MovieChat Forums > Bernie Sanders Discussion > What is Democratic Socialism?

What is Democratic Socialism?

posted 5 years ago by HushPuppy (142)
66 replies | jump to latest

How is it different from regular socialism? How is it different from regular democracy? It seems to me like it's just a re-branding of what we already have. It doesn't help that these two most basic questions are conspicuously unaddressed in every explanation I've seen so far. Supporters are very keen to point out that it's different, but without saying how, almost like they're avoiding it.

Does anybody support "undemocratic capitalism"? If not, then "democratic socialism" is just a rhetorical phrase anyway. Let's compare voting, in the market and in government. In the market we vote with dollars. I eat at Chickafila, you eat at McDonalds. We both get what we want. The Wendy's fan doesn't have any dollars and starves to death. In government, we vote with ballots. I vote for Trump, you vote for Hillary. Only one of us can get what we want. Let's say it's you. Hillary wins and bans Chickafila because Chickafila is homophobic. McDonnalds replaces beef with tofu because we don't have any other option. Your friend dies from soy allergies. The government steps in to prop up Burger King, which nobody wanted because it tastes terrible, but it's better than tofu. Did anybody get what they wanted? Frequently nobody does.

The market seems to be much more democratic than government, albeit a bit cruel like Mother Nature. But think again. Why did someone starve? Maybe they didn't have dollars because they didn't earn them, maybe they weren't able to earn them, maybe everybody else cheated to get them, etc... If it was a good reason, why didn't you help them out? It's not the system that's cruel, it's you. But of course we don't expect you to take care of everyone. You do what you can, and society allows people fall behind precisely in accordance with how cruel we are as a species. It's perfect harmony with natural selection. Government on the other hand is a very artificial system. It picks winners, which means it creates losers who might not be otherwise. How's their track record? When you spend your money, you buy food, a house, a car, entertainment, etc... When government spends your money, it spends it on war, bank bailouts, prisons, pharmaceutical research, etc... That seems infinitely more cruel, but also unjust. The recipients didn't really earn it. They undermined the market. Democracy schmocracy.

Now how about libertarian socialism, with emphasis on rugged collectivism?

[–] FilmBuff (6669) 5 years ago

It's regular socialism in a cheap tuxedo.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12244) 5 years ago

It's a contradiction in terms.

[–] SandyR (7316) 5 months ago

Bingo.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Retromogul (1082) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Filmtenk2 (3348) 5 years ago

"I'm not the puppet you're the puppet!"

[–] Retromogul (1082) 5 years ago

Fine, universal access regardless of your status and income. Happy now? Oh wow an underfunded VA hospital...great comparision. You seriously wanna lecture someone from a country where universal access that covers all life threatning conditions has successfully existed for generations?😂

[–] Retromogul (1082) 5 years ago

Nothing is "rationed" either under a well funded, progressive tax system. Anyway, enjoy Tucker Carlson.

[–] HushPuppy (142) 5 years ago

Demand is infinite, supply isn't. It has to be rationed, either by a price system or government fiat. The price system reflects what people choose to buy. Government fiat reflects lobbying pressure. If you have a knee injury, they give you pain killers. If you have AIDS, you get a whole hospital to yourself.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Retromogul (1082) 5 years ago

Only in your beloved system of billionaire tax cuts and trickle down funding to health services does public health suffer.

I don't realise what exactly? Our public health system has been second to none for decades. Anyone can afford to see doctors, no one is dying because they can't afford treatment and medicine. And this is under public health care. Your opposition is mystifying and fruitless.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7393) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bloodworth79 (5555) 4 years ago

The numbers in the u.s . Are just impossible.

There are more people in the u.s. that will never contribute 1 penny towards healthcare or care one second about their own health, then there are those who do contribute.

Obama care took all those who pay for healthcare and made them pay more...even with all that extra money, it was still not even close to supporting those who will never contribute.

Anyone who even tries universal healthcare in the u.s. will find they will be throwing money at a bottomless barrel.

[–] Retromogul (1082) 4 years ago

"Anyone who tries universal healthcare in the US will be throwing money at a bottomless barrel".

What an idiotic sentiment. Let's see if you maintain it in a few weeks time.

[–] IamNicholasCage (74) 4 years ago

its a tried and true republican strategy. Defund something so it barely functions. Then say "look how horrible government functions! I need to be cut more"

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Socialism ain't Communism and Capitalism ain't innocent either.

Our education systems and public-use projects are socialist, or perhaps even communist in ways.

