Democrats, please explain this...

[CelticBaller]

We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.


Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all radicalism to be dismissed as “Communist.”


In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.


We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor

What kind of commie shit is? These are the people you guys are voting for in your party :oldlol:

and I did not make this shit up btw( their website is also ironically has a red theme and refer other socialist as "comrades")

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

[BigKobeFan]

I once knew this Korean dude who was preaching that everyone should be working a job that they enjoy and be happy with. This was about 15 years ago. He was ahead of the times.

But its funny...he is from South Korea and he wants some dictator shit going on when he is free from it.

[highwhey]

sounds extremist.

then again, repubs on this site have posted some extremely racist shit. granted, the majority of them are virgins voicing out their sexual frustration by screaming anything they can to upset minorities. kind of like when racist cops have a fight with their wife so they go on the hunt to beat innocent minorities.

[bladefd]

I'm not a democrat but I'm a liberal.

quote 1: Sounds like a very pro-unions idea
quote 2: Not all radical leftists are communists
quote 3: Not sure what it means by "greater democratic control."
quote 4: What's wrong with the idea that people do jobs for different reason? Some genuinely enjoy what they do. I just wouldn't as a government eliminate jobs that are not fun because the idea of fun is subjective. Besides, we will still need someone to do jobs that aren't fun like pick up trash at 7am so demand should dictate things

P.S. I can probably find some random website on some extremist conservative idea and be like "HEY REPUBLICANS, why do you all believe x?"

[CelticBaller]

I
P.S. I can probably find some random website on some extremist conservative idea and be like "HEY REPUBLICANS, why do you all believe x?"

quote 1: Sounds like a very pro-unions idea

Except it literally states they should own them That's communist talking points


quote 2: Not all radical leftists are communists

re read the quote, they literally fail to see the problems of communism /socialism and how it failed. They want to ignore that to prop up their "version" of it


quote 4: What's wrong with the idea that people do jobs for different reason?

did you read the quote? Or did you just miss the part that they want to eliminate labor THEY deem not enjoyable?


Oh please spare me with the whataboutism, these people are actively running for president and have seats in the house of representatives :facepalm

[bladefd]

Except it literally states they should own them That's communist talking points

I believe economic institutions refers to government institutions like SEC. It says workers should have control of those types of institutions. Today, politicians have control over them and private interests own them. Not sure what the ramifications would be in different system of unions controlling them instead of politicians/private interests.


re read the quote, they literally fail to see the problems of communism /socialism and how it failed. They want to ignore that to prop up their "version" of it

I didn't understand the quote so I checked whole context:


Hasn’t socialism been discredited by the collapse of Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe?

Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their bureaucratic elites called them “socialist” did not make it so; they also called their regimes “democratic.” Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist societies. We applaud the democratic revolutions that have transformed the former Communist bloc. However, the improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. Democratic socialists will continue to play a key role in that struggle throughout the world.

Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all radicalism to be dismissed as “Communist.” That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines America’s ability to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity, not to mention the freedoms of speech and assembly.

Essentially says fall of communism didn't discredit democratic socialism. Communism is a specific type of socialism, and it is probably the most extreme form of socialism. Communist governments also were authoritarian in practice, meanwhile for democratic socialism, the idea democracy is the central point. You took it completely out of context.


Did you re read the quote? Or did you just miss the part that they want to eliminate labor THEY deem not enjoyable?

Interesting how you didn't quote the most important piece of my post: "I just wouldn't as a government eliminate jobs that are not fun because the idea of fun is subjective. Besides, we will still need someone to do jobs that aren't fun like pick up trash at 7am so demand should dictate things."

Next time read the whole post.

[Patrick Chewing]

sounds extremist.

then again, repubs on this site have posted some extremely racist shit. granted, the majority of them are virgins voicing out their sexual frustration by screaming anything they can to upset minorities. kind of like when racist cops have a fight with their wife so they go on the hunt to beat innocent minorities.


Oh yeah? Like what?

