Posted on 07/29/2018 9:59:38 PM PDT by upchuck
The darling of the Democratic Party and the liberal media is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez... In their breathless, frenzied rush to anoint Ocasio-Cortez as the coming of the Savior of the Nation, liberals have wholeheartedly embraced her call for “Democratic Socialism.”
... what is this “democratic socialism?”...
What Democrats think it is sounds good: income equality, a fair living wage for everyone, plentiful employment opportunities, quality healthcare coverage for all, affordable college education for all who want it, easy access to affordable, quality housing, and a tax system where the so-called rich pay their “fair share.”
Implicit in the discussion of their prized new order is that everything about the American economy, way of life and culture that is to their liking would remain securely in place, unaffected by the transition to democratic socialism. That, of course, is preposterous. The aspects of daily American life that people like and take for granted -- plentiful food available at well-stocked supermarkets... -- are all made possible by the capitalist/profit-oriented structure of our economic system. If the private business profit incentive is removed, as is the case in a socialist economy, the underlying competitive impetus for providing those goods and services disappears. It’s a zero-sum game: the more “socialism” that is introduced into the economy, the less efficient that economy becomes, because lessened private competition results in fewer choices and a diminishing incentive to increase efficiency or reduce costs.
Proponents of democratic socialism never actually explain where the money needed to pay for all the largess will actually come from. There is a limit to how much simply taxing the rich will produce. Taxes on services and sales transactions would need to be raised to a stifling degree, with a commensurate negative effect on economic activity.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Fully “Democratic Socialism.”
“Socialism is indeed “democratic” and that is its biggest problem. “
Exactly.
The masses will vote themselves into other people’s money and property.
To keep he republic, the importance and sanctity of property rights need to be restored.
Since there really is no such thing as communism, they are socialists.
Marx’s only description of communism, i.e. after the all-powerful state somehow “withers away” (but doesn’t explain just how or why an all-powerful state would tend to do that), is “an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.
Engels, in “The Principles of Communism”, answers the question “What is communism?” by saying it is “the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat”, and what communism is to do is “abolish competition and replace it with association”. Again, no specifics other than socialistic centralization and making the state all-powerful.
I used to be like thaf in my youth as was our greatest modern novelist, John Dos Passos.
I was a socialist but never a Communist. The totalitarian model of the Soviet Union made a mockery of socialist ideals and had no real influence upon me.
Like Dos Passos, I remained a modernist at heart but my political views changed. I always felt freedom and religion and preserving traditional values were more important than progress, equality and justice.
While I’m in broad sympathy with the liberal goals of the French Revolution, I abhorred its methods and the anti-religious fanaticism that accompanied it.
Our young people make the same mistakes I did. There are certain things a man cannot be reconciled to and while progress that uplifts humanity is welcome, it cannot come at the cost of freedom and cherished values.
For those reasons, conservatism is my political home.
“Since there really is no such thing as communism, they are socialists.”
Just because Marx and Engels did not provide a firm definition of communism doesnt mean it doesnt exist and wasnt put into practice as a system of government.
I think the definition below reasonably describes the operation of the Communist governments of the Soviet Union and China, which sounds a lot like what the DSA is proposing. For all practical purposes the DSA is a communist front group.
Merriam Webster Dictionary
Definition of communism
1 a : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
b : a theory advocating elimination of private property
2 capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively
We are now raising our second generation who have no memories of the Cold War and who simply just don’t get that.
That right there is your problem.
Socialism - The government comes and takes your stuff and redistributes it to others.
Democratic Socialism - We hold a free and fair election where the majority votes for the government to come and take your stuff and redistribute it to others.
Well stated sir.
Dictionary definition? Notice that there is no distinction between that and socialism. Even more unclear than Marx and Engels, and more tautological.
Communism is a fiction. No all-powerful state ever withers away; it perpetuates itself by force, and what withers away is the populace.
Now what is interesting is that Marx and Engels attempted to categorize socialists, and they had three boxes in which they put them, those being reactionary socialists, bourgeois socialists and democratic socialists. It was the “democratic socialist” category that they claimed had the most in common with the communists, funny enough.
I structured mine to fit on a bumper sticker. Which is where too many people get their "political acumen" from nowadays, particularly those on the left.
Bookmark
“That right there is your problem.”
And you have to couple that with the fact that they, apart perhaps from Vietnam for the older ones, haven’t had to face any adversity of any kind. So they’ve ginned up all this “individual liberty problem” for gays, minorities, Mexicans, etc., when the truth of the matter is that EVERYONE has it really good here.
It is precisely three wolves and one rabbit, voting to decide on what to have for lunch. You can bet that when Sanders and AOC (or people like them) get back into the ruling Party, the gloves come off.
So your argument is entirely based on semantics. Communism cannot exist unless it arises by following the stages predicted by Marx and Engels. In the real world, the Soviets found another way to bring about what they called a “communist” state and that is what is now commonly referred to as communism. It was real, it existed and no silly technicalities about “withering” can change that. Similarly, Socialism and Communism are generally accepted as NOT being identical with communism exerting a greater degree of control on business and personal liberty than does socialism.
When I was teaching college economics, I would ask my students if they had ever gone into a store and found the shelves empty of toilet paper, went to another store and found the toilet paper shelves also empty and then found a long line at another store where people were waiting for their chance to buy toilet paper. I would ask them to consider why a market based economy can produce adequate toilet paper and have it in constant supply while command economies like Communism or socialism cannot.
Actually, the left’s argument is what is based entirely on semantics. They attempt to delineate differences that do not exist in reality. Where has an actual communist society ever existed according to the loose descriptions offered by Marx and Engels, in a stateless form? Nowhere and not at any time in the space-time continuum. Plainly, it cannot exist.
Socialism in its fully realized form is no different from communism. The constitutions of communist states always explicitly declared that they were building socialism. There is no division between “reactionary”, “bourgeois” and “democratic” forms of socialism either.
And I do not appreciate having the left’s argument called my argument. I quote the communists to show their mendacity, but you actually believe them on some level.
“And I do not appreciate having the left’s argument called my argument. I quote the communists to show their mendacity, but you actually believe them on some level.”
It seems to me that you are being disingenuous here by insisting on a very narrow and not commonly used definition of communism. Furthermore there are clearly differences on the extent of authoritarian control between what are commonly called European “socialist” countries and the former “communist” block states run by a totalitarian communist party. The European socialist govts are further down the totalitarian spectrum than we are but they are obviously different from communist run govts. In the future that may change.
Not only a republic, but a constitutional republic, which is designed to further constraint the baser aspects of man (which is why our politicians of both stripes tend to ignore the Constition, except when it supports their positions).
She’s saying “Well, we can raise the tax rate to less than what it was before the Trump tax cuts kicked in and we’ll get trillions to pay for everything.” As my girlfriend, who does not have a degree in economics so simply pointed out, if that’s the case, then why couldn’t we afford it when the tax rates were higher than she’s suggesting?
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.