They're all just artificial filters over the natural Anarchism anyway.

[–] asom (6502) 4 years ago

Wrong. Social services are not socialist in nature but ... social.

[–] Retromogul (1082) 5 years ago

What a dumb arse thread.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

Who are YOU to say this and why do you say it?

[–] Retromogul (1082) 5 years ago

Isn't it obvious that all the Trumpsters here are clueless about socialism and that the OP is incoherent babble?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Democratic socialism is the Freedom that makes Europe so free and so wealthy.

[–] asom (6502) 4 years ago

False.

[–] McQualude (4231) 4 years ago

"Now how about libertarian socialism, with emphasis on rugged collectivism?"

American Libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism rebranded.

[–] asom (6502) 4 years ago

It's a pure contradiction.

By definition socialism is not democratic. If it would be democratic it would lose all the elections.

By definition socialism is authoritarian, denies freedom and individual will and rights.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

No, you're thinking of communism. When absolutely everything is socialized and the central government controls it all. The other extreme, when everything is privatized and you have unregulated capitalism, is called a plutocracy (where the rich dictate the government's agenda and own just about everything). You have to mentally put away the Cold War rhetoric many of us grew up with, where socialism and capitalism are polar opposites and you have to pick one or the other.

Real life countries are a mixture of both. Ours included. The interstate highway system is a socialist project for example; there's nothing inherently bad about socialism or government programs - no matter what staunch conservatives would have you believe. Some things are done better by the public sector, others by the private sector. Democratic Socialism is a hybrid socialist-capitalist system that aims to strike that balance in an optimal way. That's all. Nothing scary. No Peoples' Republic of America with a hammer and sickle replacing the fifty stars.

[–] JohnnyDoe (1709) 4 years ago

Isn't Communism a stateless society?

If everything is privatized, is there a government?

Socialism and government programs subsidize all kinds of things.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

● Isn't Communism a stateless society?

In theory communism should be stateless. In practice you get the nanny state from hell trying to impose the principles of the Marxist system, which is an impossible ideal (i.e. it becomes a centrally controlled authoritarian regime).

● If everything is privatized, is there a government?

A country in which the economy was completely privatized would have a government that handled defense and international relations, matters of law, and not much else.

● Socialism and government programs subsidize all kinds of things.

My point exactly. Which is why Trump and others like him saying "America will not become a socialist country" is a meaningless utterance. It's a question of how much, not whether or not. And who the beneficiaries are. Right now (as Senator Sanders points out) it's largely the folks who need it the least.

[–] JohnnyDoe (1709) 4 years ago

Socialism is the nanny state from hell?

Then everything wouldn't be privatized.

Socialist and government subsidies are the inherently bad things about socialism and government programs.

[–] asom (6502) 4 years ago

Subsidized programs are NOT socialism.

Socialism is defined by ownership and control of the means of productions, of the economy as a whole, not just of few SOCIAL services.

What the democratic socialism wants? Quoted from DSA page: "We believe that working people should run both the economy and society". That IS socialism. Pure socialism. Adding "democratic" doesn't change a thing.

You know who else are "democratic"? NK, Cuba. URSS and the whole Eastern Block WAS DEMOCRATIC. We had elections every few years, and we could elect that socialist or the same socialist. If you tried to elect something different - reeducation camps. But it was "democratic".

Really, get a book, Read, understand.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

Okay troll. All that stuff about the means of production is Karl Marx - you obviously don't understand the difference between communism and socialism, or the fact that democratic socialism is, like I said, a hybrid of socialist-capitalist system combining the best aspects of both. Exactly what we need. And I hate to break the news: the United States is basically a crony capitalist oligarchy at this point. Big money dictates the agenda. Regular people don't get what they want. Big corporations and the wealthy almost always do. The rich are growing exponentially richer, at the expense of everyone else. Why do you think Bernie Sanders is gaining such traction?

Yes, working people absolutely should have more control than the billionaire parasite class. We outnumber them millions to one. This rotten to the core system of open bribery and corruption (they don't even have the decency to do it in back rooms anymore) has to end one way or another.

[–] JohnnyDoe (1709) 4 years ago

Why don't the workers just start their own businesses?

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

Who's going to loan them money for that? Besides, the trend toward automation is just at its very beginning. Eventually (barring Luddite anti-tech laws) we won't need the majority of the human population to have any job whatsoever, and still be able to render all needed services and produce all the goods we need. Granted it will be later this century before things start getting to that point - but the idea that the draining away of jobs toward automation and AI is going to stabilize at some point is a pipe dream. It will go all the way to its logical conclusion.

