fwiw

are fake?

Just look at China.

Labels are meaningless.

The government bigwigs and party leaders are getting rich while the peasants remain impoverished.

But again, what somebody calls themselves often has absolutely nothing to do with what they are.

First touting Sweden, Denmark and Norway -- now touting China?

Because using an analogy to make a point is not that.

Also, I am not a Bernie supporter.

It is one of the purest, unregulated forms of capitalism you will find in the world.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-went-from-communist-to-capitalist-2015-10

The government owns a stake from 33% to 70% in all major private companies.

As far fetched as it is.

the government doesn't own any part of private entities. PERIOD.

…


Also if they are owned by the government, they are not quite private entities. Meanwhile China has courted over the last several decades the largest multibilion dollar conglomerates in the world, while their economic model is largely representative of that of the US during the industrial revolution.

Nice try though

All US and foreign companies operating in China have the Chinese government as a partner in equity.

It is a government owned corporationt that can compete in the private market.


Your example is not unsimilar to the lobbying/ subsidy system we have here for companies like exxon mobile.

wants to run passenger trains in the US on the scale of Amtrak. The government essentially helped create it and it loses billions - never turned a profit.

Not a good example either.

many times. That's been documented many times over BY HIM and many others for decades. He used to be up front with a long list of industries and other functions he believes government needed to seize for communal ownership.

That's never gone over at all. In fact, he's never been able to sell socialism under any label. Including the form of socialism called democratic socialism, which is intended to be less extreme and authoritarian than "plain old" socialism and much less than the communist form of socialism. In this era, Sanders is running on big capitalism-based government-run programs instead.

Warren is not a socialist and has said so.

"I am a socialist and everyone knows that." "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Liberal Democrat." Bernie Sanders

"I am not a socialist." "I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets. What I don’t believe in is theft, what I don’t believe in is cheating." Elizabeth Warren

When people tell us -- and show us -- who they are, we really should believe them.

He can call himself whatever he wants, but it doesn't make it true. They are both Democratic Socialists in their policies. Whether that's the label they choose, honestly: Who really cares?

Supporting lies in order to "win" something is the wrong lesson to take from the Republicans. Look what this kind of "winning" has gotten their voters: Disaster after disaster after disaster.

Reality is not whatever each of us wants it to be. If a position can't be supported truthfully it should be discarded -- like a rotten egg.

i mean.

We should move away from the idea that people should be competing to make the most money by exploiting each other, with the government cleaning up after the result, and towards an idea of people working in cooperation to build a better society.

in the Nordic countries. It isn't, and they aren't Democratic socialists. They're Social Democrats -- a different thing. Those countries are examples of well-regulated capitalism, with a strong safety net.

What democracy do you know of that actually is run by the principles of Democratic socialism?

From the website of the Democratic Socialists of America:

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/#govt

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

visiting Stockholm this past summer is that most Swedish politicians are NOT lawyers and businessmen, but rather come from the medical and teaching professions.

To me, that's a huge plus right there! And yes, they are Social Democrats. Plus no one sees any harm in people making money.

I also visited Finland, Denmark and Norway, as well as Sweden. We could learn a LOT from them all.

But that doesn't really change anything...

has been in politics.

If he doesn't advocate their positions, then he should have picked another brand.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/history/

A History of Democratic Socialists of America 1971-2017
Bringing Socialism from the Margins to the Mainstream

used to smear anyone who dares to stand against the billionaires.

They have well regulated capitalist systems with strong safety nets.

Do you know what socialism is? The Social Democrats of the Nordic Countries are capitalists, not socialists.

of taxing wealthier people to pay for social programs, which most western democracies do.

from Dictionary.com


a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

I have long since given up on trying here to define socialism. I don't care how often he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, Bernie is no socialist. He supports a very expansive social welfare system but I have never heard him advocate for the nationalization of US industry.

For what it's worth, any attempt to nationalize broad swaths of US industry is fiscally impossible under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

just because government owns or controls an industry doesn't mean said industry is in the workers' control, after all.

Besides, if we were to use that, then NHS is outright socialist, as are large sections of the economies of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, and a whole host of other countries as well.

neither PNWMOM nor I said anything about putting industry under the control of the workers. What we were discussing is the text book definition of socialism as the government control of the means of production.

