Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 20, 2020 - 8:07pm
westslope wrote:
kurtster wrote:
So can anyone tell me where to find a successful operating socialist system that is not run by an elitist group of some kind ?
What kind of socialist system are we talking here? Sanders socialism?
That would be similar to the Nordic social democracies and in terms of socio-economic outcomes, the Nordic social democracies leave the USA in the dust. They strike me as very democratic. All of them have proportional representation systems.
Come on kurtster, admit it. You admire and respect men of great stature with a decided authoritarian streak. You admire great leaders who perceive the political system as a winner takes all sporting event.
There are those who view life as a winner takes all sporting event.
So can anyone tell me where to find a successful operating socialist system that is not run by an elitist group of some kind ?
What kind of socialist system are we talking here? Sanders socialism?
That would be similar to the Nordic social democracies and in terms of socio-economic outcomes, the Nordic social democracies leave the USA in the dust. They strike me as very democratic. All of them have proportional representation systems.
Come on kurtster, admit it. You admire and respect men of great stature with a decided authoritarian streak. You admire great leaders who perceive the political system as a winner takes all sporting event.
The Republicans are doing far more to lower the lifestyles of a large segment of the population as an integral part of their platform than the social-democrats.
Putting people in a position of having to take employment at wages too low to to escape poverty, in order to keep from starving to death, is coercion. Cutting social security lowers the lifestyle (and life expectancy) of a large part of the population, and is stealing. Selling off public land that protects ecosystems, wildlife populations for hunting, and natural beauty for tourism lowers people's lifestyle. Cutting air and water quality standards impacts health. You seem to claim that it is better because theses are not supposedly intentional. I say they are intentional and in any case are far more consequential because they have much greater impact on many more people.
Social democrats or democratic socialists, your pick, don't want to eliminate disparity, they want to narrow the gap so more people can live healthy secure lives.
My personal view is that the government should have goals of maximizing their revenue to spend on programs of value to the country and maximizing median wealth. To do that, they need a healthy but not excessively concentrated economy. The FSU communist system got it wrong by concentrating the control to the point where everyone suffered from the lack of production. So yeah, I'm all in favour of taxing companies and the rich as much as possible without leading to an economic decline. I'm also in favour of a strong government role in dampening out the swings in the economic cycle, strong oversight so people don't rort the system, and government looking out for interests like minimizing pollution that are not well managed by the capitalist economy.
I'm more than happy to sleep on my bed, thanks, and if you want to spend more of your money on a more comfortable bed, that's fine. I would also like to see more people able to afford a decent bed and libertarianism isn't going to fix the fact they can't.
Hear, hear!
We're all in this together, like it or not. Income inequality has gotten truly obscene thanks to virtually unbridled Capitalism and must be addressed. It will be addressed - one way or another - eventually. I'd prefer it done in controlled manner rather than with pitchforks. Health care and profit are mutually exclusive; that seems obvious on its face to me, but apparently isn't to a lot of people. Our mission should be to improve the lot of as many people as possible and minimize the concentration of unimaginable wealth in the hands of a ruling elite. If that makes me a socialist, I'm proud to be one, thanks.
The reason why background and lifestyle matters much more to Democratic-Socialist or Socialist candidates than other philosophies or parties is because Socialism is the only philosophy that is asking or more accurately demanding through force and coercion to lower the lifestyles of a large segment of the population as an integral part of their platform ergo you cannot or at least should not ask something of your future constituents that you are not asking of yourself. Other ideologies and parties including the Democratic party may have the end result of lowering lifestyles, but it is not supposedly intentional and part of their platform, quite the contrary, they all espouse to improve all of our lives as unrealistic as that may be therefore their lifestyles extravagant as they may be are irrelevant to political discussion and is only in the realm of whether you find it personally distasteful or not. I have always maintained that if you are a Socialist candidate you should sleep on dirt floors because somewhere in the world others have to and you are proposing to increase that number.
The Republicans are doing far more to lower the lifestyles of a large segment of the population as an integral part of their platform than the social-democrats.
Putting people in a position of having to take employment at wages too low to to escape poverty, in order to keep from starving to death, is coercion. Cutting social security lowers the lifestyle (and life expectancy) of a large part of the population, and is stealing. Selling off public land that protects ecosystems, wildlife populations for hunting, and natural beauty for tourism lowers people's lifestyle. Cutting air and water quality standards impacts health. You seem to claim that it is better because theses are not supposedly intentional. I say they are intentional and in any case are far more consequential because they have much greater impact on many more people.
Social democrats or democratic socialists, your pick, don't want to eliminate disparity, they want to narrow the gap so more people can live healthy secure lives.