The only two options then will be: a handful of people own absolutely everything and live like gods while everyone else is poor (the Altered Carbon model) or we develop a more robust social safety net so no one has a standard of living below middle class level. Those trying to predict the future often make the mistake of assuming it will be more or less like the present, except with fancier toys. In reality the 22nd century will be as different from our time as ours is from the 18th century, and probably much more so.

Don't ask me what people will do with themselves once most of them don't have to work. I'm sure we'll figure it out. But Bernie's vision of the way government should interact with average people is a lot closer to what we need if we want to avoid a megacorporate dystopian style future - which is where the 20th century thinking of establishment politicians most likely leads.

[–] JohnnyDoe (1709) 4 years ago

Save, gradually build the business etc?

Why would a handful own everything? Are they the only ones able to build robots/code?

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

A handful would own everything because starting at the bottom and moving up the chain jobs will become automated or obsolete. It's not that we'll need the leeches at the top. It's just that they'll be the last ones left standing, and they own the companies. AIs will probably be doing their jobs too while they keep all the money.

Of course other things will be happening as well. For example, once we start using nanotechnology for manufacturing the main commodity will become templates - designs for products, a form of intellectual property. Goods themselves will only have value through their utility since in monetary terms even something like a fancy car will be practically worthless. I can't tell you what social changes this and other advances will bring. No one really knows. But the kind of economy we have now, where almost everybody has a job, will be as outdated as a horse drawn buggy. At a certain point in the next few decades the unemployment rate will start to rise gradually but steadily - and never go back down.

[–] JohnnyDoe (1709) 4 years ago

What's stopping anyone from building robots/coding?

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

My whole point here is that eventually there will only be work for a small fraction, perhaps as little as a few percent, of the population.

Perhaps this will lead to a world dedicated to the pursuit of hobby. People will do what they enjoy doing, to avoid going insane with boredom, and acquire levels of skill that very few have now simply because they can follow those pursuits full time. You'll do work to engage yourself rather than to pay bills.

We're still in the middle of transforming from what we were as a primitive culture to what we will be as an advanced one. I don't know what that's going to look like exactly. No one does. But the world will be a very different place than it is today, and very likely nothing like we imagined.

[–] JohnnyDoe (1709) 4 years ago

I'm referring to ownership.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

In what sense?

[–] JohnnyDoe (1709) 4 years ago

Why don't the workers just start their own businesses?

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

That's like asking why a company that's not expanding doesn't hire more people. There will be a limited number of jobs that require a human to do. If every service that needs rendering and every product that needs manufacturing, all market demand, could be met with the participation of, say, 5% of the population, then there would literally be nothing for the other 95% to do.

Trying to start a new business would be futile most of the time since there is no unmet demand out there. We have slightly less than 8 billion people. What if there were (I'm picking a number out of thin air here) only 10 million jobs on the planet? That's more or less what I'm saying. If only ten million people could provide everything the rest of those 8 billion need or want, what does everyone else do with themselves? What type of economy comes from that? Certainly nothing at all like the one we have.

[–] JohnnyDoe (1709) 4 years ago

If 5% own the business they work for, more than a handful of people will be owners.

[–] asom (6502) 4 years ago

You make me stress again: get a fucking book and read.

Understand the difference between communism and socialism.

Democratic socialism is NOT a hybrid. That is social democracy. Socialism, democratic or not, DOES NOT DO hybrid. Because as soon as you have free market and private property you don't have socialism anymore. Period.

US is crony capitalism, ok. That doesn't mean that all capitalist societies are crony. Check Sweden, Denmark - pure capitalist with social structures and welfare. Or how they are called "social democracies". That's the correct hybrid.

If you are looking for the perfect mix of capitalism and social policies it exists - social democracy. No, NOT democratic socialism.

And i will say again: FUCKING READ. And yes, start with Marx and the difference between communism and socialism. As a side note: all countries from the east block were socialist, NOT communist. Communism has NEVER been implemented on this planet.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

Stop being so damn rude, and talk like a civilized human being!

Socialism, democratic or not, DOES NOT DO hybrid. Because as soon as you have free market and private property you don't have socialism anymore. Period.

No. Because you're still equating socialism with communism. That's communism you're talking about. You more or less repeated part of my own point. It's all semantics here. Whether you call it democratic socialism or "social democracy" this is exactly what Bernie means! When you have a robust social safety net and government programs, but also a thriving private sector. Let the government do the things it does well, and let industry do what it does well, the best of both worlds.

