“There is hard data that shows that a centrist Democrat would be a losing candidate
Economist Thomas Piketty wrote a paper about this in 2018, though the Democrats paid no attention” Salon video of Hickenlooper and John Delaney getting booed at the California Democratic Convention in San Francisco on The Rational National (Progressive youtube channel)
I think the point we all understand is that this is not necessarily an epistemic debate; we have to make arguments in very basic and common sense terms. There’s old footage of Huey Long using the analogy of inviting 100 people to a barbecue and having one man taking the grub that was meant for everyone else. We need to use that kind of language - basic illustrations of fundamental fairness that everyone can understand.
It is not fair, it is not right, it is not even really capitalist to have a handful of people taking the fruits of production. What good is an 15-20 trillion dollar GDP if the top 1% take more than half of the profits?
I’ve occasionally turned over the question of terminology in the British context, bearing in mind the Thatcherite shift in (assumed) general attitudes and concepts.
What might work here, rather than “private” vs. “public”, is “community” vs. “commercial”, on the argument that, for some activities and services, the moral imperative is the common good rather than individual profit (and even more so, rent-seeking or asset-stripping). The question then is, what things are sufficiently different in kind to be “services” rather than “products”.
The thing here is that as I see it, the left/Democrat/etc… side wants the workers to have their cake and eat it too.
If a worker is being paid to perform his job faithfully and well, regardless of the company’s profit and loss, it seems a bit extreme for him to also expect a cut of the profits if there are any, without also absorbing a cut of the losses if there are any.
Basically the thinking seems to be “Hey capitalist owner, if the company’s losing money, that’s YOUR problem- pay us our wages!” when things are bad, and “Hey capitalist owner, pay us more because we added that value and you’re taking it all!” when things are good.
I’m not saying profit sharing is a bad thing necessarily, but it shouldn’t be an expectation of all businesses.
The profit sharing should really come in the form of fairer taxation of the wealthy. It’s the tax structure that enables so much of the corruption an inequality in our society. Just making the rich pay more and then putting that money back into the public sector would be a huge step forward. We could upgrade infrastructure that way, pay higher salaries for teachers, hire more civil servants, etc, all of which would give the broader economy a stronger backbone.
Moving in the direction of European style socialized capitalism is probably one step too far for a majority of Americans, and I’m not entirely sold on the idea myself. Medicare for all would sell, IMO - I’d vote for that, and it’s hardly Overton Window stuff as we already have the system and bureaucracy in place. But $15-20 minimum wages and free college just seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Part of the problem with a term like “Democratic Socialist” is that people don’t properly see it as a two-word noun, but rather as an adjective-noun pairing. And said confusion is compounded given that many of the advocates for “Democratic Socialism”, albeit not its most prominent one, are members of the Democratic party so people think that such folk are just Socialists that are Democrats too. Way to wreck the brand, guys. And it gets really hard, if not impossible, to correct such misperceptions when you have people actively engaged in reinforcing them.
Here’s a wild idea. Instead of engaging in hair-splitting nomenclature analysis, just tell us what you’re for and tell folks to call it “Fred” for all you care.
They absorb it even more when they get public benefits slashed in order to pay for billionaire tax cuts, or billionaire handouts once the banks torch the economy.
I’ll point out again that between 2007 and 2013, the mean net worth of the bottom 50% in this country went from $30,000 to about $11,000. That’s 1/2 of the country’s working age population going from having something in the bank for a rainy day to severe economic distress – that’s half of us, or it was in 2013.
The corporate persons are the ones who engaged in speculative investing or simply got over-leveraged are the ones who got bailed out. But if you were one of the millions of poor saps working for any of these firms or even working for a company that regularly dealt with them, you were shit outta luck.
Willfarnaby, that’s not how capitalism is even remotely supposed to work.
They definitely need some help with branding. Democratic socialism just seems cringe-worthy, and no matter how audacious and bold Democrats might think they are right now, that type of branding is going to get a lot more attention and it’s going to sound a lot scarier as we get closer to the election.
Talking about massive change and actually getting voters to knowingly vote for something that promises to be a major disruption in their lives are two totally different things.
The problem for those of us who would like to see Fox News removed from power is that all the quotes **Sam **notes can be easily weaponized against Democratic nominees and proposals, while Lurker’s argument (while true) is more nuanced and therefore a much tougher sell.
The did tell us in pretty detailed fashion in the above website, which got selectively quoted so as to misrepresent it.
I’m an odd proponent for socialism. I’m starting up a drug company based on my own invention right now. I expect to be personally compensated if this is successful. I also recognize that my invention is based on innumerable previous inventions and scientific discoveries which I had nothing to do with. They came from people whose socialist educations were funded by taxpayers. They came from people whose socialist commutes were on taxpayer funded infrastructure. Whose safety was ensured by policemen and firemen and was paid for by taxpayers. Whose country is defended by a taxpayer funded military. On the day I was born I inherited all of this, through no hard work of my own, and so did you.
The taxes I will pay are not a penalty on my success, they are a repayment of a debt for everything that I received in order to be a “success” and to ensure that someone else can do the same thing in the future. I want my share for what I add to that, and I want to pay back the debt that I owe the country. If that means I’m partially a socialist and partially a capitalist, that’s fine by me. If that means I’m “Fred”, I’m cool with that too.
We could have a genuine debate about his, as Obama tried to, but what we ended up with was a ridiculous GOP “you didn’t build that” night of their convention. So, yeah, one side is laying out what they actually want, and calling it “Fred” and the other side is just dishonestly yelling “Fred means Democrats are Marxists and are coming for your small business”.
So, wanted to post this YouTube video from America Uncensored that talks about socialism and the Nordic model as it’s kind of relevant to the OP, as well as relevant to demonstrating that when people talk about ‘socialism’ they basically want it to mean what they THINK it means, not what it actually means. Which is fine, but the problem is that if everyone is using the same term to mean different things then it’s kind of hard to figure out what the hell everyone actually means when they are using it. I don’t think the OP’s plan to rehabilitate the term is going to work very well, though according to the video the number of people who want to give ‘socialism’ a try (meaning social programs, and not actual socialism) in the US is now 4 in 10. Of course, what we actually get if we elect real socialists might come as a bit of a shock to the Bernie bros crowd if we are actually using different definitions.
Just wanted to say this is a great distillation of how liberal policies actually align with the entrepreneurial spirit – as opposed to the mantra from the right that liberalism is anti-capitalist.
Since you’ve returned to this thread, I take it you’re ignoring my questions to you? I tried to explain my position and asked you questions in good faith, after you dropped that seemingly misleading statistic in this thread. I’m hoping you can clarify what you meant.
You think absolute dollars spent is misleading. I don’t. There’s not much more to say about it. Look at military power. Does it make sense to talk about aircraft carrier/capita? No. Absolute numbers determine power.
Point is, if all government spending is so-called socialism, which I think is a silly argument to begin with, then might as well look at all government spending. It’s perfectly fine for you to disagree.
