[MIAMI HERALD] Centrist Dems begin arguing against far-left agenda as 2020 play

Conservative talking points at the moment have everything to do with arbitrary labels rather than nuanced policy discussion.

Labels of "socialism", "social democracy" etc are arbitrary.

Let's just cut out the labels and go to the core policy issue here:

Medicare for all.


That's it .There is no desire for the government to take over the means of production. No country is purely "socialist" or purely "capitalist". These label wars are fruitless and a diversiin tactic to dismiss policy discussion.

I think people like Bernie Sanders and Cortez hurt their cause by playing along with the label game also to be clear.

Bernie doesn't desire the government to take over Ford and McDonald's. He wants everyone to have healthcare.

 

I am one of those "Left" members here (Left, Liberal, Progressive - whatever term turns you on) who has posted countless attacks against Chavez and his as bad, or even worse, successor. I'm also one of those fellows who remains fascinated by the outright crap posted here attacking socialism. The United States and our friends and allies in Europe all have socialism as part of their governments to one degree or another, and none of them have "done away" with elections. Is it really necessary, with all due respect, to post things down here that's simply untrue? Your view of socialism is more in tune to the fake socialism practiced by the previous Russian empire, the Soviet Union. That's not at all what the Western Democracies practice. Perhaps you need to do some reading. Again, with all due respect.

 

No -ism has the market on autocratic oppressive rule cornered.

The right and the left can install totalitarianism rule. We see it on the left - which guys like Chavez, Stalin and Castro, and you see it on the right, with everyone from Hitler, Mussolini to Erogen and Putin today.

 

Sounds like a fool who doesn't realize what socialism actually is. Socialism and Capitalism are incompatible given that they are 2 opposed economic systems. You are one of those "special" people who think that a Capitalist system with social programs is "real socialism" and all actual socialist systems are "fake socialism".....I mean, you are a pretty good example of why there are so many ignorant fools who think they are socialists these days.

Educate yourself.

 

"Special"...
Okay, that's why every modern developed nation has a nixed ecinoec of social programs and a capitalist regulated market.

Your statement is so laughably absurd, I don't think you are being sincere here. You truly don't hold this opinion do you?

 

I have to agree with Bobby that I don't think most Americans, both those who are calling themselves "Socialists" or those criticizing "Socialism", really understand Socialism. Socialism as defined by Marx and Engels was state control of the means of production. What Sanders et al has proposed has some aspects of Socialism but wouldn't lead to an actual Socialist state. At the same time those who blast things such as the ACA as "Socialism" are very off base too. In fact since the ACA relies upon the private insurance market is very far from Socialism. "Socialism" has become a catch all term to criticize regulation. Regulation /= Socialism.

 

Ehhh. I think right wing yells "socialism" abd "communism" to any socialized healthcare system that has little to do with the government take over of the means of production, that many liberals just owned the term. I think a more accurate discriptet that many liberals use today is "social democracy".

Anyways, the game of arbitrary semantics is stupid and unproductive. Bobby isn't debating from a sincere position as he knows that American liberals don't desire a government take over of the means of production.

 

I feel like this is more important to keep in mind as we see a rise of actual socialists, not just the Bernie bros that foolishly call a capitalist welfare state "socialism". I mean, once upon a time people on the left criticized those on the right for wrongly calling things "socialist" when they weren't, now it seems that they have adopted inaccurate definitions.

Normally that's not a problem, but as we now are starting to see the rise of Democratic Socialist groups that do actually want to see the government seize control over the means of production and put an end to capitalism. Those who merely want more "free stuff" in a capitalist system can end up giving power to those who actually want socialism by using terms inaccurately.

Socialism is the most deadly ideology that has plagued the world in the last 100+ years, Capitalist welfare state models such as they have in Sweeden are merely less efficient capitalist systems. Basically you trade efficiency and growth for "free stuff", which in many cases can be worth it.

