"in a modern context, the term “democratic socialism” really only exists to imply that there is a socialism that is democratic (good) & a socialism that abhors democracy (bad) to further the notion that those who desire seizure of the means of production (ie radicals) hate freedom. one of the biggest draws of socialism is its promotion of truly participatory, deliberative democracy as opposed to the oligarchical nature of bourgeois representative democracy, and claiming the former is actually anti-democratic serves only to preserve the latter."
Get your shit together Bernie.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Symmetry wrote:If only Batman could do that to right wing idiots who argue that the US "isn't a democracy, it's a republic" too...
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit the French Fourth Republic
Neoteny wrote:"in a modern context, the term “democratic socialism” really only exists to imply that there is a socialism that is democratic (good) & a socialism that abhors democracy (bad) to further the notion that those who desire seizure of the means of production (ie radicals) hate freedom. one of the biggest draws of socialism is its promotion of truly participatory, deliberative democracy as opposed to the oligarchical nature of bourgeois representative democracy, and claiming the former is actually anti-democratic serves only to preserve the latter."
That first paragraph is a mess. Why anyone would look to Forbes for a reasonable discussion of socialism is beyond me. It's like seeing James Comey giving election advice to Democrats. It's not in good faith, and, even if it were, he clearly doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:That first paragraph is a mess. Why anyone would look to Forbes for a reasonable discussion of socialism is beyond me. It's like seeing James Comey giving election advice to Democrats. It's not in good faith, and, even if it were, he clearly doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.
Forbes is a good, even-handed site. But yeah, this particular article is terrible. All the same old lies conflating socialism with communism.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
Even-handed is a stretch. They're, like, mid-right with an interest in maintaining the neoliberal status quo. They aren't Breitbart, but they aren't even-handed.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:That first paragraph is a mess. Why anyone would look to Forbes for a reasonable discussion of socialism is beyond me. It's like seeing James Comey giving election advice to Democrats. It's not in good faith, and, even if it were, he clearly doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.
Dukasaur wrote:
Neoteny wrote:That first paragraph is a mess. Why anyone would look to Forbes for a reasonable discussion of socialism is beyond me. It's like seeing James Comey giving election advice to Democrats. It's not in good faith, and, even if it were, he clearly doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.
Forbes is a good, even-handed site. But yeah, this particular article is terrible. All the same old lies conflating socialism with communism.
To be fair, the article is responding to the apparent embracing of "socialism" by a vocal group of liberals recently (in the 2016 primary and this bartender from New York with a degree in economics) and the response of conservatives ("VENEZUELA!") and then the response of liberals ("NORWAY!"). It's a silly discussion at a basic level, but we're also talking about silly politicians.
Neoteny wrote:Even-handed is a stretch. They're, like, mid-right with an interest in maintaining the neoliberal status quo. They aren't Breitbart, but they aren't even-handed.
I think center-right is probably even-handed given alternatives.
Symmetry wrote:If only Batman could do that to right wing idiots who argue that the US "isn't a democracy, it's a republic" too...
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit the French Fourth Republic
Rome was a republic, and you got elected by being filthy rich and/or having connections.
On second thought, that does sound like the USA. Carry on.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Symmetry wrote:If only Batman could do that to right wing idiots who argue that the US "isn't a democracy, it's a republic" too...
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit the French Fourth Republic
Rome was a republic, and you got elected by being filthy rich and/or having connections.
On second thought, that does sound like the USA. Carry on.
Yeah, there was basically a whole caste of people in Rome who got elected to those positions. And I think the US tried to model its legislature on Rome.
But yes, but for various outsiders (e.g. a Tea Party Republican or a "socialist Dem" (e.g. Bernie the millionaire)) there must be connections.