Most economies are really mixed - a combination of socialism and capitalism. The Tennessee Valley Authority and Amtrak are examples of socialist elements in the US economy. However, the US economy is overwhelming capitalistic. At its height, the USSR was overwhelming socialistic in that most - but not all - of the means of production were controlled by the government.

In a socialist economy, the workers do not control the means of production - the state does. The USSR did not live-up to Marx's dream of a proletarian utopia because the proletariat did not control the state. The USSR was controlled by the apparatchiki who lived quite well while the workers waited on line in under-stocked stores. Now, if you want worker's control of industry, what you're talking about is a worker's cooperative. A worker's cooperative is a form of private ownership in which the workers own the business - really only a unique form of capitalism.

The term socialist is thrown around too lightly by people across the political spectrum who don't know what the term means. Republicans think that anyone that believes the economy should not operate for the exclusive benefit of the very wealthy is a socialist. Senator Sanders calls himself a socialist for reasons of his own but he is really a social welfare democrat. Senator Warren is a capitalist who wants to reform the system. The European countries you reference are social welfare states with more socialist elements than the US but nevertheless capitalist economies.

Especially if you actually read anything by actual socialists, you know, Marx, Engles, Bakunin, Luxemberg, Debs, etc.

Hell, in Communism the State isn't supposed to exist. Did you even know that?

You need to get your head out of the Cold War mindset.

I am aware that Engles predicted the state would "wither away" once the proletariat ideal was reached. I never thought even Engles really believed that - it was a sales spin. A core weakness of Marx and Engles was that they underestimated the power of nationalism.

If Republicans accuse Democrats of being socialists, maybe they should just accept it with pride. Mind you, given the most American mistakenly think the socialism and communism are synonyms, it will doom Democrats to defeat.

I will allow that my political science degree was obtained during the Cold War but I don't know that the basic definitions have changed. However, you have proven again that I ought not raise this issue on DU.

Where did you get that Polisci degree? Prager U?

Socialism is, at it's most basic when workers control and own the means of production. What you refer to as Socialism is actually just state industries or corporations. Examples would include public utilities for the locally owned version, or community owned banks, which are popular in some rural communities. They are, ostensibly, democratically controlled, however the workers in those industries have no direct say in how the industry or business is run, there is a reason that public sector unions exist.

Please forgive a graduate of a small state college for presuming to discuss such weighty matters with a person with an obviously superior education. I will endeavor to remember my place in the future.

There is nothing wrong with the polls. There is everything wrong with our election security.

I posted under Chemisse, thinking I was logged in under my account, Bobgandolf.

You should check out her anti-corruption speech to 20,000 in NYC to see if she is a dynamic speaker!

Protection Bureau - literally from scratch and BEFORE she was a Senator - is an accomplishment no other candidate can match.

I am very familiar with Warren. My intention was not to disparage any Democrat. I was just pointing out my thoughts on the general election. I wholeheartedly agree with you, she has by far been the most detailed positions on a wide range of topics.

our candidate will ultimately be - is the ONLY reason ANY Dem will lose to Trump.

Please work your heart out for the primary candidate of your choice! And then work even harder for the Dem nominee!

THAT is how we can win. And "Yes, we can!"

Because if we don't, it is literally "Good-bye USA!"

And who the heck has better "new" ideas than Elizabeth Warren anyway? Every election, I see those who are always searching for the Unicorn Candidate, who will magically burst upon the scene and overwhelm everyone.

In my nearly 76 years of life, it has NEVER happened.

Plus she only got into electoral politics seven years ago and a lot of people are just getting to know her. So she pretty much checks all your boxes but you obviously know what you know.

The party doesn't want a new face. Our candidates are insiders. New faces, Obama and Bill Clinton, win. Insiders- Clinton and Kerry lose. Hope that trend changes

for one, at least!

is actually what makes me tack her as slightly further left than Bernie Sanders on economic issues.

Granted, I think the proportion is too low, but that just my opinion

unfortunately both her and Bernie have been defined as such. It's what worries me about their ability to win in a General.

Link to tweet

Warren is NOT extreme. And those who say that she is are doing us all a disservice.

She is merely speaking the truth.

Bernie is the closest.

Warren would be an excellent President.

article?