Socialism is inevitable in the united states

Author: PaulVerliane ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 58
  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    if you look at political polls, young people like Socialism, the question is , what do they think Socialism is ? I don't expect Cuba or the Soviet Union, but a social democratic welfare state seems to be on the horizon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjMqda19wk
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,662
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    Social Democracy is a system that is different to Socialism. When will you understand that? Social Democracy is a version of Capitalism that has Socialist tendencies added on as flavouring.
  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    i do understand it what makes you think i dont?
  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be publiccollective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5]["

    "Democratic socialism is a socialist political philosophy which advocates political democracy alongside a socially owned economy,[1] with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.[2] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedomequality and solidarity and that these ideals can be achieved only through the realisation of a socialist society. Although most democratic socialists are seeking a very gradual transition to socialism,[3] democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.[4]"
    "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist oriented mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social welfare provisions.[1][2][3] In this way, social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4] Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the British post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, social democracy has become associated with the Nordic model and Keynesianism within political circles in the late 20th century.[5]"

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @RationalMadman
    The terminology has confused lots of people. But no one is advocating for socialism. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist (for some reason) but all of his plans are social democracy. 

  • armoredcat
    armoredcat avatar
    Debates: 7
    Forum posts: 275
    0
    4
    11
    armoredcat avatar
    armoredcat
    Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are seperate.
  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    --> @armoredcat
    yes but the differences are not that great
  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    --> @armoredcat
    The common thread to these mistaken conclusions, aside from the desire to deny that there are leftist success stories in the world, is the apparent belief that the only extraordinary part of Nordic economies are the welfare states. Except for their generous social benefits, everything else is properly capitalist and even more capitalist than the United States. Or so the argument goes.
  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    --> @RationalMadman
    is it is it really? https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/07/matt-bruenig-nordic-socialism-realer-think.html  By Matt Bruenig, who writes about politics, the economy, and political theory, with a focus on issues that affect poor and working people. He has written for The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic, The New Republic, The American Prospect, In These Times, Jacobin, Dissent, Salon, The Week, Gawker and at his home base of sorts: Demos’ Policy Shop. Follow him on Twitter: @mattbruenig. Originally published at his website
    This post was originally intended for the launch of the People’s Policy Project website. But as that is running behind schedule, I figure I will post it here.
    When policy commentators talk about the Nordic economies, they tend to focus on their comprehensive welfare states. And for good reason. Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are home to some of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Each has an efficient single-payer health care system, free college, long parental leave, heavily subsidized child care, and many other social benefits too numerous to list here.

    As marvelous as the Nordic welfare states are, the outsized attention they receive can sometimes lead commentators to the wrong conclusions about the peculiarities of Nordic economies. Jonathan Chait thinks the Nordic economies feature an “amped-up version of … neoliberalism” while an oddly large number of conservative and libertarian writers claim the Nordics are quasi-libertarian.
    The common thread to these mistaken conclusions, aside from the desire to deny that there are leftist success stories in the world, is the apparent belief that the only extraordinary part of Nordic economies are the welfare states. Except for their generous social benefits, everything else is properly capitalist and even more capitalist than the United States. Or so the argument goes.
    Labor Market
    But this is not true. In addition to their large welfare states and high tax levels, Nordic economies are also home to large public sectors, strong job protections, and labor markets governed by centralized union contracts.
    Around 1 in 3 workers in Denmark and Norway are employed by the government.



    Centrally-bargained union contracts establish the work rules and pay scales for the vast majority of Nordic workers.

    These labor market characteristics are hardly neoliberal or quasi-libertarian, at least if we stick to typical definitions of those terms. The neoliberal tendency, as exemplified most recently by France’s Emmanuel Macron, is to cut public sector jobsreduce job protections, and push for local rather than centralized labor agreements. For the US labor market to become more like the Nordics, it would have to move in the opposite direction on all of those fronts.
    State Ownership
    Even more interesting than Nordic labor market institutions is Nordic state ownership. Collective ownership over capital is the hallmark of that old-school socialism that is supposed to have been entirely discredited. And yet, such public ownership figures prominently in present-day Norway and Finland and has had a role in the other two Nordic countries as well, especially in Sweden where the government embarked upon a now-defunct plan to socialize the whole of Swedish industry into wage-earner funds just a few decades ago.
    The governments of Norway and Finland own financial assets equal to 330 percent and 130 percent of each country’s respective GDP. In the US, the same figure is just 26 percent.

