Socialists of Datalounge

How is life in your mom’s basement, OP?

Better than the assisted living facility you’re going to die in soon i’m sure, r1.

ABOLISH LANDLORDS!!!! (But let me stay in the flat my uncle owns please!)

I'm a socialist. So people are going to use this as a thread to bash us? DL is nothing if not predictable.

Socialists on DL? NOKD.

I'm in favor of big government programs and safety nets, including UBI, national healthcare, free daycare and education, guaranteed housing, a complete overhaul and reimagining of the prison system including getting rid of minimum sentencing. I support reparations in whatever form they take, the legalisation of all drugs and banning all guns except for hunting rifles. I think the police should be defunded and disbanded to make way for something better. I don't think abortion should be a legal issue; it's a medical procedure and nothing more. I would like to see the eradication of nuclear weapons before I die (I'm 41). I would love to see the US stop manufacturing gas vehicles immediately.

I don't know the logistics of how the above would happen but I'm willing to pay more in taxes for a better society for everyone.

R6 you're a parody, correct?

[quote] This place is usually a neoliberal/neocon hell hole

Better than a "socialist" hell hole

My main priorities are Medicare For All, free public college...I could go on. but I feel it's basically wasted effort to post here.

I don't actually think a lot of the things I'm for are socialism, per se, but I'm a socialist by nature. They're simply the necessities of life in a complex world, and most other civilized nations have realized this a long time ago. For instance we already have Medicare and I don't hear any neolibs trying to eliminate it entirely, it's an efficient system that works, yet the idea of expanding it until it gradually covers all citizens seems to be anathema, even though it's been proven in many studies to be most cost efficient and would save many lives, besides improving quality of life for millions. Tying health care to employment makes no sense. I doubt many even understand the origins of employment-based health care.

But I feel like I'm wasting my breath around here.

The whole socialist bogeyman is so tired. Modern economies have various levels of social and economic engineering to both increase human capital and to prevent people from becoming so disgruntled that they are a threat to social cohesion. None of these societies are socialist in the sense that the term is used.

For instance, many US nutrition programs got their start when it was discovered that a too-large percentage of potential soldiers in WWI and II were unsuitable due to the consequences of malnutrition. Is that socialism or good public health policy?

It's cheaper to make things in Canada (or anywhere really) than the US because Canadian health care is much less expensive per unit of manufacturer than anything in the US. Is that socialism or competitive economic policy?

Reparations are meaningless unless you're willing to go back farther than the amount of time the US existed, if not, you're only favouring certain groups who should count their blessings.

Life is far more comfortable in Europe's Social Democracies than in the USA but Americans continue to taut their peculiar ways while suffering. Socialism is their trigger word. Bizarre.

[quote]neoliberal/neocon hell hole

Always helpful to start a thread with a contentious false equivalency.

[quote] the origins of employment-based health care

World War II, when wage controls prevented employers from offering higher wages, so instead they turned to perks like free health insurance.

(No, I didn’t have to Google that.)

R9 points to an obvious but seldom-stated fact: Most Americans are socialist at least to some extent. Social Security and Medicare are overwhelmingly popular.

[quote] Make yourself known! This place is usually a neoliberal/neocon hell hole that hates anybody non-white, the poor, even their fellow LGBT people.

Do you type that kind of hate in case your wife walks up behind you and sees that you are on a gay website?

It's not very convincing.

Socialists can’t admit that their ideology is based in violence, and that is why it always degenerates into tyranny.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Venezuela. Cuba. Chile. Most of Africa.

Even seemingly invulnerable socialist states like China are living on borrowed time, financially.

Countries that have eliminated socialist programs have had better outcomes.

Property rights will always beat collectivism.

^ You do amuse

I don't agree with the ideology 100%. I suppose I consider myself more a socialite.

R18 that word play reminds me of my ex who referred to my cousins in Tel Aviv as Israelites!

Hmmm, wasn't Chile supposed to be the great neolib paradise under Pinochet r16? Get rid of social security and kill anyone and everyone who objects? Wage slavery for all!!! Yay!!!

But of course all the violence is on the left, right? Never all those alt-right assholes. Never all the warmongers and corporate grifters. Never all those robber barons and union busters. Nope, no violence there. All free and fair and good and decent, just like gun nut Jesus intended.

This seems like a troll thread.

“Are there any other Socialists like me who aren’t appreciated and love martyrdom?”

Do you actually believe in Socialism which is government holding the means of production? Or are you a person who believes it is a strong safety net? There’s a difference.

If you are the 2nd you are mislabeling yourself. And if American, your loose terminology undermines your goals by handing the Repukes a talking point.

R16 China is pretty much authoritarianism that holds power by having a very controlled type of capitalism. There are stock markets in China, which would be ridiculous in a real socialist state.

True r21, they do get mixed together. I am as I've put it few times on this site a skim-off-the-top capitalist in the FDR/LBJ tradition. I get that capitalism is a great wealth creating engine, but it actually kind of sucks at wealth distribution after awhile. I'm for a certain amount of redistribution and a strong safety net, though with care not to wreck the whole engine. Something artificial has to keep the money moving around after a point, or it all just congeals at the top with a few rich twats getting everything. Always happens eventually, always will, unless something like government steps in to prevent it.

I agree with you R23.

Capitalism with the hard edges filed down by a very robust safety net seems to be the sweet spot.

R6 I'm with you on those points, & I'm your age.

R7, no r6 is not a parody and neither am I. We're two folks who have woken up from the nightmare we're living in and we know there are better programs and systems that ensure nobody starves or freezes to death. Health and dignity are human rights. Get with the program or continue existing in your ancient castle of neoliberalism & moth-eaten caftans. The rest of us are moving forward.