 

To the main subject at hand as one of those centrist moderates (Contented Moderate) my opinion of the Bernie Sanders wing of the political spectrum hasn't changed since the 2016 primaries. I believe they bring a lot of passion and energy. They also highlight some very important issues but I still think their solutions and particularly how they pay for them are vague and unrealistic. They are still leaning very heavily on taxes including using taxes to push for social justice issues such as income inequality. While I might agree with self-styled US Social Democrats that income inequality is a problem I'm not sure that imposing massive tax increases on the marginal tax rate is the way to do it. For me personally I believe that using the income tax for social change is too blunt of an instrument and one that I'm not sure is that effective.
One other criticism that I have with the Social Democrats is in their reaction to the extreme right some, not all, have become as tribal and demanding of ideological and moral purity as those they oppose. One personal example was that I was involved in a protracted debate with some regarding John McCain. They felt that McCain was a racist, misogynist, warmonger and went so far as calling him evil and mourning him a sign of a national pathology. While it's true McCain wasn't a liberal progressive but he still reached out to the other side and was even willing to make peace with the country that was his mortal enemy and also helped refugees from Vietnam and other countries affected by war. The inability though by those on the left (and those on the right who consider him a traitor) is a dangerous message to any of those who try to reach beyond their own political tribes and reinforces the divide of our politics.
All of that said at the moment the issues between people like myself who consider themselves moderates from those who consider themselves progressives and / or Socialists pales in comparison to the differences with a party that has sold itself out to a demagogue and a con man.

 

One more thing regarding Socialism. I don't think Socialism is antithetical to economic growth but I think it can only work on a very limited scale. I would argue that Singapore is one of the most socialistic countries currently and it certainly is a model of growth and development. The face that Singapore shows to the outside World is very capitalistic. It welcomes to foreign investment and has gone from being a cheap manufacturing site to being a major center of finance and technology and management expertise. Internally though it operates very much as a real (not US) Socialistic state with government ownership and /or control of major industry. Companies like the Jurong Development Corporation, Housing Development Board, Changi Airport, Singapore Airlines and etc are government owned entities that play a very large role in the economy of Singapore and also in the daily lives of the vast majority of most Singaporeans. Further even if we accept the argument that Socialism is based on government regulation there is no doubt that Singapore is a heavily regulated society with the government also using the economic power and business practices of government owned corporations to effect the lives and direction of Singaporean society.

 

The following quote appears on the Democratic Socialist website. Link provided.

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

By stating in the "short term" they can't eliminate private corporations, they are implying that is indeed the long term goal. The Democratic Socialist are every bit as socialist as any pure socialist. They only recognize they need to move that way slowly instead of all at once like Venezuela. In the end the results would be the same but it would only take longer to destroy the country.

 

Do "centrist Dems" still exist? With as far as the party has moved to the left in recent years, what would a "centrist Dem" even look like? Is Pelosi now a "centrist Dem"?

 

Socialist constructs in the USA today:

1. Police
2. Fire
3. Military
4. Government
5. Schools
6. Jails
7. Public parks and workds

Just to name a few.

We are already a socialist democracy.

DD

 

If you want to get technical, Marx wanted temporary state control of the means of production. Once things were leveled, the state would dissolve and there would be a more libertarian socialist organization. He, of course, grossly misunderstood the human animal and didn’t think about people not wanting to give up power or, worse, using his theories fo artificially (rapidly) construct a fascist government instead. Marx’s biggest critics of the day weren’t really capitalists but true libertarian socialists.

 

With the changing demographics in this country the dems could own nearly every district, gerrymandering be dammed. But my biggest criticism of the dems for years now, they don't want to win they want be right. they don't want incremental change they want immediate change and anyone who doesn't is a enemy. Let's hope the dem leadership can wrangle away control from the outspoken fringe like Hollywood, Moore, Hogg, Waters, etc.., who are landmines on the way to any type of success.

 

Project much?

Between the two parties, it is the Republicans more so who treat the Democrats as enemies. Obama starting after the 2010 elections offered to work with the Republicans on bi-partisan issues yet they refused. If the Democrats win the House, would you be surprised if all the House's attempts at bipartisanship gets ignored by the Republican Senate?

BTW what Democratic changes have gone too far in the last 30 years?