The fear of those bunnies is remarkable. Also, their inability to think things over. Or do they even think at all? I mean, one vitriolic outburst after another by supporters of a president who is intent on resuming privately owned land in order to build a wall using somewhere between 25 and 40 billion dollars funded by the public via taxes.
And what happened in 2008/9? Bailing out banks to the tune of several billion dollars, also sourced from taxes? Keeping car manufacturers from going under from the same source before that? Isn't that socialism too? Of course it is, but it's a different brand named corporate socialism, where profits are privatised and losses are socialised.
The bosses - via the media owners - really know how to pick their mouthpieces.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
I actually wish Bernie etc would stop calling themselves socialists. They aren't socialists, they are proponents of social democracy. They aren't doing themselves any favours by calling themselves socialists.
Bernie is a socialist. He calls himself a socialist because he is not just a proponent of social democracy, he is an avowed socialist. He supports social democracy in that it's an incremental step toward what he ultimately would like.
Bernie has admitted this consistently, not just 30 and 40 years ago, but in 2016, when he called himself a "Democratic Socialist," which he knows is different than social democracy. Social democracy involves a welfare state nested in a bed of capitalism. Democratic Socialism is democracy nested in bed of socialism.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
Unless he's advocating for no private ownership of production, and no profit motive, he's still a capitalist. Nationalising critical infrastructure and advocating UHC and free education isn't socialist.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk. "The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007. "Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that.. "Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt. "I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
The media lies regularly, partly because we want those lies so much.
So tell me, pErvinalia, what does he want, that appeals to you? I don't mind some socialism, in small doses. I like democracy, in similar small doses. I like that republic thing they have going on south of the border too.
So why not tell us what is so good about him. Mainly, to me, he looks like another wealthy old white guy with 'do as I say, not as I do' going on.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
UHC, definitely. Raise in the minimum wage. Better social welfare safety net. Regarding free education for all, I'm not sure where i sit on that any more. Maybe your first degree/diploma is free, but after that you pay. Dunno. I'm just not convinced that university education is where the future is at. AI will take a lot of educated jobs as it comes to fruition over the next few decades. Not sure we need a giant pool of university educated people. Would be better to have trades people.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk. "The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007. "Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that.. "Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt. "I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Unless he's advocating for no private ownership of production, and no profit motive, he's still a capitalist. Nationalising critical infrastructure and advocating UHC and free education isn't socialist.
Nationalising critical infrastructure is pretty much socialism to me. I really see the terrain between being a social democrat and a socialist as a continuous spectrum. Nationalising large chunks of an economy is moving towards socialism, surely. Health care and education, not so directly.
Having said that, the interesting debate to me is what part of a nation's economy and activities are better government owned and/or run, and which are better in private hands.
Unless he's advocating for no private ownership of production, and no profit motive, he's still a capitalist. Nationalising critical infrastructure and advocating UHC and free education isn't socialist.
Nationalising critical infrastructure is pretty much socialism to me. I really see the terrain between being a social democrat and a socialist as a continuous spectrum. Nationalising large chunks of an economy is moving towards socialism, surely. Health care and education, not so directly.
That's a pretty arbitrary line you've drawn there. Yes, it's a continuous spectrum, but when the vast majority of the economy is still privately owned it's a bit ridiculous to call a system socialist where the electricity grid, railways, phone/airwaves etc are nationalised.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk. "The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007. "Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that.. "Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt. "I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Unless he's advocating for no private ownership of production, and no profit motive, he's still a capitalist. Nationalising critical infrastructure and advocating UHC and free education isn't socialist.
Nationalising critical infrastructure is pretty much socialism to me. I really see the terrain between being a social democrat and a socialist as a continuous spectrum. Nationalising large chunks of an economy is moving towards socialism, surely. Health care and education, not so directly.
That's a pretty arbitrary line you've drawn there. Yes, it's a continuous spectrum, but when the vast majority of the economy is still privately owned it's a bit ridiculous to call a system socialist where the electricity grid, railways, phone/airwaves etc are nationalised.
It's more the total amount - as you move to nationalise a higher and higher proportion of the economy, you are moving along the spectrum from social democracy to socialist state.
Personally, I think that there is an optimum, and it certainly does not include 100% nationalisation (which still allows for much critical infrastructure, including the areas you mentioned, to be in public hands). Precisely which parts should be in public hands, and which parts are more effectively dealt with by private ownership should be a matter for robust debate in a democracy, but the examples of total state control from the past are not encouraging for what we might call pure socialism...
To bring it back around to Sanders: he's not advocating total state control or anything near it. It's ridiculous to call what he proposes "socialism".
Sent from my penis using wankertalk. "The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007. "Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that.. "Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt. "I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Unless he's advocating for no private ownership of production, and no profit motive, he's still a capitalist. Nationalising critical infrastructure and advocating UHC and free education isn't socialist.
Nationalising critical infrastructure is pretty much socialism to me. I really see the terrain between being a social democrat and a socialist as a continuous spectrum. Nationalising large chunks of an economy is moving towards socialism, surely. Health care and education, not so directly.
Nobody accused Australia's governments of being socialist in the 23 years they were led by the conservative coalition's Prime Ministers Menzies, Holt, McEwen, Gorton and McMahon, even though there were government owned and managed banks, airlines, telcos, electricity generators and so forth on both federal and state levels. Ironically, it was Labor's Paul Keating who started the fire sales of government assets "for the good of the people". The promise was cheaper prices through the superior efficiencies of private enterprise. I hope it's not necessary to remind you how that panned out.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
To bring it back around to Sanders: he's not advocating total state control or anything near it. It's ridiculous to call what he proposes "socialism".
Of course it's ridiculous. Sanders is splat in the middle of a mixed economy, a form of government that combines capitalist and socialist elements. I have yet to hear him propose nationalising Wall Street or even just the moribund automotive industry.
By the way, I heard the British rail system is losing a lot more money and providing worse service than before Margaret Thatcher sold it off to the private sector.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Unless he's advocating for no private ownership of production, and no profit motive, he's still a capitalist. Nationalising critical infrastructure and advocating UHC and free education isn't socialist.
Nationalising critical infrastructure is pretty much socialism to me. I really see the terrain between being a social democrat and a socialist as a continuous spectrum. Nationalising large chunks of an economy is moving towards socialism, surely. Health care and education, not so directly.
That's a pretty arbitrary line you've drawn there. Yes, it's a continuous spectrum, but when the vast majority of the economy is still privately owned it's a bit ridiculous to call a system socialist where the electricity grid, railways, phone/airwaves etc are nationalised.