    Much of this money is tied up in diversified wealth funds, which some would object to as not counting as real state ownership. I disagree with the claim that wealth funds are not really state ownership, but the observation that Nordic countries feature high levels of state ownership does not turn upon this quibble.
    State-owned enterprises (SOEs), defined as commercial enterprises in which the state has a controlling stake or large minority stake, are also far more prevalent in the Nordic countries. In 2012, the value of Norwegian SOEs was equal to 87.9 percent of the country’s GDP. For Finland, that figure was 52.3 percent. In the US, it was not even 1 percent.

    Some of these SOEs are businesses often run by states: a postal service, a public broadcasting channel, an Alcohol retail monopoly. But others are just normal businesses typically associated with the private sector.
    In Finland, where I know the situation the best, there are 64 state-owned enterprises, including one called Solidium that operates as a holding company for the government’s minority stake in 13 of the companies.
    The Finnish state-owned enterprises include an airliner called Finnair; a wine and spirits maker called Altia; a marketing communications company called Nordic Morning; a large construction and engineering company called VR; and an $8.8 billion oil company called Neste.
    In Norway, the state manages direct ownership of 70 companies. The businesses include the real estate company Entra; the country’s largest financial services group DNB; the 30,000-employee mobile telecommunications company Telenor; and the famous state-owned oil company Statoil.
    Finland and Norway have their special reasons for the level of state ownership they engage in. Finnish government publications discuss the country’s late development and status as a peripheral country when justifying their relatively heavy public involvement in industry. That is, Finland does not want to expose the entirety of its marginal, late-developing, open economy to the potential ravages of international capital flows.
    In Norway, the discovery of oil in the North Sea was the impetus for the creation of its enormous social wealth fund. The fund currently owns around $950 billion of assets throughout the world, including more than $325 billion of assets inside the US. In a video on the Norwegian central bank’s website, the fund is described as follows: “It is the people’s money, owned by everyone, divided equally and for generations to come.”
    No one would argue that the Nordic countries are full-blown socialist countries, whatever that might mean. But it is also folly to pretend the only thing they have proven is that high taxes and large welfare states can work. Even on the narrow understanding of socialism as public ownership of enterprise, the Nordic countries are far more socialistic than most commentators seem to realize. American socialists who draw inspiration from their successes do so rightly.


    This entry was posted in Economic fundamentalsEuropeFree markets and their discontentsGuest PostSocial policySocial values on July 29, 2017 by .
    SPONSORED CONTENT

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,991
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    There are too many guns in the hands of the voters to allow the government to grow big enough to implement socialism.
  • PaulVerliane
    PaulVerliane avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 152
    0
    2
    7
    PaulVerliane avatar
    PaulVerliane
    --> @Greyparrot
    yeah well thats has never ever stopped us https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Civil-War   The Green armies (Russian: Зеленоармейцы), also known as the Green Army (Зелёная Армия) or Greens (Зелёные), were armed peasant groups which fought against all governments in the Russian Civil War from 1917 to 1922.
    Green armies - Wikipedia

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Green_armies for what its worth i would have favored the green armies as they won the 1917 elections 
    he Green armies (Russian: Зеленоармейцы), also known as the Green Army (Зелёная Армия) or Greens (Зелёные), were armed peasant groups which fought against all governments in the Russian Civil War from 1917 to 1922. The Green armies were semi-organized local militias that opposed the BolsheviksWhites, and foreign interventionists, and fought to protect their communities from requisitions or reprisals carried out by third parties. The Green armies were politically and ideologically neutral, but at times associated with the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, by far the largest grouping of the Russian Constituent Assembly elected in 1917. The Green armies had at least tacit support throughout much of Russia, however their primary base, the peasantry, were largely reluctant to wage an active campaign during the Russian Civil War and eventually dissolved following Bolshevik victory in 1922.
     i would have fought with them, but dude peasant were armed against the communists know what ? they even had their own army, and it didnt stop the communists, who had an organized trained army

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    There are too many guns in the hands of the voters to allow the government to grow big enough to implement socialism.
    You are misunderstanding though. Socialism is wildly popular among young people. As older people who lived through the cold war (and therefore have alot of internalized fear) die off and are replaced by younger people who see the value of socialism, then you will see socialism become quite popular. I mean it kind of already is. Many people really like socialist policies. Medicare for all is quite popular already. That kind of popularity is only going to grow. 