Unlike the GOP which thinks privatizing absolutely everything and "minimal government" is the way to go. To hear them talk there's nothing whatsoever the government does well.

[–] asom (6502) 4 years ago

I'm rude because you don't know what you're talking about.

That's NOT communism what i'm talking about, learn your terms before engaging.

And no, Bernie doesn't have the goal of "a robust social safety net and government programs, but also a thriving private sector." - that's NOT the goal of democratic socialism. That's how social democracy works.

Democratic socialism wants "We believe that working people should run both the economy and society" - you know what that means? Go wild. I'll tell you: pure socialism,

"As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today"

"We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms"

That's their (democratic socialists) goal - to end capitalism, but trough slow and constant reform.

Source: https://www.dsausa.org/

And it's NOT just semantics. Trust me.

And when i tell you to read a book and inform yourself about what is capitalism, communism, socialism i'm not rude, i'm dead serious.

If you want we can start basic: what do you think are the basic definitions of the 3 and the main diferences?

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

Look, unless you want to be dismissed as a troll (and there are tons of them around) you don't get to be rude if someone isn't being rude to you. Pretend you're talking to someone face-to-face. Don't say things that would make the average person tell you to piss off and walk away. Or punch you, depending on the individual.

In five minutes I managed to find a document that actually sums up the differences quite well, and has the virtue of being short:

https://ut01001306.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/UT01001306/Centricity/Domain/379/Gov.%20Term%201/Ch%201%20sec%204%20Capitalism%20Socialism%20Communism%20reading.pdf

The important thing to note is that all countries contain a mixture of socialist and capitalist institutions and programs. Even the US has food stamps, medicaid, and so forth. Even the Soviet Union had some capitalism. Pure socialism and pure capitalism are Platonic ideals that exist only on paper and in thought experiments. Ditto with the communist system (which has the added problem that its economic model is infeasible even in theory).

I never use groups and organizations as a reference. Plenty of them play fast and loose with their terminology, they're trying to generate buzz and support more than they are dotting i's and crossing t's. It really doesn't matter whether you say democratic socialism or social democracy - precisely because no two people who use those terms seem to mean exactly the same thing. You can talk about what it means in a specific nation. But every Scandinavian country, for example, defines it differently and operates by a slightly different set of rules.

Talking about labels is a waste of time, in my opinion. It takes away from issues of substance. Nobody is trying to eliminate capitalism - how could you do that, what would it even mean? Simply trying to scale back the absurd level of free reign it currently has in countries like the US. The state of our economy can't credibly be called a free market. It's a monopoly-oligopoly based system completely slanted toward corporate interests and profits above all other things. Restoring genuine competition to the marketplace and facilitating large numbers of providers instead of a few huge ones through antitrust actions are one part of the solution.

Then there are the social and government programs. An expanded social safety net, universal health care, tuition free public colleges (private colleges will not be tuition free even under the most ambitious of current plans), stuff like that. And certain elements of central planning like a Green New Deal or equivalent. The government steps in and delivers a smackdown to the fossil fuel industry, essentially setting a countdown to their demise. But the government doesn't need to execute all of it. Provide incentives and get the damn oil companies out of the way, we've already seen small businesses popping up everywhere devoted to clean energy systems and home installations. If those Big Oil idiots had an ounce of vision they'd be spearheading the new energy era, being the ones to develop the technology instead of fighting it, that way they'd continue to have a business in the post fossil fuel economy.

Another example of a hybrid socialist-capitalist system would be the telecom infrastructure in parts of Europe. The government builds and maintains the network itself using taxpayer money. Then service providers pay a monthly access fee to offer their service over that network. Since they don't own it, their ability to gouge customers and maintain captive customer bases - like Comcast and others do in the US - is drastically curtailed. There are many more providers competing with each other to offer you a good deal. You pay a small amount in taxes and a subscription fee to the provider of your choice. End result: people pay about one third as much for cable and internet as the average American. It's a better system than the Republicans' corporatized everything approach. We already know where that leads because it's what we've got right now.

I would describe what Sanders and other progressives want as better regulated capitalism and more socialist style programs - but certainly not an attempt at a pure socialist state. What labels you slap on policies matters less than the policies themselves. Those are the things we should be talking about.

[–] asom (6502) 4 years ago

You fail to make a clear distinction between SOCIALIZED SERVICES. Which is NOT socialism.

And SOCIALISM as ownership of the means of production by the workers/state.