[CelticBaller]

I read the whole post, I just choose to ignore the last post as it's clearly contradictry and I assumed they were making a mistake


People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society.

Means this


besides, we will still need someone to do jobs that aren't fun like pick up trash at 7am so demand should dictate things."

can't be true


I believe economic institutions refers to government institutions like SEC. It says workers should have control of those types of institutions. Today, politicians have control over them and private interests own them. Not sure what the ramifications would be in different system of unions controlling them instead of politicians/private interests.

They don't want "workers" to own this. They want their government to fully control these on behalf of the worker.

literally the same shit Lenin pulled in russia :facepalm



Essentially says fall of communism didn't discredit democratic socialism. Communism is a specific type of socialism, and it is probably the most extreme form of socialism. Communist governments also were authoritarian in practice, meanwhile for democratic socialism, the idea democracy is the central point. You took it completely out of context.]

Except communism is literally the next step in socialism. There's a reason why there's isn't a successful "democratic socialist" country

[tpols]

there needs to be a good balance between private and public...

ying and yang. We are currently tilted way too far private mate.

you're hypiing a boogeyman.

[CelticBaller]

there needs to be a good balance between private and public...

ying and yang. We are currently tilted way too far private mate.

you're hypiing a boogeyman.
I would be ok with compromises

what these

[Norcaliblunt]

This shits like a circle. You go so far left, you end up right. Go so far right, end up left. At the end of the day both agendas are about centralizing power and redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top.

Amazon controlling all means of production and distribution versus some state controlled technocracy. Same difference.

[BarberSchool]

Never get it twisted, most progressive liberal voters are kind, well meaning, bleeding heart people.
They just want to help and be compassionate, alot like the christian right they dislike.
Do not villify the progressive voter base.
Villify the scumbag subversive sinister mafia figures behind them, puppeteering them.
Like Soros, Brzezinsky, etc

https://pics.me.me/when-we-get-ready-to-take-the-united-states-we-22686826.png


Alexander Trachtenberg said it best.

[FultzNationRISE]

This shits like a circle. You go so far left, you end up right. Go so far right, end up left. At the end of the day both agendas are about centralizing power and redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top.

Amazon controlling all means of production and distribution versus some state controlled technocracy. Same difference.


:facepalm


Except Amazon doesnt make the laws. Jeff Bezos cant put anyone in jail.

The government does and can. So putting the country

[FultzNationRISE]

Never get it twisted, most progressive liberal voters are kind, well meaning, bleeding heart people.
They just want to help and be compassionate, alot like the christian right they dislike.
Do not villify the progressive voter base.
Villify the scumbag subversive sinister mafia figures behind them, puppeteering them.
Like Soros, Brzezinsky, etc

https://pics.me.me/when-we-get-ready-to-take-the-united-states-we-22686826.png


Alexander Trachtenberg said it best.


That doesnt excuse being a braindead jackass tho.

People who fall for simple fantasy should be called out for the damage theyre doing.

[Norcaliblunt]

:facepalm


Except Amazon doesnt make the laws. Jeff Bezos cant put anyone in jail.

The government does and can. So putting the country’s economic motor into the hands of people who already wield tremendous power as lawmakers of the world’s most powerful country makes no sense.

All you have to do if you dont like Amazon is just not shop there.

What dont you get about it?

Amazon cant force me to do ANYTHING, under threat of imprisonment. The government can.

The founding fathers were WAAAAAAAY smarter than you are. Try to come to terms with it.

Under right wing extremism in an anarcho capitalist society Jeff Bezos and Amazon would absolutely have the freedom to create laws and enforce contracts for anyone who wants to do business with them.

And all you have to do if you don’t like a government is move. Plenty of countries and states around the world to choose from.

[CelticBaller]

This shits like a circle. You go so far left, you end up right. Go so far right, end up left. At the end of the day both agendas are about centralizing power and redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top.