    Having lots of guns wont mean anything because the majority will support the implementation. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,991
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Young people have less guns.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    Young people have less guns.
    And when the majority of the country elect a government that pushes to reform, you think old people will rise up with guns and enforce their views on the majority using violence? If they did, then they would be traitors who want tyranny. Not to mention they would need to be fighting the US police and Military, and I guarantee you they have more guns than a bunch of right wing nut jobs. 

    I think you are massively over estimating how many people are that terrible.   
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,991
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff @PaulVerliane
    There will never be a "Hugo Chavez" or a Madura in this country because the people will destroy the government once the government turns on them.

    Just look at all the people turning on Warren for even suggesting a tax on the middle class. 

    Every Socialist nation must tax the poor. Nordic countries tax the poor at 40%. 

    People with guns will never allow this to happen in America.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,991
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff

    Young people don't have the stomach to lead a Socialist rebellion.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    There will never be a "Hugo Chavez" or a Madura in this country because the people will destroy the government once the government turns on them.
    No one is advocating for that. So that is a straw man argument. 

    Just look at all the people turning on Warren for even suggesting a tax on the middle class. 
    Alot of the criticism I have seen is that she is trying to hide it. No one likes being taxed, but if you tell people you will get these services and it will cost you this amount, people can respect that. If you try to hide the cost behind complicated math then people just see you as disingenuous. That is why bernie sanders is trusted more to implement healthcare reform. His message of, you will see slightly higher taxes but save even more from no longer paying for healthcare, resonates with people. 

    Every Socialist nation must tax the poor. Nordic countries tax the poor at 40%.
    Pointing to the tax rate is a bit of a distraction tactic. If you are taxed at 25% but spend another 20% on medical costs, then you are better off paying 40% but having no medical costs. Your taxes are higher, but you are saving money. Republicans like to make the argument that taxes are inherently bad, when that simply isn't the case. 

    People with guns will never allow this to happen in America.
    Again, that would be completely contrary to American values. I am sure there are some people crazy enough to try that. But make no mistake, it is treason and the US police and Military would put any such attempt down. 

    Young people don't have the stomach to lead a Socialist rebellion.
    No one is talking about a rebellion. They are talking about reform via democratic elections. It is only you who is talking about using violence. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,991
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Pointing to the tax rate is a bit of a distraction tactic. If you are taxed at 25% but spend another 20% on medical costs, then you are better off paying 40% but having no medical costs. Your taxes are higher, but you are saving money. Republicans like to make the argument that taxes are inherently bad, when that simply isn't the case. 

    Not really. You would have to radically reform our National culture from a consumer society that lives paycheck to paycheck into a frugal society like the Nord's who don't live to spend their money as soon as they get it.

    People can't go out to their favorite All-American strip mall at Nordic taxrates. Breadlines are never going to happen in the consumer culture of America.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    Not really. You would have to radically reform our National culture from a consumer society that lives paycheck to paycheck into a frugal society like the Nord's who don't live to spend their money as soon as they get it.
    And tax reform along with things like medicare for all would help with that. If your taxes are covering some of the biggest expenses up front, then you don't have as many things to worry about. it's true that you might pay a little more in each paycheck, but you will never be hit with a sudden out of pocket expense if you need to see a doctor or get a prescription. That sort of change would be good for america and actually save alot of money for the average person. 

    People can't go out to their favorite All-American strip mall at Nordic taxrates.
    Of course they will. As I already said, they will be saving more money with a higher tax rate. Therefore they would have more money to spend on things. 