OP I'm glad you started this thread 👍

R21, where to begin.... we're not martyring ourselves, we're discussing socialism. In regards to the "means of production", those can also be owned and managed by the people, not the government. An example would be the Mondragon Corporation in Spain.

[Quote]And if American, your loose terminology undermines your goals by handing the Repukes a talking point.

Yawn, Republicans have been hand-wringing over progressive terminology forever. They're doing it now with Defund The Police and they've dragged Democrats into it as well. It's a classic roadblock tactic and some of us are just over it. It's about the actions & policies we want done, and we're not going to stand still because conservatives & neolibs feel all squicky about the wording. 🤷‍♂️

“ owned and managed by the people, not the government. An example would be the Mondragon Corporation in Spain.”

There are plenty of government owned utilities and some banks in America, and we aren’t considered socialist. My power comes from Seattle City Light, owned by city residents. I love it.

Also, yes, corporations are made up of “the people” who own shares. Co-ops are owned in a similar way by members. If everyone owns it, that is functionally government held. The government is the manifestation of the people. When government owns all the means of production, that is socialism.

I think this may be a case where I’m thinking of socialism in a macro economic sense, you think of it as AOC and a stronger social safety net. A definition difference. Maybe it’s been redefined.

R26, it hasn't been redefined, it's just that AOC/Bernie supporters believe "everything I love is socialism!" while Republicans believe "everything I hate is socialism!". That pretty much explains the insular, ridiculous attitudes towards socialism on both sides.

The amount of anger in this thread for pointing out a fact that this place is a racist. neolib/con hellhole. Also r15, I’m gay and 27.

Why can’t you people just admit you’re selfish boomers who got yours and would rather cut the rope than have us climb up after you?

“It's about the actions & policies we want done, and we're not going to stand still because conservatives & neolibs feel all squicky about the wording“

Then why be so attached to the word “socialist” then if it doesn’t matter. We didn’t win the Senate and lost seats in the house. Kind of shows “socialism” is not a winning slogan.

Dropping the term socialism and talking about a strong safety net will get the actions and policies you want done.

Lots of rubes vote. You have to pander the message so they will accept it.

Also, R28 last paragraph shows it was a troll, not an attempt at discussion. She just wanted to feel superior to “Boomers”

r28 - Because you're acting like a churlish brat, OP...

OP is a moron.

We do *not* claim him.

Well I'm not that attached to the word r29. But I'm not sure "strong safety net" solves the problem. An awful lot of God's Own One and Only Country hear that and think "money for Negroes" to put it politely. I'm not sure what the magic word is, but I'm open to suggestions.

R33, good question.

For me, I’d like to see socialized medicine (run by the government), cheap college, housing and protection for the vulnerable, unions, free internet. I think most benefits shouldn’t be needs based, so everyone benefits.

How about “Rebuilding the American middle class”. Not really great, I admit.

Honestly, I think the reason it doesn’t happen is that the upper class wants us focused on culture war stuff so people don’t come together. That is true for many pols on both sides. Because they benefit.

[quote] Also [R15], I’m gay and 27.

No, you're not.

I am with r6. I support all of those things, including reparations for black people.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

OP is a fat, ugly DIVISIVE cunt troll, really really obese enough, so don't feed her.

The far left is full of racists! Why? Because they hate that a white liberal had more votes than their dirty Russian money sponsored working class hero with 3 lake houses and a million in the bank and was snubbed by black people.

Your logic does not seem impeccable r38

R36 and reparations for Native Americans beyond the poorly funded reservations and the flash of a casino. I'm not saying that reparations will completely wipe the slate clean but I think it'd be an important step towards progress, and would be a formal and public acknowledgement of the injustices perpetrated against Black and Native people.

At the end of the day, if we have enough money for an endless stream of tactical equipment for the military, so much that they donate their old stuff to local police departments turning communities into war zones, then we have enough to pay for a strengthened social net. The DoD gets like a trillion dollars a year, and that's just the money that they report! Who knows what extrajudicial funding is hidden from the American people.

I think it's easy to get caught up in labels like conservative, socialist, neolib, etc. Most people don't even know what those words actually describe, much less identify as one of them.

I'm a proud, longtime democratic socialist who votes progressive in primary elections and votes blue-no-matter-who in general elections.

Socialism is most definitely a distorted boogeyman on datalounge, OP. Many posters here believe in the most tired, deceptive republican talking points and they would be republicans if republicans didn't hate gay men. Most of them don't even understand what socialism is. They see national economies as either Socialist or Capitalist, in a binary, mutually exclusive way and are unwilling to or incapable of seeing things as varying along a continuum.

They find the values of democrats under 40 as terrifying. There are exceptions to the eldergay DL stereotype. But nothing can be done to evolve the others. If they didn't want us in their beds so badly, they would probably wish us all dead.

You know, R41, I’m open to hearing “what socialism is”. But your post just criticizing others.

I have read Marx and Engels, am familiar with NordicDemocratic Socialism, and probably agree with most social programs you do. I am 25 years out of college and things may have changed. I think what Bernie/AOC calls socialism to be misnomer, and hinders progress.

So what is socialism to you? Reactions like calling me Republican or Boomer just tell me you are a troll and unknowledgable on the subject. I’m interested because I share most of the goals of Bernie, but the Socialist label is a tactically stupid, it hands the Repukes a talking point. Is the goal to win, or just feel smart.