Amazon controlling all means of production and distribution versus some state controlled technocracy. Same difference.
Funny thing is, these big companies want more regulations in the industry because it literally takes out small business for them :lol

Walmart can easily abide by any minimum wage law. Your local corner bodega? Nah.

Stupid leftists see a problem with big corporations yet they dont ask themselves how the **** they got that big to begin with. Handicapping the market only hurt mid to small business in the long run

[bladefd]

They don't want "workers" to own this. They want their government to fully control these on behalf of the worker.

literally the same shit Lenin pulled in russia :facepalm




Except communism is literally the next step in socialism. There's a reason why there's isn't a successful "democratic socialist" country

Government already controls those economic institutions but they are owned indirectly by private interests. Democratic socialism states it should be be in the hands of the worker. Like I said, I don't know how that world would look. Historically, with communism it has ended up being controlled by a dictator/authoritarian like Stalin or a party like in post-Stalin USSR. We have never seen a true communist government controlled by the actual workers so we don't have much to go on. Soviet Union was not a true communist government because the party had full control, not the people as Karl Marx wanted. We have never seen a true Karl Marx communist government so we don't have much to go on.

I don't think it is feasible to have a true communist government on a large scale national level like Karl Marx argued for. It just would fall apart as it would be very difficult to govern and hold together, but that's a separate argument for another day.






Communism is not the next step in socialism. Communism is a type of socialism to the extreme.

[qrich]

I'm not a democrat but I'm a liberal.

quote 1: Sounds like a very pro-unions idea
quote 2: Not all radical leftists are communists
quote 3: Not sure what it means by "greater democratic control."
quote 4: What's wrong with the idea that people do jobs for different reason? Some genuinely enjoy what they do. I just wouldn't as a government eliminate jobs that are not fun because the idea of fun is subjective. Besides, we will still need someone to do jobs that aren't fun like pick up trash at 7am so demand should dictate things

P.S. I can probably find some random website on some extremist conservative idea and be like "HEY REPUBLICANS, why do you all believe x?"

https://media1.tenor.com/images/396f92583d8de4503baa9e46d17a4c7b/tenor.gif

That would require you to be for more individual rights, and less governmental.

Which you aren't.

[bladefd]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/396f92583d8de4503baa9e46d17a4c7b/tenor.gif

That would require you to be for more individual rights, and less governmental.

Which you aren't.

We live in a representative government. We govern by rule of law, which is through our government. Our government is voted in place by individuals.

I can be for both government and individuals. It's not a question of one or the other in the nation we are in.

[qrich]

We live in a representative government. We govern by rule of law, which is through our government. Our government is voted in place by individuals.

I can be for both government and individuals. It's not a question of one or the other in the nation we are in.
Liberals, at least true Liberals, not what the modern day Leftists/Dems are, are for more individual rights and less governmental.

However, you want to give more rights to the government and less to individuals.

You calling yourself a Liberal is like Bruce Jenner calling himself a woman or Rachel Dolezell calling herself black, or Elizabeth Warren calling herself Native, or Bernie Sanders saying he's for the people, etc.

[CelticBaller]

Government already controls those economic institutions but they are owned indirectly by private interests. Democratic socialism states it should be be in the hands of the worker. Like I said, I don't know how that world would look. Historically, with communism it has ended up being controlled by a dictator/authoritarian like Stalin or a party like in post-Stalin USSR. We have never seen a true communist government controlled by the actual workers so we don't have much to go on. Soviet Union was not a true communist government because the party had full control, not the people as Karl Marx wanted. We have never seen a true Karl Marx communist government so we don't have much to go on.

I don't think it is feasible to have a true communist government on a large scale national level like Karl Marx argued for. It just would fall apart as it would be very difficult to govern and hold together, but that's a separate argument for another day.






Communism is not the next step in socialism. Communism is a type of socialism to the extreme.

Breaking news; it doesn

[bladefd]

Liberals, at least true Liberals, not what the modern day Leftists/Dems are, are for more individual rights and less governmental.

