The rationale that I'm pulling? All I did was ask a question. I honestly don't understand this post at multiple levels. There isn't a single socialist country in Europe right now.
If there are rough patches in the business cycle, it won't be H1-Bs that will be pissed, it will be the college grads and permanent interns. Dead weight can't be fired. Last In, First Out. China is a net exporter. They've been shying away from a strong currency. At best, they want to be a part of a basket of currencies or a strong player in SDR. They've controlled their Yuan so that it doesn't circulate outside their borders and would probably leverage their firewall to do something similar with a digital currency. Seems like a great investment until the moment you're thinking of cashing out.
Fair enough. Do you agree the policies progressives and socialist-adjacents are promoting for equitable distribution will mimic what we've seen in European countries like France and Denmark? I'm totally up for reading research papers pushing a higher standard or taking a more rigorous approach in the policies they're promoting. That seems to be ignored, but whatever.
I don't know what a socialist adjacent is, so I'm just going to go with progressives here Can you give an example of a policy (and maybe how it relates to socialism if we are tying this back into the original subject)?
Answering a question with a question is murky breh. Similar means different ends... Here, the Dem Socialists outline where they disagree with Socialists. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/ Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything? Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect. Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. 1) While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives. Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods. 1) They're [European Socialists are] more open to controlling utilities (pre-90s era) and national companies with monopoly share ranging from transportation to consumable goods, though not permanently and likely on an ad hoc basis (for the sake of nationalism). Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism? In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. 2) The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. 2) France is more the popular example with higher taxes to pay for current spending/pension program and with social welfare, such as guaranteed stipends for the low income/unemployed and near permanent job guarantees (stricter rules to hire and fire). Should I hold my breath for a study or research paper? Why are there no models of democratic socialism? Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making. Which is fair, but if your point is that there is "no pure Socialist state" then what does that mean politically? Either a) we evolve or stunt towards (Democratic) socialism like our Euro siblings or b) we undergo a revolution to enforce a "pure ideological Socialist state". Do you agree? But hasn’t the European Social Democratic experiment failed? Many northern European countries enjoy tremendous prosperity and relative economic equality thanks to the policies pursued by social democratic parties. These nations used their relative wealth to insure a high standard of living for their citizens—high wages, health care and subsidized education. Most importantly, social democratic parties supported strong labor movements that became central players in economic decision-making. But with the globalization of capitalism, the old social democratic model becomes ever harder to maintain. Stiff competition from low-wage labor markets in developing countries and the constant fear that industry will move to avoid taxes and strong labor regulations has diminished (but not eliminated) the ability of nations to launch ambitious economic reform on their own. Social democratic reform must now happen at the international level. Multinational corporations must be brought under democratic controls, and workers’ organizing efforts must reach across borders. Now, more than ever, socialism is an international movement. As socialists have always known, the welfare of working people in Finland or California depends largely on standards in Italy or Indonesia. As a result, we must work towards reforms that can withstand the power of multinationals and global banks, and we must fight for a world order that is not controlled by bankers and bosses. i.e. Neoliberalism and Globalization has failed us in it's race to the bottom. Overall, I'm not sure what kind of government we have now, so don't misinterpret me blaming "Socialists" or Democrat Socialists for our current shitshow.
I have to answer your questions with questions because I don’t understand them. Believe me, you would rather me ask further questions, in a genuine attempt to understand you, then to make an retort off of an assumption. Overall, I’m unable to understand your posts, I asked what polices could you give an example of that American progressives are pushing for to make us more like Denmark or France, and how that ties into socialism for you, I can try reading again when I have more time but what I read didn’t seem to answer that From what I read, I’ll say this. European countries have mixed economies, so does America. None of which are socialist. Social and welfare programs within a mixed economy is not socialism, public utilities within a mixed economy is not socialism, pensions and workers rights (regarding job security, paid time of etc) are again not socialism. The economies are mixed.
This medium isn't great for sifting out genuine attempt, unfortunately I don't have much time rn to explain more. I do suggest reading the original article I replied to. He talks about growing up in a pure ground up socialist setting and then his later journey into government progressivism. That latter part is the mixed economy we are living in while debating it's future (more or less government intervention). It's an interesting topic to discuss because its future consequences could affect when or if you buy a house or start up a business.