I do have to agree somewhat with r42. Democrats under 40 is about as meaningful as Democrats over 40. What the hell are you talking about and why does it matter? Let's cut through nonsense about this or that irrelevant politician or celebrity and ask, what exactly do we want Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi to do in the next two years. I say, strengthen Obamacare, the only actual existing program rather than some fantasy perfect healthcare program. I would like to see some serious rise in the minimum wage. And also, if at all possible, some movement toward some kind of universal basic income, though that will get, and probably should get, some big debate.

Some animals are more fabulous than others...

Card carrying Democratic Socialists of America member for many, many years. But 50 years ago in college at a university protest organizing meeting I I saw the Maoists and the Trotskyites bitterly arguing with each other and had the realization, "nah, there's never gonna be a Revolution..."

And while my politics and hopes are firmly socialist, I am a realist... understand that it's onanistic to pretend the two party system doesn't need to be used for "the People's Cause".... i.e I've no patience for those voting 3rd party in 2016. We have right wing catholic reactionary Supreme Court justices who are going to fuck up the lives of poor people for the rest of our lives.

yeah, I get that, r45, the left loves nothing more than arguing with itself about the stupidest most picayune issues. The Right, just powers through, stupid and eyes on the stupid prize, but they do power through sometimes. The Left has to figure out how to get something done occasionally instead of arguing everything to death.

R46 Precisely.

The Left: cultivating exacting "purity tests"

The Right: cultivating messaging that allows them to grab power

R45

So, you would rather throw your lot with the trans contingent, that wants gay erasure, and the Islamic community which demands death to queers, than try to understand why gay people are beginning to embrace Classical Liberal ideals?

When liberals want to burn books like Abigail Shrier’s anti-trans research book, and the ACLU supports the book burning..? . Liberals aren’t. They are the new Puritans of wokeness. .

And now you are doing it r48. Pretending your crusade against Trans and Muslims is the most important issue in the world, it ain't. We need to start with deciding that massive income inequality and constant serve the rich politics is not good enough and work from there.

Someone says "socialist" and we get posts about reparations and trans etc. The ignorance of the American people ffs.

Socialist politics are class-based. The DSA and such are electoralists and reformists only, Ocasio and Sanders are better than most but puh-leeze don't think they represent any real "way forward". Never mind the bullshit ideas about what "socialist" means you see above.

Only in America would “Socialist” be considered an insult.

Usually used by the same people who talk about “Red China”.

Dumb fucks stuck in the sixties.

[quote] Only in America would “Socialist” be considered an insult.

Completely false. The prime minister wasn't too happy of Bernie Sanders referring to Denmark as socialist and he publicly responded saying "Bernie Sanders, we are not a socialist country".

I'm from a country with plenty of "socialist" programs in place and we're just bemused by how Americans continually argue against their own interests, against things that would make their lives so much better. It's weird. It feels like what happened was people all of sudden sounded silly going on about communists after the fall of the Wall, and so now they are trying to put the same fear into the word socialism. And people eat it up!

It reminds me of some woman I saw once acting like she was so clever in sticking it to the environmental people. During Earth Day where people turned their lights off early, she lit the whole house up because she was going to show those hippies!

Thing is, the only one paying for her elevated electricity bill was going to be her. This is the level of idiocy so many people have sunk to. And those in power are just laughing at you doing their work for them.

This place is filled with brainwashed self-censored dickheads who think they are so righteous, and think anyone who doesn't agree with them is a russian troll.

Example, Trump didn't start a new war in the past four year and you think it is a good thing!? Go eat shit and die you russian troll.

OP do you mean democratic socialists or socialists or both?

OP, you're a deplorable and therefore a homophobe if you use that acronym instead of just saying gay.

R49, it very much is. The lives of gay people matter more than the lives of homophobes. You are a reactionary if you disagree.

[quote] The whole socialist bogeyman is so tired. Modern economies have various levels of social and economic engineering to both increase human capital and to prevent people from becoming so disgruntled that they are a threat to social cohesion.

Including and especially the national kind.

Nationalize everything. Ban the private sector.

Trotsky deserved to be shot.

Stalin did absolutely nothing wrong allying with Hitler. Stalin did nothing wrong PERIOD! Hail Stalin!

Ukranian nationalism is racism.

The so-called "victims" of communism were nothing but fascist troublemakers who needed to be eliminated for the good of the revolution. There's nothing wrong with killing fascists.

How low will the deplorables stoop in projecting their own racism onto Karl Marx?

It always amuses me when right wingers in the United States describe the UK's NHS as an example of socialised medicine, yet socialists in the UK attack it for being a privatised cash making machine for shareholders.

I work for the NHS - it can do amazing things even though it is often ridiculously inefficient. Some of the decisions to tender out services to private companies was very badly done, but some services commissioned from outside agencies (e.g. HIV testing to charities) works very well. There's also the issue of highly specialist services being run by one organisation which other parts of the country refer their patients to (e.g. the infamous Tavistock gender service based in London seeing kids from all across England and Wales)

Earlier this year I paid for my mum to have knee replacement surgery performed privately. The waiting list for the NHS is 18 months, she was in agony, and from her first consultation with the surgeon to the operation, it took 2 months. Elective surgery ground to a halt under Covid, and waiting lists for knee surgery (my mum needs her other knee replaced) is now 3 years. The only way waiting lists are going to be reduced is if the NHS works with the private sector an utilises its expertise and efficiency to clear the backlog. But that will be politically unpalatable for socialists.

The Corbyn lot want to ban private healthcare. They also want the state to manufacture pharmaceuticals and have the state do its own vaccine research. Many in Corbyn's Labour Party also wanted to end private education and selective education, despite many leading figures choosing to educate their own children outside of the state system.