My personal view is that the government should have goals of maximizing their revenue to spend on programs of value to the country and maximizing median wealth. To do that, they need a healthy but not excessively concentrated economy. The FSU communist system got it wrong by concentrating the control to the point where everyone suffered from the lack of production. So yeah, I'm all in favour of taxing companies and the rich as much as possible without leading to an economic decline. I'm also in favour of a strong government role in dampening out the swings in the economic cycle, strong oversight so people don't rort the system, and government looking out for interests like minimizing pollution that are not well managed by the capitalist economy.
I'm more than happy to sleep on my bed, thanks, and if you want to spend more of your money on a more comfortable bed, that's fine. I would also like to see more people able to afford a decent bed and libertarianism isn't going to fix the fact they can't.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:18pm
Steely_D wrote:
steeler wrote:
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
are you serious? Have you travelled? Come to Europe one day. Top road infrastructure. Free schooling. Universal healthcare. Sexy cheeses.
Yes, yes, but you are taxed at way higher rates . . . and payment of those taxes are not voluntary . . . That is coercion/force . . . you may think you are happy with your life, but your lifestyle is being dragged down as we speak . . . It is only a matter of time until your sexy cheese is spoiled!
Mmmmmm! Moldy sexy stinky cheese!
Of course, folks say âack! Higher taxes!â When theyâre really paying somewhat lower taxes + massive out of pocket premiums and health care co-pays. That combo, coupled with inconsistent access, is much worse than paying little to no health care costs along with a predictable but higher tax rate.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
The point being, an investment in the good of the commons benefits everyone, even the donors. Try it. Wait, you probably already do. Have any insurance? You socialist. Pooling risk like that. tsk tsk.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:16pm
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
But.. but.. but.. maybe after millennia of trying the bloody alternatives, maybe we actually want it this way.. it is not coercion at all but self-preservation for the sake of the cheese in all of us. Cheese is a fleeting ephemeral thing. You must take it when it is ripe. At the cusp between its budding potential and waning promise.. These are wisdoms behind which is much frustration and vain searching for fulfilment. Cheese is an art form. You should come and try it.
I was joking, being sarcastic, of course. I should have used a cheesy grin!
are you serious? Have you travelled? Come to Europe one day. Top road infrastructure. Free schooling. Universal healthcare. Sexy cheeses.
Yes, yes, but you are taxed at way higher rates . . . and payment of those taxes is not voluntary . . . That is coercion/force . . . you may think you are happy with your life, but your lifestyle is being dragged down as we speak . . . It is only a matter of time until your sexy cheese is spoiled!
But.. but.. but.. maybe after millennia of trying the bloody alternatives, maybe we actually want it this way.. it is not coercion at all but self-preservation for the sake of the cheese in all of us. Cheese is a fleeting ephemeral thing. You must take it when it is ripe. At the cusp between its budding potential and waning promise.. These are wisdoms behind which is much frustration and vain searching for fulfilment. Cheese is an art form. You should come and try it.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:01pm
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
are you serious? Have you travelled? Come to Europe one day. Top road infrastructure. Free schooling. Universal healthcare. Sexy cheeses.
Yes, yes, but you are taxed at way higher rates . . . and payment of those taxes is not voluntary . . . That is coercion/force . . . you may think you are happy with your life, but your lifestyle is being dragged down as we speak . . . It is only a matter of time until your sexy cheese is spoiled!
The point being, an investment in the good of the commons benefits everyone, even the donors. Try it. Wait, you probably already do. Have any insurance? You socialist. Pooling risk like that. tsk tsk.
It seems from that article that that guy was more "unimpressed" with the crowd than he was with the candidate. He doesn't even really mention Sanders, but it is a short excerpt of a longer article.
... in a newspaper considered to lean conservative, but preferring/pretending to call itself 'independent'. Like some people do.
I certainly don't. I am a proud anti-socialist Libertarian. Just like you are a proud leftist.
It seems from that article that that guy was more "unimpressed" with the crowd than he was with the candidate. He doesn't even really mention Sanders, but it is a short excerpt of a longer article.
... in a newspaper considered to lean conservative, but preferring/pretending to call itself 'independent'. Like some people do.
It seems from that article that that guy was more "unimpressed" with the crowd than he was with the candidate. He doesn't even really mention Sanders, but it is a short excerpt of a longer article.
Johan Hassel, the international secretary for Sweden's ruling Social Democrats, visited Iowa before the caucuses, and he wasn't impressed with America's standard bearer for democratic socialism, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). "We were at a Sanders event, and it was like being at a Left Party meeting," he told Sweden's Svenska Dagbladet newspaper, according to one translation. "It was a mixture of very young people and old Marxists, who think they were right all along. There were no ordinary people there, simply."
Hassel was most "impressed" with Pete Buttigieg, though he also liked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Eric Kleefeld, assiduous student of foreign politics, provides some context on Sweden's Social Democrats:
Some more context: The “Left Party” he talks about in there is the old Communist Party back home in Sweden. (They changed their name around 1990 or so — wonder why.)The Left/Communists have worked with the Social Democrats in minority parliaments, but never included in cabinet.