I did read it, classic story for why someone would be libertarian - outside the mostly irrelevant beginning part of joining a small communal group in Israel. Man looks at US gov, see's it's corrupt, comes to the conclusion that less gov is the fix. Pretty much the default logic behind libertarianism. I'm on board and understanding about the US Gov being corrupt, that's clear, and I can understand how one would come to that conclusion(less Gov fewer problems). I just disagree. I think Plutocracy becomes an even bigger problem under a libertarian government. Something even someone like Os can see through his cancel culture big tech companies can't block free speech tirade. To me, the focus is how do we get corruption out of Gov to the best of our ability. And just to be clear and to repeat, I'm not a socialist, I don't advocate for Socialism. I advocate for social democracy. What's not great a great medium for a genuine conversation is not replying coherently to the discussion. I don't know why you linked me to a page about democratic socialism when I asked a pretty specific question (what policies and how are they socialism) regarding your question (Do you agree progressives are pushing policies to make us like France/Denmark). Anywho, it's all good, these types of topics really should be discussed in person, there's way too much nuance, way too much that needs to be said for text.
Hmm, you asked me a loaded question for a position I didnt take, then lectured me on europe being a mixed economy when I deliberately wrote that Europe wanted the best of both worlds. I posted the democratic socialist link to clarify what socialistic aspects they liked that European countries and others took, but I suppose as an advocate for "social democracy", those Democratic Socialists are not your thing. Not murky and slippery at all, but I'm sure The People will pick your banner up some time or another. BTW I'm an anti-social democrat if you haven't caught on already
This response makes me even more confused on this whole exchange, I wasn't expecting that lol Apologies brother, perhaps my mind is baked like a Texas potato.
Our diversity of cultures and races makes sharing harder. It's easier for The Swiss or Dutch to share resources because everyone is either Swiss or Dutch. America has a good system. Everyone may not have insurance but we don't let people starve or die. On healthcare Europe and Japan and other industrialized nations are healthier because they are more educated dicisiplined and therefore not fat ass smokers.
And where in democratic socialism does it say you shouldn't as a citizen engage in civics and your community and strive to be the best you can be?
Why? Socialism in itself is labor ownership of capital. How does that have anything to do with not trying your best? In fact our modern instant online trading capitalist system creates a system where trust fund babies can exponentially grow their wealth with no discernible skills and labor input by throwing some money at hedge funds. And the billionares who started businesses from their own hard work put in a lot of effort for their first millions and then for their next billions get their wealth off the backs of laborers while putting in little labor input themselves. Real Estate also is a avenue of massive wealth growth with little labor input. Wealthy property owners hold on to apartments in places like Manhattan, their values skyrocket and with zero effort increase their wealth. Our current system already has middle class to poor people having less time on their hands for leisure activity than the wealthiest.
If you want a system where people can earn, you need to have people who have value. Eliminating mass immigration should be a chief concern and making sure companies cannot use slave labor in foreign countries. Socialism is just a band-aid at its very finest instead of a real solution and gives wealth to people who didn't earn it and in the case of the USA would just be enriching people off the backs of others who slave under the corporate yoke abroad (if they actually paid taxes which is another issue). If not, then you won't have a strong enough class to tax since the middle class will soon be a thing of the past at the current rate of things. If these companies want to bleed jobs in India fine, so be it, but if they do so then they should have to pay OUR minimum wage. If anyone wants to do business here they should have to abide by OUR standards for worker safety as well. Socialism doesn't actually create opportunities for people. It is pretty authoritarian as well and usually just creeps into more centralized control; which in turn leads to more corruption. The solution is decentralization, properly taxing corporations, boosting the middle class by giving labor value by eliminating unchecked immigration, sanctioning companies that don't pay our minimum wage abroad, and allowing for states to run their own social programs... like schools... healthcare... etc. The federal govt is not supposed to control literally everything. That's a recipe for disaster and most of these "socialist" ideas can be handled statewide or locally with social programs. Ask yourself why these far left states haven't gotten off their ass and given universal healthcare yet? Nothing should be stopping them. Why do they want the other states to pay for their healthcare? Do they have enough money even? If so, why not? What about their policies is making this impossible?
Mass immigration is literally the reason why the US compared to other countries experiences long term gdp growth for 40+ years and it's a metric you bragged about during the Trump adminstration. Socialism is labor ownership of capital. It's something no one here is advocating for. Social democracy is what people are advocating for and that is having government services like public healthcare to lift the regular people so that helps our society while still having market capitalism for most sectors of our economy. You are beating up strawmen. I agree about slave labor wages for illegal immigrants. I'm sure you then agree that we should give every illegal migrant legal work visas and register them in the system where they won't be scared and scatter which will force companies to pay them legal wages which will signficantly lower the demand for illegal migrants... That's of course if your intentions are based on actually solving the problem of migrant slave labor rather than white nationalism and right wing culture that advocates cruelty and bigoted views towards those migrants.
Nope he is all over the place, I can pick up some stuff from him but being concise is definitely not his thing. We have picked up some real interesting posters here in the D&D lately, they really like the long form.