Corbyn is a racist. Theodore Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, was a socialist. If Zionism is racist, then socialism is racist, too.

R65 I understand there's waits with that system, but why blame the set up, thinking private would alleviate that? We have long ass waiting here too, but with shitty care. It can take a decade for a diagnosis if you keep seeing subpar doctors, you pay to see. That's with paying your own way.

I believe in a mix. Like Medicare offers -- you still can go private (even though private doesn't always mean top care.) With the US system, they can kick you out of the hospital if insurance isn't a high enough payer (just booted my father after 3 strokes. They say he can do his own therapy. He has a top insurance company too...)

It takes months to get into any specialist, and you better hope it's not one of the 9/10 that just collect and pass you off to the next guy, at your 15 min appointment.

Western medicine is woo.

Why are r35 / r37 so triggered by me? They’re reacting to me like they would a black person kneeling for the anthem or a trans person existing

Also, the only defense neoliberals have for their empty political platitudes is to call you a Russian troll, to hide the fact that they’re capitalist racists just like Republicans.

R37 is right and this is why:

I'm 1/16th NA. I'll take a check!

[quote][R65] I understand there's waits with that system, but why blame the set up, thinking private would alleviate that? We have long ass waiting here too, but with shitty care. It can take a decade for a diagnosis if you keep seeing subpar doctors, you pay to see. That's with paying your own way.

People are waiting in constant pain and agony, which affects their mental health and other physical health - my mum couldn't walk far which meant she was putting on weight, she wasn't exercising etc. That she could afford to go private is one thing, but self styled socialists in the UK wanting to ban private healthcare because it's unfair that some can pay to jump the queue and others can't is one of the reasons why "socialism" has such a bad name.

Incidentally the surgeon who operated on her works for both the NHS and private healthcare.

It's also worth noting that the socialists in the UK repeatedly attack the last Labour government for being neoliberals despite the biggest investment in the NHS in history, highest levels of patient satisfaction ever, shortest waiting times.

Capitalists will eventually bring about the revolution of the proletariat. It is inevitable. And when you have a giant tottering fatberg of a billionaire for president, the times are gettin’ ripe.

No "pure" system works. Regulated capitalism is best. The problem is in America, the regulations have been falling away since the "Regan Revolution."

I don't want a socialist/communist state, but having the to 1% holding 90% of wealth is not a good thing for the USA and, in the long run, not good for the wealthy. That's fuel for the socialists, and a strong middle class benefits society as a whole.

R41 you are pretty accurate. I voted Republican before I came out and then have only voted for the Democrat candidates every time. I wouldn't vote for Bernie in the primaries ever but would if he was the nominee. If the Republicans just weren't hell bent on loading the Supreme Court with anti-gay judges. My politics are pretty moderate. Liberal on social issues and the economy but foreign policy I'm probably in the Ronald Reagan/Dick Cheney vein. I was against the Iraq war, it only made Iran stronger. I am pro Israel but I am also pro Palestine and believe Israel should stop building in the West Bank. I would make a deal with Iran only if they accepted Israel.

Democrats used to run on giving people expanded health care, better education opportunities, higher wages, and higher standard of living. Now centrist Democrats literally run against giving people those things. I don't know how they get elected at all. They barely do, most of the time.

There was a time (pre-Gov Reagan) when California's higher education system was tuition free, I believe based on grade point average. It cost slightly more the lower your grades were, but was still extremely inexpensive. It was a successful system created by Republicans, mostly. More Californians were educated, didn't have big loans to pay off, and they found jobs in the burgeoning So Cal industries of the time, as well as in health care, entertainment, arts, and numerous other endeavors. A well educated populace is a boon to a nation. If you want to lead the world in anything, you need people to be educated. You also need them to be healthy. Going back to Harry Truman you had Presidents advocating for national health care, free clinics, etc. Health care shouldn't be a business, that prevents millions from getting care. Most other countries realize this. The US is a backward country at this point.

R78 California public schools, k-12, were the best in the world. Years and years of underfunding the schools (and here any reactionary would object and assert, incorrectly, that schools are funded at the same levels), and especially Prop 13, irrevocably damaged the system.

So now it's only communities of affluence who still have good schools. Those communities have students who test on the level of any in the world... Finland's examples etc.

Monetary and cultural capital passed from one generation to another confer privilege, assure inequality of opportunity. Hence socialist solutions that are studies and proposed.

Related - the economies that currently are growing fastest are "centrally managed" - China and India and Germany. American economic performance for the last 40 years has gifted the affluent with more affluence, and convinced those not accessing the same advantages to vote against their own interest.

How do you fight against fascism? Make sure everyone has a good job. Make sure everyone is taken care of, has health care, a good education, hope, rather than despair. Corporate America gives you despair. Outsourcing. Decimated communities. When you create hopelessness, through lack of economic opportunity, you open the door for the demagogues. Look at what has happened during this crisis. An enormous upward transfer of wealth. And almost no economic help for the majority of Americans, Japan, Norway, Italy, France, etc. have been paying people their wages when their businesses close. Some are paying 80%, 90%, or100%. If what they have is socialism, I'm for it.

R55

Democratic socialist is just authoritarian socialist with better branding. I believe that socialists should be forcibly removed from polite society.

Stick them in the middle of the desert and let them try to use socialist methods to grow food and survive. 99% of them would reject Socialism immediately, only the idiots would actually believe that socialists can grow food.

Socialist here - as practiced in the highly-functioning economies of Scandinavia. A strong social safety-net, good health benefits, good policies around work leave, free higher education, etc. It's a disgrace that a country as wealthy as the US doesn't have these things, and that 75% of the wealth of the country owned by 1% of the population, who will not willingly part with a penny to do any of these things for the social good. .