Foodstamps are NOT socialism. Free education is NOT socialism. Free healthcare is NOT socialism. Those are, like fire department, police, armed forces - socialized services. Services that benefit everyone in a society and so are paid by everyone in the form of taxes.

What you do is a common trope among socialism defenders, to try and blur the lines between socialism and social services and welfare. Sorry but that doesn't work.

Talking about labels is NOT a waste of time. If i have a bottle of poison that contains poison and it's labeled poison would you drink from it saying "labels don't matter"??? Labels do matter because that's the point of speech, to allow ideas to be exchanged.

If you mislabel something i have the rights to ask you to use to correct words.

I lived in an ex-socialist country. THERE WERE NO CAPITALIST PARTS in that country. And there were NO CAPITALIST PARTS in the soviets. Name one.

FFS, do you know to read? And you wonder why i'm rude.

"I would describe what Sanders and other progressives want as better regulated capitalism and more socialist style programs - but certainly not an attempt at a pure socialist state."

Doesn't matter how you would describe them. I just gave you quotes and links to how they envision their goals. And that IS, as quoted, PURE SOCIALISM. And it's even funnier that i gave you the quote in which they say that because it's not possible to get to socialism right away they are focusing in slow changes with policies like those of Bernies.

REGULATED CAPITALISM, or social democracy, is one. SOCIALISM is another thing.

Tell a Swed that his country is a socialist country (you know, like Bernie did sever time mislabeling them as democratic socialism) and he might become not just rude, he might even slap you - or maybe he will just laugh at your ignorance like Sweden's prime minister did in response to Sanders, saying that no, Sweden is not socialist but as capitalist as it can be.

What's your interest in supporting socialism btw? (And i mean socialism, not just social democracy - because if you would just want a better regulated capitalism, which i guess most of us want, you would NOT insist on socialism).

Being so keep on keep using that term tells me what you actually support. And i plainly hate socialists because me and my family were victims of socialists.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 4 years ago

Alright, so you are an actual troll. There is zero capitalism in any country which even has the word socialist or socialism in the description of its system. Fine. Whatever. There is absolutely no socialism of any kind in any country which uses the term capitalist. Sure thing. I won't be rude or throw anything in angry all-caps your way, but I see no point in continuing this discussion. Good luck to you. I'm sure there are plenty of others on this board who will bite. 😎

[–] asom (6502) 4 years ago

Well, you brought one statement, that there were capitalist structures in the soviets. I dared you to name one.

You couldn't.

And you know what's funny? Beside the socialized services (which as i said are not examples of socialism) in capitalism you can have socialist organizations. Like you can create a company that is owned by the workers or the community and the workers can run it as they want. NO ONE stops you from that. There are plenty of examples of communities that have tried, most have failed. Winco is a recent example of that kind of company - but even that is run for profit.

But in socialism the state would not allow a private productive entity to even exist.

And to get back to labels. The danger is that to people like you (ignorant) there would be no problem to elect a socialist to lead, and then when he will get all authoritarian and will nationalize everything and you would be like "wtf is going on" you will get the answer "what? you wanted socialism!!!".

[–] asom (6502) 4 years ago

No, you don't know your definitions. Read a book.

Those socialist services you list are not socialist. They are socialized services.

Social Democracy is the "hybrid" that you talk about. Democratic socialism is just pure socialism. With a small disguise.

[–] slimone (7996) 4 years ago

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market socialist economy or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.

[–] asom (6502) 4 years ago

Correct. SO ... it's socialism, pure socialism. With the added lie of "democracy". Like we had in Romania.

or the way they have it now in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea - that's North Korea.

"According to the Constitution of North Korea, the country is a democratic republic and the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) and Provincial People's Assemblies (PPA) are elected by direct universal suffrage and secret ballot. Suffrage is guaranteed to all citizens aged 17 and over."

Getting fooled by pretty shinny names, are we?

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 3 years ago

There's no "lie" about it being Democracy because the people choose everything instead of things being chosen for them by "representatives" like we have today. Look what a crock the electoral college is.

[–] asom (6502) 3 years ago

LOL, another one fooled by pretty names.

So NK is democratic just because it's in its name???

People choose everything can be a really bad idea.

The electoral college has it's purpose.

USA is an example on many things of direct democracy, where people actually choose on a lot of things (not everything since that would be a bad idea, how would be to let a janitor choose on how to secure a nuclear reactor??? - everything, right?)

By definition socialism cannot be democratic, even is just by the fact that most people don't want socialism and would vote against it and so it has to be enforced - it is the case everywhere where socialism was enforced.

