that have actually benefited from this rigged economy, you have nothing to lose. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction, and it's time for a careful course correction.
I didn’t post this in the news section.
“We aren’t talking about taking from the rich to feed the poor. We’re talking about compelling the super-rich to pay their fair share.”
Sheesh...
“We’re talking about compelling the super-rich to pay their fair share.”
The top 0.1% pay about 50% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% don’t pay income taxes at all.
How much more “fair” do these Democratic Centralists (aka Bolsheviks, aka Communists) want?
And the sad thing is this sounds perfectly reasonable to far too many people, especially younger ones.
What I want to know is - What’s Bernie’s relationship to Winnie the Pooh?
That, somehow, today's Democratic Socialist Warriors will improve on implementing Marxism so it will be worldwide rainbows and unicorns and skittles.
Like all Marxists, the cure involves disposing of non-believers, but that will only be after they take control. The DMV has always been the best run department in government, why shouldn't they run the rest of the social order?
The big surprise comes when how many of us find out we’re considered ‘super rich’.
Even the marginally engaged couch potatoes whom this so reasonable-sounding essay is aimed at should be able to recognize the usual ‘we’ll only tax the other guy’ lie.
No kidding.
They aren’t talking about light-handed government oversight and regulation. Their support for Obamacare, which is an example of Third Position Fascist economics as a good first step towards Single Payer exposes the lie.
This is *exactly* what Cruz was talking about with his Bolsheviks vs Mensheviks comment.
Indeed.
Yesterday one was lamenting the top 0.1% have wealth equal to the bottom 50%.
That means that if you take EVERYTHING from the top 0.1% and give it to the bottom 50%, you’re only doubling the wealth holdings of the bottom 50% ... not a meaningful improvement for them.
Go look up Bolshevik, Menshevik, Democratic Centrism, and Leninism on Wikipedia.
Cruz really nailed it more than most realized.
“New” “Improved” “Extra Strength” socialism for the 21st century. Guaranteed to murder 50% more of the population than the weak 20th century version.
Yep and they wouldn’t even keep it. It would be gone as fast at they got it.
The easiest way to shine a light on the biggest hole in this agenda is to ask the simple questions: what is the definition of “super rich” and what is the “fair share” they should have to pay?
That’s where all the platitudes and niceties said earlier in the post fall completely apart. But that’s really the problem with socialism in general, it’s not based on any rational, concrete ideas or figures. It’s based on what “sounds good man”.
No one advocates a return to the Industrial Age and exploration of cheap labor (well except those pushing immigration “reform”). There’s a huge difference though between that level of exploitation and simply insisting that the government not be allowed to tell us how much salt we can use, or whether or not 2 or twenty guns is too many, or insisting that government regulation not be so burdensome as to actually be a factor in a business’ demise.
Scary times.
This article is just fluff and bullshit. A watered down version of what Democratic Socliam is. If you really wanna know what Democratic Socialism is - ask the expert.
Their logic escapes me and I have honestly tried to sort it out. I still don’t understand how someone who is richer than me is preventing me from earning as much as I can depending upon my personal skills/ambition/smarts.
If I had to guess, I would say the disconnect is centered on the word, “earning”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.