[quote] Socialist here - as practiced in the highly-functioning economies of Scandinavia.

Again....that's not socialism. At all. Scandinavia is extremely capitalist with social programs. That's not socialism by any means. And for what it's worth, Swedend and Denmark have more extreme wealth inequality than America does. You don't here that mentioned often. The middle class are taxed wayyyyyy more in these countries than the one in America is. Most middle class Americans would not settle for those tax rates. I am for better social programs but we don't need Scandinavian level taxes.

[quote] No "pure" system works. Regulated capitalism is best. The problem is in America, the regulations have been falling away since the "Regan Revolution."

Agreed--the solution isn't socialism, it's regulated capitalism. Both the far left and the right are so insular and stupid about this. I wonder what would have happened if Carter won a second term and Reagan never won. How different would this country be? We would have been more in-line with other western European countries.

A definition of what socialism would be helpful at this point.

It's clear many people who identify as socialists don't agree on the definition.

The 100 million people murdered by a socialist governments during the 20th century would like to have a word with the OP.

R85, there's only one definition....and it's not "Scandinavia"

[quote] a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

I had a brief for fetish for radical left guys. Ran an ad on CL looking for Marxists/Maoists to make me their bitch for being a capitalist running dog. Ended up getting pissed on by a guy in a Che T-shirt while he sang “Socialism is Good”. Looked a lot like the guy in the video. He was a grad student at U of Chicago.

Capitalism vs Socialism

Democratic Socialism vs. Communism

R89 I think another thing that gets messed up is the fact that there is no "classic capitalism" in the way it's been described. Crony capitalism. Corporate capitalism. Oligarchical capitalism. Financial sector hegemonic capitalism.

Because classic capitalism is no longer possible, and unfettered modern capitalism really is poisonously destructive, then new hybrid forms of socialism (not classic totalitarian socialism with dictatorship of the masses etc.) is needed.

Adam Smith and Marx are neither adequate to the modern purposes.

How many of those people were murdered by Nordic countries, R86?

Nordic countries aren't "socialist" so that's irrelevant.

R93 You are playing games... to dissemble and confuse. The Nordic countries are exactly 21st century socialism.

Democratic socialism is what's proposed as the solution to corrupt crony capitalism ("real" capitalism no longer is remotely possible).. Folks, don't be confused. Don't let the trolls muddy the waters.

R94, no, you're the one playing games. Nordic countries are CAPITALIST. If there were socialist, why do nordic countries have higher levels of wealth inequality than America? I am all for the public option in heatlhcare, poverty reduction, more equitable education spending. Those things don't go against capitalism.

I don't have any debt from my undergraduate degree at all. And if I get sick., I won't go bankrupt from the hospital stay. In fact, we're more or less on top of COVID over here right now.

Enjoy your freedoms, Americans.

Capitalism: Share nothing

Communism: Share poverty

Socialism: Share wealth

I first thought this thread title was SOCIALITES of Datalounge. Which, to be honest, would be a topic of greater interest and a lot more fun.

R15 - honey if his wife saw that she would be relieved to FINALLY be able to prove to everyone that he really is the phoney she has been telling them he is for years.

I GUARANTEE that every closeted married "conservative" who comes to this site has a wife who knows damn well he is full of shit and probably only stays with the deluded asshole due to peer pressure.

OP trying to blame liberals for hating gays and minorities. Fight the real enemy, dumbass

Anyone who has not been financially successful wants socialism. The left are full of two types of people. The ones that are very successful but guilty and the ones less fortunately who wants the government to take care of them. If we go that route we will be in a steady decline.

One thing I’ve learned is that the meaning of socialism is whatever one wants it to be.

[quote] One thing I’ve learned is that the meaning of socialism is whatever one wants it to be.

Yup.

Far-left: "Everything I want and love is socialist!"

Republicans: "Everything I hate is socialist!."

Poor, stupid people are envious, even the multi millionaires. They aren’t billionaires, so they feel slighted.

Socialism is always a disaster for the poor and the wealthy.

And rich stupid people are greedy and oblivious and laboring under the idiotic belief that they actually earn the money showered on them for generally trivial or often criminal reasons.

It's a dilemma. I say generally keep capitalism but skim off the top and redistribute as much as is feasible.

If there were a bill that: *builds a wall and cancels all immigration *establishes Medicare for all *raises the minimum wage to $15/hour

I would get off my fat ass and campaign for that bill. I don’t think Soviet-style communism would ever work, but better benefits for Americans? IMO, Doable if we shore up the border. Open border policies are the most anti-worker policies, and the biggest give-away to the ultra-wealthy in American policy today. They just hide it under “embracing multiculturalism.” In reality they couldn’t care less about multiculturalism and just want cheap servants.

I think we should have open borders between the US, Canada and Mexico. Border walls are so stupid, and I don't think Mexican people (because border wall never refers to Canadians) really care about moving to the US that much. If people in Mexico were majority white and spoke English border security would never be discussed.

I'm for health care and food and housing.

All Republicans are socialists.

There is not one, Republican candidate who proposes ending the military, Social Security, U.S. highways, the U.S. Post Office or hundreds of other socialist programs.

Enough with the Fake News already.

“ I don't think Mexican people (because border wall never refers to Canadians) really care about moving to the US that much. ”

R107, I think you are right. We hardly have any Mexican immigrants.

[quote]Socialist here - as practiced in the highly-functioning economies of Scandinavia.

No Scandinavian country has ever been socialist. all have a free market economy - capitalism.

