it obviously has to be a mix between socialism and capitalism - just like most western countries currently are - you won't find a single one without 'socialist' elements.

obviously american late stage capitalism proves that strong 'socialist' elements are needed in some fields (healthcare, education, consumer and worker rights), while some more pure socialist experiments also failed horribly in the past.
i'd say northern and central europe (scandinavia, germany, netherlands, austria...) have found a decent balance, their people are on average very wealthy, free, educated, healthy, and happy.

for that reason, i think it's incredibly dishonest how corporate puppets in america fearmonger about 'socialism' on behalf of their owners, when realistically the politicians smeared as trying to drag the country into poverty are really only trying to stand up for the rights of average americans...

Ty buddy, I have my moments.

Ofc we have.

Thanks for your replies

So far by my count it's Yes (4) - No (1) - Unsure / Noncommittal (3)

Not unless you're a chromosome you don't.

thesnipa is a communist with a hammer and sickle. if you can believe it he's from a red state too.

This post was edited by excellence on Sep 23 2019 02:46pm

What is a socialist?

This topic reminds me of class where the professor asks one question and the students go on tagents for an hour

Agreed!



The thing is, the Democrats in the US are mostly advocating for horizontal redistribution. The bulk of the tax revenue necessary for programs like the green new deal or medicare for all would have to come from the middle class.
"We're gonna pay for it by taxing the shit out of the super rich" is a catchy campaign slogan, but it's dishonest because it just wouldnt work that easily.

The majority of the Democratic agenda would pit black/white/yellow/brown or rural/urban against each other and achieve improvement for one group at the expense of the other.


I mean, at the end of the day, one needs to look no further than fundraising to see where the parties are coming from. Republicans are typically funded by the real estate, agricultural, petrochemical and manufacturing industries, the Democrats by the financial, tech, entertainment and public sectors. Hillary had a 2:1 fundraising advantage over Trump in 2016, Beto had a 7:3 edge over Cruz in 2018, and so on.

If a party really pursued legislation which would be bad for the millionaires and billionaires, would they get billions in funding from Wall Street, Silicon Valley or Hollywood?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 23 2019 03:52pm

Socialist, not the pussy German kind though, the Pol Pot kind.