    Breadlines are never going to happen in the consumer culture of America.
    Why would this happen? There are no breadlines in places like sweden or canada. This is another straw man argument the right likes to make. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,991
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    When I say breadlines I mean enforced consumption from the government.

    Being forced to buy ONLY government healthcare is what made Obamacare wildly unpopular in the consumer culture of America used to having strip malls stocked with hundreds of choices and brands at their beck and call; necessitating the now famous Obama-lie about keeping your healthcare.

    This outrage was long before it was proven how inefficient government was at allocating health resources.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    When I say breadlines I mean enforced consumption from the government.
    Ok, that is a bit of a weird expression. But even still, that doesn't really happen in Canada or nordic countries and i am not aware of anyone advocating for that in the US. So it is still a straw man argument. 

    Being forced to buy ONLY government healthcare is what made Obamacare wildly unpopular in the consumer culture of America used to haveing strip malls stocked with hundreds of choices and brands; necessitating the now famous Obama-lie about keeping your healthcare.
    That won't be a problem for medicare for all. It removes the private insurance, but it actually gives people more choice where it matters. People will be able to see any doctor, go to any hospital and it will be covered. No more being told a doctor isn't in your network. So people will actually be getting alot more choice for less cost. 

    This outrage was long before it was proven how inefficient government was at allocating health resources.
    I don't believe it has ever been proven that government is inefficient at allocating health resources. I mean the fact that americans pay several times the amount that other countries do for healthcare would suggest they have done a much better job than the private sector which is actively trying to bleed people out of as much money as possible. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,991
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    That won't be a problem for medicare for all. It removes the private insurance, but it actually gives people more choice where it matters. People will be able to see any doctor, go to any hospital and it will be covered. No more being told a doctor isn't in your network. So people will actually be getting alot more choice for less cost. 

    Maybe you have never shopped for insurance, but I can tell you that not everyone wants to pay for the deluxe package like the government is selling.

    Some people only want to pay to be covered at their local clinic with a high deductible and low premiums. The government takes away those choices and calls people dumb and deplorable for not buying the one size fits all health plan.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    Maybe you have never shopped for insurance, but I can tell you that not everyone wants to pay for the deluxe package like the government is selling.
    You're right. Some people want to gamble with their health and financial future. They want to bet they wont get sick and run the risk of being financially ruined if they do. But i don't think there are enough of those people to make a big difference. Medicare for all is hugely popular. 

    Some people only want to pay to be covered at their local clinic with a high deductible and low premiums. The government takes away those choices and calls people dumb and deplorable for not buying the one size fits all health plan.
    Essentially, what that those people are doing is gambling that they won't get sick. And if they lose that bet they may go bankrupt. We can debate whether they should have the right to risk their lives and their family's lives on that, but that is not a good bet to make. The evidence is the 500,000 bankruptcies per year related to medical debt. Those are the people who either couldn't afford health insurance, or who made that bet and lost. If changing the system will save the average family money, save huge numbers of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies, that seems like a pretty good policy. 

    But lets be clear. Very few people like their insurance company. Most people understand that their business model is to make you pay as much as possible and then do everything in their power to prevent you getting any benefit from it. As long they continue to get healthcare and the costs don't go up significantly, I think you will find very few people who wouldn't be happy to get rid of their insurance company. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,991
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Essentially, what that those people are doing is gambling that they won't get sick. 

    Essentially what the government is doing is protecting people from themselves. That's an elitist oligarchy, not a democracy.

    America will always be a high-risk and high-reward nation.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    Essentially what the government is doing is protecting people from themselves.
    No, they are providing a service to their people. You could make the exact same argument about education. Some parents, if they had the choice, would choose not to give their child an education. The government decided that no, all children need to have an education. And everyone in society is better off for that decision. Similarly, everyone should have healthcare. And everyone in society will be better off once they do. 

    That's an elitist oligarchy, not a democracy.
    If the majority want something and vote for someone on the basis that they will implement it, that is the definition of democracy. if a small group of officials are dead set against something that the majority want and try to stop it, that is an elitist oligarchy. And right now that is the both the republican party as well as the establishment of the democratic party. 

    America will always be a high-risk and high-reward nation.
    The majority of Americans who want medicare for all would disagree with your assessment.