It's absolutely no surprise that the lazy deadbeat dad, who stole power from his neighbors dreamed up some utopian socialist government where he would get everything for free. It's also quite an irony that that same person ended up being a millionaire with 3 lake houses who repeatedly voted in favor of the gun lobby that got him into congress in the first place.

Wannabe socialists are the biggest fucking hypocrites on this planet!

Maybe Mexicans are trying to pass through to get to Canada. Who wants to live in the overpopulated land of guns and supersized hamburgers when you can live in a place with legal weed and national healthcare?

r111 and others. It is true that I didn't write precisely The systems of Scandinavian countries are FAR from capitalist, but they are not properly speaking, socialist either. The Scandinavians practice hybrid economies which have been called social democracies.

"While Scandinavia might not be democratic socialist in the precise sense of the term, the experience of these nations in soothing the worst pains of capitalism can still serve as an example to other countries that want to keep a market system while improving the lives of their populations. While it might not be possible to completely copy their systems and implement them elsewhere, their example of how to balance capitalism with social reforms will continue to inspire people all over the world."

Capitalism was an experiment. The U.S.A. is an experiment in Capitalism. Guess what? It's not working! We need income from the bottom, going up! Not the reverse trickle down economy. The United States of America and its citizens are less free than most European nations and criminals have more rights than their victims. There is zero need for anyone to become a billionaire here because they simply hoard their money. (In place of those shows featuring mental illness, we need to display the harmful effects of those who hoard money!).

Yet, Americans wonder why we have the highest Covid levels than any other advanced countries. Why can't citizens realize and accept, that in fact, we are NOT an advanced country. We have the best medicine, and yes, it's the most expensive. Why can't the U.S.A. get their shit together? Well, we pay up our ass on the military so that no other country needs one.

Also, guess which states depend on military funding the most? Hmmm....perhaps those southern states that support the GOP and DUMP!

I am a DEMOCRATIC socialist. If you do not know the difference OP, educate yourself - look it up.

Social democracies don't have socialist economy either, but rather a free market economy which is capitalism.

Now for those idiots on the left:

You can do capitalism wrong - USA, and you can do it right - Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Canada, Australia etc.

That still doesn't mean social democracies are socialist.

Democratic Socialists on the other hand don't believe in a free market economy, they don't believe the means of production should be in the private sector.

A question on the redistribution of wealth.

You have a cleaner and a surgeon working in the same hospital. The cleaner earns £25k a year, the surgeon earns £100k a year.

With a progressive tax system that adheres to socialist principles, how much money should they take home after tax?

Bourgeois amateurs! You're going about this all the wrong way!

We first make a list of who we shoot.

Part of the problem with political discussion on DL is the refusal by many regulars to believe in the existence of trolls. A vast majority of the "socialism is evil red communism" posts are from trolls who don't believe what they say; they're trolls, they don't believe anything.

DLers are far too trusting and accept what others say about themselves as truth. The other day, there was a guy pretending to be a Christian mom who was anti-lockdown because it would ruin Christmas for her kids, but he'd also posted threads about his Grindr hookups. One of his threads was a rant against AOC. I'm sure many here -- especially the OP -- would have thought he was a "neolib gay Boomer" but he's probably not, he's just some guy posting bullshit to get a reaction.

I know I'm coming in late on this, but it really does get my hackles up when the regulars of DL get painted as being awful because of what the trolls have been doing.

Socialist here. and longtime DLer. I'm in my 50s and a city dweller, and I've moved around a lot; I sense a lot of sheltered small-mindedness here from people who don't interact with or know many people outside of their own experience or race/class or geographic area. Very conformist, and fearful of difference. It's so strange coming from supposed gay people.

Then there are the more typical gays here like many I know, who are extremely classist, aspirational, materialistic, and absolutely hateful towards anyone poor or working class. They're rabid bootstrappers and social climbers.

Within both of these groups you'll find a lot of racists and transphobes, unsurprisingly.

I get mistaken here for a "millennial" (aka a young Gen Z person), usually when I post about Medicare for All or the GND. I've also been assumed to be black when defending BLM, and "anitifa" for posting in defense of the right to political protest while condemning cops using teargas on protestors. I mean, I am antifa of course, but this person addressed me like a red-faced Jean Pirro and told me 'you need to learn peaceful protest and stop looting."

Honestly, sometimes when I'm here I feel like I'm in a time warp. It's very surreal to read staunch bootstrapping porn, let alone actual right wing talking points, from my LGBTQ+ peers. Just watch what my use of that acronym does to them. It's unreal.

R120 = Dimitri troll

[quote]You have a cleaner and a surgeon working in the same hospital. The cleaner earns £25k a year, the surgeon earns £100k a year. With a progressive tax system that adheres to socialist principles, how much money should they take home after tax?

Are you from the UK? I am not, but aren't those two incomes already taxed differently?

There's not an exact number that "socialist principles" would dictate. Progressive taxation addresses the inequality of a person whose wages are a literal fraction of another person's, and that they should not have to pay the same percentage of their wages in taxes, because on a much smaller income, that percentage would be too great of a financial strain for that worker making so little in comparison to the other.

Also, progressive taxation doesn't tax the entire income at the same rate; both workers would pay the same amount in taxes on the first £25k that they earn. The person making more would progress through higher tax brackets for each additional amount of income. The 100k earner would continue to pay the same tax rates as a person earning any other amount at each point; so at 50k he would match a 50k earner in taxes paid, at 75k he'd be on par with a 75k earner, etc.

Yep. Socialist here. Of the traditional Scandinavian type. Don’t mind high taxation when it goes to creating an equal, functioning, progressive society with a high standard of living - as opposed to funding tax breaks for the rich / military spending etc.