However, you want to give more rights to the government and less to individuals.

You calling yourself a Liberal is like Bruce Jenner calling himself a woman or Rachel Dolezell calling herself black, or Elizabeth Warren calling herself Native, or Bernie Sanders saying he's for the people, etc.

There is still the question of government, which is voted into place by individuals. I can still be on side of individuals but voting individuals put into the government voted people to govern on their behalf. This is our way of governing. It is not a question of government or the people if the people make up the government. Our government is meant to be by the people for the people. I know it does not always work out that way but it tries to & people can decide at the voting stand.

[qrich]

There is still the question of government, which is voted into place by individuals. I can still be on side of individuals but voting individuals put into the government voted people to govern on their behalf. This is our way of governing. It is not a question of government or the people if the people make up the government. Our government is meant to be by the people for the people. I know it does not always work out that way but it tries to & people can decide at the voting stand.
Your posting history has shown that you want less individual rights and more governmental rights.

You aren't a true Liberal. You might be a modern day Liberal, which is nothing more than a Democrat/Leftist.

[bladefd]

Your posting history has shown that you want less individual rights and more governmental rights.

You aren't a true Liberal. You might be a modern day Liberal, which is nothing more than a Democrat/Leftist.

So you believe it is a question of government or individuals??

Look, I believe government should allow people to do as they want socially and only get involved in cases where it harms people, such as when corporations prejudice over race, gender, religion or something. Economically, government shouldn't stifle the economy but have some oversight to ensure laws are being followed because it's not free for all to do whatever people want, such as run a monopoly.

[FultzNationRISE]

Liberals, at least true Liberals, not what the modern day Leftists/Dems are, are for more individual rights and less governmental.

However, you want to give more rights to the government and less to individuals.

You calling yourself a Liberal is like Bruce Jenner calling himself a woman or Rachel Dolezell calling herself black, or Elizabeth Warren calling herself Native, or Bernie Sanders saying he's for the people, etc.


Historically speaking yes, because many of the ideas of liberal politics come from European thinkers at a time when power was centralized in the form of monarchs. People were 'conservative' if they wanted to conserve the crown. People were 'liberal' if they supported new ideals like Democracy and so on.

It's a weird situation in America, because as a country we've always existed as a constitutional republic with limited government wired into our Constitution. So people who want to 'conserve' that way of government are conservative of course. The (perhaps semantic) question is, is liberal the opposite of conservative? Because that would mean for us in America, liberals would be the ones who want to restore a monarchy and have Czar Sanders decide unilaterally how much each person must pay another, and who provides health care to whom, and which religion they can have etc. Which is essentially how things are shaking out in practice. The people we call liberals are the ones who support that.

They don't care if the Constitution provides the right to hire whomever you want, and so on. As long as they can elect a leader who will implement the ideas THEY happen to agree with, then it's okay. It doesnt matter if 50% don't agree. Thus they say they want "Democratic Socialism" but in reality, their form of democracy is akin to the idea that "if the majority want slavery, then we can have slavery."

They don't understand the idea that we put certain things into the Constitution so that they don't get changed back and forth every time voter support swings from 49% to 51% and then back again the next day. A principle is an idea that we stick with and commit to.

Again, guys like bladefd and tpols don't have the historical understanding to realize that's the most workable system. They think mob whims are a sustainable form of governance as long as it can pass a 50% margin by 1 vote. And if so, they have the right to force oppression on others, if it was 'voted on'. Because "Democratic Socialism."

[FultzNationRISE]

So you believe it is a question of government or individuals??

Look, I believe government should allow people to do as they want socially and only get involved in cases where it harms people, such as when corporations prejudice over race, gender, religion or something. Economically, government shouldn't stifle the economy but have some oversight to ensure laws are being followed because it's not free for all to do whatever people want, such as run a monopoly.


You just shouldn't talk. Youre too stupid.

