Socialism is used as an ideology for the Chinese government to maintain authoritarian control. Regarding the name of the CCP, like I said, marxist socialism isn’t seperate from communism since the latter is the end goal. Hence it was named as such from the start.
Eh? I don’t get it.
?
What does this have to do with Bernie?
I’m talking about democrats expressly denouncing capitalism. If someone says he’s not a capitalist, how would that be interpreted in the US in the 80s?
Alright, what is your suggestion? Let’s forget about the rest of the world. Normalize the word in the US and give it a different meaning so the GOP can’t use it to attack dems?
“get a good mktg agency” is about the same level of insight as “just balance the budget.”
I’m normally kinda funny.
Oh please. Even AOC isn’t expressly denouncing Capitalism. Pointing out its inherent flaws to the population isn’t denouncing all of capitalism.
Probably about as well as having the other guy label you a socialist until every podunk believed it.
At this stage? I’m not sure what choice they have. Socialism as an umbrella term simply means a different thing to a LARGE MAJORITY of America than it does to you.
My grandpa still says all of the coal mine safety regs that he blames for WV’s woes are socialist in nature. Every. Last. One.
You know that law they passed to decrease black fucking lung? Dirty socialism. Just upthread studhammer bowed out because of the lunacy of accepting “any form of socialism.” That’s how socialism is thought of and branded in America. It’s a binary switch. Which means every govt concept is bad on its face.
Outbrand that.
I dunno, man. Trump’s is(was?) pretty good. I’m not writing this as some sort of “clever” comeback. I was really impressed by what he did on that end in 2016.
Calling capitalism “irredeemable” is a denouncement.
Yes, I read this part. Most people read the headlines.
You are referring to how it’s used in the US vernacular. If it’s popularized, anyone willing to look at the literature will know what it means.
There have been many articles lately about how young Americans are embracing socialism. Now, to be accurate, they are not embracing socialism as in the Webster’s dictionary definition, and some of the right wing sites are misconstruing that fact, and claiming what they want is the text book socialism.
What they really want is some socialist policies with the right to own property, the right to own a business, but without an authoritarian government.
It doesn’t have to be one way or the other. It can be a blend.
“Capitalism is an ideology of capital — the most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit. To me, capitalism is irredeemable.”
I’m not sure what you’d call that other than denouncing capitalism.
Trump is a permanent branding guy who had a blank political slate to work with. Comparing them doesn’t make sense to me at all. I’ve said dozens of times the next time he runs will be incredibly different simply due to having public office failures on record instead of all private ones.
He’s won office without ever having had to fail a single voter before.
Because Capitalism (if we still care about actual definitions) has a ton of truly irredeemable qualities when populations scale. Capitalism is very much a survival of the fittest structure. When the numbers climb, that’s a hella lot of losers.
Well I’m sure the Dems will be willing to give up their last leg of trying to spin the word and just let Republicans push from the ~70% chunk they have now to 80-90.
That seems like it achieves the greater goal.
Even AOC isn’t suggesting we do away with the free market concept.
“Capitalism is an ideology of capital — the most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit,” she said during an interview at the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas, according to [Bloomberg News]
“To me, capitalism is irredeemable,” she added, arguing that capitalism’s goals come at a cost to people and the environment, Bloomberg reported.
The congresswoman, who has described herself as a democratic socialist, added during her interview that “we should be scared.”
“Just as there’s all this fearmongering that government is going to take over every corporation and government is going to take over every business or every form of production, we should be scared right now because corporations have taken over our government,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez also said that the “emphasis in democratic socialism is on democracy” and expanding the rights of workers.
“It’s just as much a transformation about bringing democracy to the workplace so that we have a say and that we don’t check all of our rights at the door every time we cross the threshold into our workplace,” she said. “Because at the end of the day, as workers and as people in society, we’re the ones creating wealth.”
Even Republicans want a blend and we have had one for a long time now. What the blend looks like is what is debated.
Almost every society has denounced free market capitalism (other than maybe Somalia, it is actually pretty close to a free market there).
That is why we have regulations on markets, entities that have the purpose of making sure that safety and efficacy is insured, that a company does not make profits by causing harm to others.
The USA is not a free market capitalist society, and that is a very good thing.
I don’t know why that idea is so hard for some.
I can think of two examples where she is. 1) healthcare. 2) Labor markets (guaranteed employment/“living wage”/paying people even if they don’t want to work.
How long before that list expands if it isn’t already larger?
I think she’s a clown worth a chuckle or two and, at the end of the day, I doubt we’ll agree on whether she denounces capitalism or not so lets just leave it the ol agree to disagree.
Markets tend to be come socialized / regulated when they are not working for everybody. When that happens they are no longer working within a free capitalist market.
The food market has already been socialized by the FDA. Companies were making more money before socialization of the market, but consumers were receiving dangerous or different than advertised products.
The medical device, prescription drug, aviation, automotive, farming, fishing, and many more markets have been socialized because the corporations were making money at the costs of others.
You can make a good argument that health care as it is in the USA is currently maximizing profits for insurance companies, while causing financial harm to it’s consumers. It should be regulated, and if regulation doesn’t work (which it didn’t really work well with the affordable health care bill), then taking out the source of the problem (health insurance companies) starts looking appealing.
The free market exists within every public healthcare system on the planet. Regulating the Nuclear energy industry didn’t make it cease to exist, it drastically cut the profitability.
And this is the fear tactic the GOP was able to successfully use for decades to discredit anything and everything socialized.
Fast forward to today, HC costs (even without the govt intervention) have skyrocketed. Adding in the GOP sabotage and already existing flaws in Ocare, it just got worse.
I guess we can just kick the can down the street like we did with the mortgage industry.
Do you believe her denouncement comes with a denouncement of every capitalism principle that exists?
The thing is, ideologies by definition do not fall on individual spectrums because they are, on paper at least, perfect.
When put into practice people might find that they are not so perfect after all thus all of the contradictions and hypocrisy that ideologues try and spin their way out of when defending their ideologies.
An example would be abortion. We all have the right to control our bodies as we see fit; that’s freedom. But…the exception is a pregnant woman whose freedom is subordinate to someone else, a fetus or zygote.
We agreed above to not touch abortion, but I will only say that the woman is not subordinate to the fetus or zygote. I don’t believe any person should be subordinate to another (rights wise).
I’m not arguing for or against abortion; I’m simply pointing out that it is one of those exceptions that pop up.
I think the previous point of contention was that I was talking about actual governments, and how they lean politically, and others were talking about theoretical definitions of capitalism, socialism and communism.
No, we were not arguing theory
That is my characterization.
Then you would be objectively wrong since even zecario knows what I was talking about.w