I want to live in a culture with universal healthcare where no one dies of poverty, where schools and infrastructure are good. It elevates all to live in that environment and also lowers crime, violence, homelessness, corruption etc.

Unfortunately, the Left has been hijacked by Identity Politics these days. Which is an anathema, as it’s all about self, rather than seeing yourself as part of a whole.

I’ve lived and travelled all around the world and socialist democracies have the highest standards of living in every meaningful sense.

I'm r120 and I don't know what the Dmitri Troll is, R122. Explain?

Again, R121, a lot of that "stop looting" stuff you're talking about is from trolls, not DL regulars.

There are some rightwing gays here of course, but I found the people who would go on at length about "BLM are looters" were hitting a TON of old rightwing talking points, yet you'd never see them in a celebrity, gossip, or gay thread. Only political threads.

No matter how many times you claim this to be true R124, Scandinavian countries are not and never have been socialist.

Full-blown socialism works in a country the size of Vermont, but for our country, it would be cost prohibitive. I know some of you say you wouldn't mind paying more in taxes, but do you really want 65% less in your take home wages? How on earth would you live?

You all can have your socialism after I die. I've worked too long and hard under the present system and finally reaping the financial payoff for doing so. I don't want to pay 70% tax rate to give illegals free shit.

[quote]Wannabe socialists are the biggest fucking hypocrites on this planet!

Have you ever heard of the Religious Right? You might be surprised.

I don't understand why a segment of the left is so attached to the "democratic socialist" label when most of them are not socialists, many don't seem to understand what socialism is (see the constant reference to Nordic countries), and there's a perfectly lovely and ACCURATE term to describe their position: social democrat. This is made all the more irritating by their insistence on using the term "liberal" as the center-right position it is understood to be in Europe, as opposed to actual American usage "liberal = left wing of Democratic Party, the sort of people centrists are always bashing." So they spend all this time bashing liberals who are basically the same grumpy insurgents, just older. I guess demonizing liberals makes it easier to ignore the numerous "we tried that, here's what happened" lessons that could be offered.

If someone is a proper democratic socialist, I think I have more contempt for the "democratic" part than the socialism. As if capital is giving this shit up without a proper non-electoral fight.

[quote]I don't want to pay 70% tax rate to give illegals free shit.

It's not about giving illegals free shit. How can you be so selfishly racist?!

It's about assisting Israeli 'new territory' settlers with free shit.

Raising taxes would be less of a concern if we would just tax the damn freeloading churches and all of the billion dollar companies who somehow pay $0 in taxes. It's like ExxonMobil telling me to watch my carbon footprint.

[quote] You can do capitalism wrong - USA, and you can do it right - Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Canada, Australia etc.

Thank you. But few people on here will read your post. You nailed it though. ALL these countries are capitalist, they just do it in different ways. I don't see why America can't at least move towards a more Canadian or Australian model.

Pinochet had the best solution.

If capitalism is so great , then why does it have to be bailed out by socialism every ten years?

Sounds good R24.

Giving banks and corporations loans at high interest rates isn't socialism.

There is someone on here who keeps denouncing the label "socialist" as applied to Scandinavia. I agree that it is not a precise term for the economic systems there. HOWEVER - the things that Scandinavian countries do for their citizens are EXACTLY those things denounced by every Republican election brochure printed in the US as socialist. (Universal health care, low or no-cost higher education, day care, health leave, etc). If social democracy is the correct term for what most of us say we want, are you prepared to denounce all the Republicans who (incorrectly) label such wants as socialist?

[quote]If social democracy is the correct term for what most of us say we want, are you prepared to denounce all the Republicans who (incorrectly) label such wants as socialist?

That's an interesting statement. It's actually the far leftists who falsely claim such economic system to be socialism. Then the far right picks it up and scares moderate voters away from democrats.

Perfect example of a symbiotic relationship between two extremest political groups and how they collaborate to weaken their enemy.

And you R140 are the perfect example of a divide and conquer mindset that sows division on the left so the right wing -- the true heroes of rabid, boot-licking centrists -- can swoop in and claim victory yet again,

The proof is in the pudding.

r100, liberals stand by while the right decimates our rights and treats anybody less than pale white like trash. Sounds like Datalounge to me!

[quote]The proof is in the pudding.

The proof of Norway's success as a socialist nation is that they've elected a centre right government for the last 2 elections.

Universal healthcare that is free at the point of delivery is not a socialist principle, at least not in Europe.

As I've posted previously, universal free healthcare is not enough for British socialists, they want to ban private healthcare being offered by nationalising all private healthcare providers.

R144

Private healthcare (excluding non-essential care like cosmetic surgery) along with most types of private educational institutions for children/minors should be banned and absorbed into public systems.

The health and childhood education of citizens shouldn't be the plaything of rich assholes to hoard for the benefit of themselves and their own vile crotchfruit.

"Universal healthcare that is free at the point of delivery is not a socialist principle, at least not in Europe."

So, once something socialist becomes popularly accepted, then it's no longer a socialist principle? Therefore, in your eyes, only unpopular principles can be considered socialist? And you don't see what's problematic with this logic???????????

[quote]So, once something socialist becomes popularly accepted, then it's no longer a socialist principle? Therefore, in your eyes, only unpopular principles can be considered socialist? And you don't see what's problematic with this logic???????????

Universal healthcare that is free at the point of delivery is not a socialist principle.

Universal healthcare that is free at the point of delivery, provided only by state run organisations with no private enterprise or arms length healthcare provision (e.g. British GP surgeries) is a socialist principle.