[Hawker]

Under right wing extremism in an anarcho capitalist society Jeff Bezos and Amazon would absolutely have the freedom to create laws and enforce contracts for anyone who wants to do business with them.

And all you have to do if you don’t like a government is move. Plenty of countries and states around the world to choose from.

Right wing extremism is the only possible scenario where your open borders fantasy exists.

And pretty hard to move to other countries that don't have the open border policies you propose. You need a VISA.

[qrich]

So you believe it is a question of government or individuals??

Look, I believe government should allow people to do as they want socially and only get involved in cases where it harms people, such as when corporations prejudice over race, gender, religion or something. Economically, government shouldn't stifle the economy but have some oversight to ensure laws are being followed because it's not free for all to do whatever people want, such as run a monopoly.

It's a question of federal government being minimal and individuals having more rights.

But going based off what you said, you surely are against California forcing organizations to put women on their boards. You surely were against Obama trying to promote racial discrimination in college?

Government itself is also essentially a monopoly as currently set up while encouraging monopolies, such as with cable and landline/DSL companies. Why can't Spectrum and Comcast compete in the same neighborhood? Verizon and CenturyLink? Government.

The Federal government should exist to protect our sovereignty and settle disputes between states. That's it

[bladefd]

It's a question of federal government being minimal and individuals having more rights.

But going based off what you said, you surely are against California forcing organizations to put women on their boards. You surely were against Obama trying to promote racial discrimination in college?

Government itself is also essentially a monopoly as currently set up while encouraging monopolies, such as with cable and landline/DSL companies. Why can't Spectrum and Comcast compete in the same neighborhood? Verizon and CenturyLink? Government.

The Federal government should exist to protect our sovereignty and settle disputes between states. That's it

I believe federal government should be involved in issues that both impact beyond a single state and harms the well-being of people. That is pretty much the federal government. If it's a local issue then state should handle it. We would probably have to go sector by sector

[qrich]

I believe federal government should be involved in issues that both impact beyond a single state and harms the well-being of people. That is pretty much the federal government. If it's a local issue then state should handle it. We would probably have to go sector by sector

Which is mediating state issues.

So about th prejudice, you agree with Trump in rolling back the Obama administrations pro prejudice college apps and you believe the Federal government should put a stop to Cali's forcing of a woman on the board of major corporations

[bladefd]

Which is mediating state issues.

So about th prejudice, you agree with Trump in rolling back the Obama administrations pro prejudice college apps and you believe the Federal government should put a stop to Cali's forcing of a woman on the board of major corporations

Was that what Obama did? If so then I would be against his bill. Knowing you though, I highly doubt the bill did what you say - you have a tendency of misquoting and misinformation.

I would also be against forcing women on board of corporations. I probably wouldn't mind giving small tax exemption to corporations who are closer to 1:1 gender balance but certainly not forcing them to do so.

[qrich]

Was that what Obama did? If so then I would be against his bill. Knowing you though, I highly doubt the bill did what you say - you have a tendency of misquoting and misinformation.

I would also be against forcing women on board of corporations. I probably wouldn't mind giving small tax exemption to corporations who are closer to 1:1 gender balance but certainly not forcing them to do so.

Passing into law something that states race should be a deciding factor in admissions is pretty prejudicial.

How is adding incentives also not promoting gender prejudice?

"Hey Steve, we know you are more qualified than Lindsey, and scored higher, but we need this tax cut. Sorry bud."

I'd rather just let businesses determine who is the more qualified candidate and not have government try to taint it one way or another

[Cleverness]

sounds extremist.



I wish it was, but these ideas nearly won the Democrat Socialist nomination in 2016 and have taken over as mainstream ideas in the Democrat party:eek:





even the most "moderate" democrats like Mayor Pete propose an additional 1 billion... i mean 1 trillion... in spending for government to watch over children as part of a daycare/"education" spending to indoctrinate beginning as infants



this guy does a good job explaining capitalism and socialism, if you wish to learn more

https://twitter.com/checkmatestate/status/1196949168129839104?s=20