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 3 years ago

Nice try to twisting around what I'd say to you. You don't know what the f you're talking about. For a 100 level class project in it go watch Michael Moore's movie "Who Do We Invade Next". This is a movie site right so that's your assignment kiddo

The manipulation of "pretty names" comes from those on the right trying to make socialism be the same as communism, however they aren't the same. North Korea is communist and it is run by a dictator. The US is a Democratic Representative Republic and for 4 years we were run by a dictator and when Bush was president we were under a dictatorship for 8 years. That's why 9/11, Hurricane Katrina failure, and the Great Recession happened. Now we have the Great Pandemic. In fact Republicans haven't won by the popular will of the majority for 32 years. Most of the developed world is Democratic Socialist and some that are developing. What's more is those countries enjoy more freedom and a higher standard of living than the US.

Direct Democracy ONLY exists in the US when the people can vote directly on ballot measures. (I'm someone who works on those by the way so I am going to know these things.)

We have allowed Janitors to secure nuclear reactors which is why the 3 Mile Island accident happened. The fact that we HAVE nuclear reactors still shows that we aren't a direct democracy when the majority and even the markets want renewable energies. Nuclear just keeps increasing in costs while renewables keep reducing in costs.

The electoral college's purpose now is to disenfranchise voters. In the past its purpose was because it was technically difficult to deliver votes from all over the country. By definition socialism is definitely democratic if it is chosen by the will of the majority voters.

Our FREEways are socialist.
Our fire departments are socialist.
Our Police and military are socialist.
Social Security is Socialist.
Veterans have socialized medicine.
and many other things.

Do you want to pay for everywhere you drive?

The reason SOCIAL is in the name is because it is about PEOPLE or society. But nice try there troll.

Socialism is a scareword they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called Public Power. Socialism is what they called Social Security. Socialism is what they called Farm Price Supports. Socialism is what they called Bank Deposit Insurance. Socialism is what they called the Growth of Free and Independent Labor Organizations. "Socialism" is their name for almost anything that helps all the people. - Harry S. Truman October 10th, 1952.

Look scumbags like you are going down. Your backs are against the wall. White supremists are worse than any foreign terrorists ever have been. Trump is going to be prosecuted and even McConnell is going down. It's over. Freedom won and will continue to win as elections are made more fair and free and all the fraud, cheating, voter suppression, scandals and gerrymandering will come to an end and Republicans won't stand a chance. The American people know what's up. It's time to end the rule of the rightist mafia and the future is Democratic Socialism and it looks mighty fine.

Hell you hypocrites that supported Trump who gave out a socialist bailout to the farmers after he destroyed their labor force and eliminated their export partners. Before that Bush gave our tax dollars in a socialist bailout to the banks that didn't need it and used it to buy up other banks. One of my favorite checking accounts were one of those banks and it became crap.

[–] asom (6502) 3 years ago

You my friend have ZERO idea what you're talking about,

NK is socialist, led by a communist party. NO COUNTRY in this world have ever been communist. Communism was the goal and the name of the party. Read a book, understand the difference between socialism and communism.

This has been for too long an easy escape (badly understood) for the socialists when they talk about the ex-socialists or actual socialists countries: "they were/are communist" - no, they were/are not communist but purely socialist. Again, read, understand what is communism what is socialism and look at how those countries are/were organized.

I grew up in one of those socialist countries.

You don't even understand that socialized services are anything but socialism. Again, read a book, educate yourself.

"Direct Democracy ONLY exists in the US when the people can vote directly on ballot measures. (I'm someone who works on those by the way so I am going to know these things.)" yes, and it exists, it's one of the few countries in the world that do that.

Again, you have NO idea what is socialism.

Socialism have been used as a scare word by the right, correct.

But socialism have been used by the leftists and socialists to define anything that IS not socialism but it's a good thing for society. Like public healthcare or education, or firedepartment.

And idiots like you believe it. Or are you a socialist as well and you spread the lies knowingly???

Yeah, i guess you are a diehard socialist so it's normal to troll and spread miss-information ;)

Social Democracy is the right way forward, NOT Democratic socialism.

Read, learn, educate yourself.

https://www.datadriveninvestor.com/2019/09/27/we-need-to-stop-confusing-social-programs-with-socialism/

https://www.dailypress.com/virginiagazette/opinion/va-vg-edit-letters-candell-0421-story.html

What's even more funny: social programs have been invented by the capitalists to fight/counter socialists. Again, read some history (hint: Otto von Bismark).