[quote]Private healthcare (excluding non-essential care like cosmetic surgery) along with most types of private educational institutions for children/minors should be banned and absorbed into public systems.

Universal free education: not a socialist concept

Universal education where the state controls all aspects and no private provision is permitted: a socialist concept

Personally I'm a liberal social democrat who isn't keep on the private school system and the entitlement it produces (Boris Johnson, Jameela Jamil, Laurence Fox, Grace Blakeley to name but a few) but provided organisations are registered, regulated, pay taxes and meet community requirements etc, then they should be allowed to function alongside the state system.

7-8% of children in Britain attend fee paying schools, it would be a huge pressure on the state to absorb them into the mainstream state education system. Banning fee paying schools isn't the answer, but putting restrictions on the numbers of privately educated students at universities could be.

What R6 said

Norway has never been socialist.

[quote]Universal free education: not a socialist concept

And of course it's not a capitalist concept either. I think we might all be talking past each other a little bit here. Capitalism roughly refers to individual contracts and buying and selling in a free market, even though of course it's so much more than that. "Socialism" is more about joining together and providing things for everybody, even if they can't afford it individually, and again, even though it's so much more than that and has a specific definition involving ownership of the means of production.

And even when it comes to "private enterprise" there so much more entanglement with government than "capitalists" want to admit. How many Fortune 500 companies have this little deal or that little subsidy or that special exemption or above all that government contract at the heart of their business? Even leaving defense contractors aside, pharmaceuticals, banks, airlines, the whole damn thing with internet companies -- how many companies depend on government handouts or research or even government creating something and handing it over to "private enterprise" to make all the money once it's up and running.

Half my family is Canadian or Brit when I ask them if they wish to exchange their health care for mine "the best healthcare system in the world" aka American...they laugh. You have no clothes R144.

[quote]Half my family is Canadian or Brit when I ask them if they wish to exchange their health care for mine "the best healthcare system in the world" aka American...they laugh. You have no clothes [R144].

I don't understand your point?

I'm British, and as I've posted earlier there are issues with the NHS, especially around waiting lists and general efficiency, but it mostly works well. I agree with the principle of healthcare that is free at the p9oint of delivery, something the majority of European countries also do.

And I'll say it again, universal healthcare is no more a socialist idea than free education for children. It's a principle that has been embraced by most developed democracies that have mixed economies. The US is an aberration when it comes to universal healthcare and no one in Europe looks at provision there and thinks its system to aspire to.

My criticism of socialism, as highlighted in the story I attached, is that self identified British socialists aren't happy with universal healthcare, they want to go further and restrict profit making companies or any private companies from providing any services. They want state owned pharmaceutical companies to create drugs and manufacture drugs. They see no role for anyone other than the state, they're as dogmatic as the Republicans.

Below is a quote from Jeremy Corbyn from 4 years ago

[quote]‘I hope Owen Smith will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’

Social democrats (like me!) are people who think that certain functions and aspects of society should be socialized, but don't agree that we should go so far as to have workers controlling the means of production (the bedrock principle of socialism). It really is that simple. America is full of people who have a knee-jerk "socialism is evil!" response, but they love their Medicare. Sometimes it is a good idea to explain to those people what "socialized" means, but I don't think the people on this thread are confused about that. So, yes, definitely talking past each other.

Capitalism: People support the economy.

Socialism: Economy supports the people.

R152 Do you work for Pfizer? Because it sounds as if you a shilling for mega pharma. In which case you are garbage.

[quote][R152] Do you work for Pfizer? Because it sounds as if you a shilling for mega pharma. In which case you are garbage.

No, me not a garbage shilling for mega pharma.

Me work for the NHS, and me appreciate the private companies who invest in research to create vaccines to stop people getting deadly viruses, drugs that help people recover from deadly viruses, ventilators that keep people alive when they have deadly viruses, mattresses where people with deadly viruses can lay largely immobile without their skin breaking down and saliva and blood tests which can tell quickly if someone is infected with a deadly virus or whether they have had a deadly virus.

Me glad that there are privately run profit making businesses who invest in research and development and pay scientists and inventors and give them freedom to fail. Me believe it would be disastrous if private companies were not allowed to do this and everything was controlled by the public sector. Me also believe that these private businesses be taxed, regulated, adhere to employment regulations on sick pay, annual leave etc and pay tax on dividends to shareholders when profits are made.

Me believe in free universal healthcare, a strong economy that generates taxes to invest in universal health care and more collaborative working between public and private sectors.

Me believe that it's not a capitalism v socialism question, me believe it's mixed.

[quote] it sounds as if you a shilling for mega pharma. In which case you are garbage.

You have an unreal idea of how the world works. Not surprising though.

^ Me Tarzan .You Shill.

Capitalism - democratic countries

Socialism - dictatorships

R152, Corbyn doesn't argue for banning private medicine in that quote. He argues that state-provided, taxpayer funded NHS services should not be subcontracted to private companies, which is a very different thing (for example, the standards of cleanliness in NHS hospitals declined significantly following these services being contracted out). See also the expensive white elephants created by 'public-private partnership' during the Blair years.

Extreme neoliberal austerity and neoliberal capitalism in the UK has been responsible for Brexit. A society where one adult has one vote always endangers itself when it starts down the path of permanently impoverishing large sections of its population (a process begun by Thatcher when she destroyed entire industries in the English regions, and accomplished by Cameron when he took away the benefits people in those towns were subsisting on). The vote against Europe was just as much a vote against London and people from London: and now the UK is on the point of ceasing to exist as a state.

(You can blame Trump on this too).

The Iron Crumpet.