Why are Democrats being skewered as “Socialists” when Socialism hasn’t ever existed ...

That's just fantasy, his polices directly destroyed the balanced wealth growth FDR's policies had hit on and skewed it to where ALL wealth growth was int the top 2% of American households, and the middle and lower class Americans have (adjusted for inflation) realized near none. It IS the reason tRaitor tRumps "MAGA" resonates with his base; the
Trickle down didn't. And never will, tRaitor tRumps "tax cut" was just trickle-down 2.0 where the wealthy received a massive cut that never ends, and everyday Americans got a little break that expires next year.

Rather than use their massive tax cut to invest in America the wealthy overwhelmingly used that windfall to create tax-free "Think-Tanks" that dreamed up unending "facts" that supported the idea that taxing the wealthy was a bad idea. Which they have been using to brainwash poor conservatives and Congress and are why tRaitor tRump has a base ... at all.

"Deregulation of the financial sector was yet another big idea that was supposed to be good for Americans, and it was — for the elite. Begun in earnest by Reagan"

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/econom...ulation-and-bailouts-led-to-the-rise-of-trump

 

The reason your effort was vain, is because, as I've repeated "in vain" that's NOT what I said. I never even mentioned "100% pure socialist" at all. It's true there hasn't bee a 100% socialist economy or nation but that was never a point I made. Nor did I say "no one can be called a socialist", in fact I SAID that the American Socialist Party does indeed exist.

No you didn't, not on a national level. But, go ahead name one that achieved National Status.

Name some?

No, I defined socialism as "government ownership of the means of production". And what do you know, when you look it up that's exactly what Merriam-Webster says as well.

socialism
noun
so·cial·ism ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Synonyms of socialism
1 :any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Which, interestingly, for all or your vast economic knowledge ... YOUR definition above doesn't even mention.

No, no I did not. It appears to me that when you don't have a counter argument you resort to personal attacks and making up stuff "I said" that I never said. You seem to have skipped reading what I actually did say so you could devote your time to slandering me. Which I've called you on before and you excused yourself for making a "tiny little error".
But you keep doing it so I'll keep calling you on it. Maybe at some point you'll actually address what I actually posted.

My thesis was simple; I acknowledged that by definition Socialism, Communism and Fascism are very different systems.

But! In practice, in the world we live in, they have never actually existed as defined. Governments that have claimed to BE Socialist, Communist or Fascist WERE NOT and didn't function as commonly defined. What they did/do were/are, in practice and functionally we've had none of those. What we have had are Totalitarian Dictatorships. I wasn't talking about Native American Tribes, or Farmers Coops, or any small scale examples of organization that can be called socialist. I have been, trying, to make the point that governments that call themselves Socialist, Communist or Fascist have actually been Dictatorships that try to sugar coat their existence by calling themselves Socialist, Communist or Fascist. But, functionally, their economies operate the same; the dictator is in controls of everything and reaps the benefits of everything at the expense of a impoverished populous.

And I made that point to emphasize

1. That it has never been a realistic threat that These United States could or would ever become, what conservatives have been conditioned to fear most, Socialist.
2. That Democrats ARE NOT Socialists, Socialists exist as a separate entity and neither party wants anything to do with the other.
3. Conservatives constantly accuse Democrats of being socialists or communists because they know they are out numbered and the only way for them to win elections is to instill an irrational fear of their opponents in their base.
4. They support their accusation that Democrats are socialists by pointing out that the many programs Democrats have created for the benefit of working class Americans, programs their wealthy masters would never tolerate conservatives implementing, are "Socialist" or Communism and if we don't nip it in the bud we will become Socialist as a Nation with all the horrors that we've seen in Russia (not the conservatives best buddy), Venezuela, China, et all.
5. Which is why I made my initial observation to point out that, that kind of Totalitarianism would never be tolerated in my beloved United States of America.
6. Then I went on to point out that the even though the Democrats programs that protect the working class are often refereed to as a "social safety net" that doesn't make them "socialist".
7. I also pointed out that a "social safety net" wouldn't be necessary if the Banksters and Wall Street wouldn't tank the economy on a regular basis. But since the Banksters and Wall Street can control their greed and keep running the ship of state aground, then the workers, rightfully, should expect the government, that caters too the Banksters and Wall Street in preference to the working class, the workers should be protected from the Banksters and Wall Street **** ups. And it's the Democrats that have come through by trying to build a social safety net that Republicans/tRumpublicans constantly try to tear down.

That's an outline of my thesis. Of which you failed to address any of. Because, I can only guess, it was easier for you to attack me personally and take us on a flight of fantasy of things I never said or intend. I'm not confused about the various economic systems, I was just thinking out of the box and offering a point of view to consider that looks at them from, what I consider to be more realistic. But it was an opinion you can disagree with it. But it doesn't require a long dissertation on economic theory. You could just point out, even, ONE functioning socialist government, one and one. But you didn't.

The only confusion was yours. Miss impression that you could put words into my mouth, change my argument to suit your rebuttable and then attack me personally for your creation and get away with it was the only confusion; an it was all you.

I'm going to skip your civics lesson because you didn't even give an accurate definition of socialism, to begin with. And I don't care to read through it all to point out the coming inaccuracies when they don't have anything to do with the discussion at hand anyway.

The end point of my OP is that Democrats are not socialists, they are fully invested in These United States and, consequently, capitalism. That Democrats try to protect the working class from the folly of the wealthy doesn't make Democrats any more socialist than Ronald Reagan. And it's horseshit fearmongering on the part of Republicans/tRumpublicans to call Democrats socialist. And it's only getting more vicious with the continued lies of tRaitor tRump.

 

That isn't what FDR built. No one ever truly deregulated anything. Deregulation doesn't increase costs. It increases them. High taxes and regulations cause people t flee they always have. It's weird almost everything you believe is exactly the opposite of reality.

 

After you put your hair out

and look at the facts, you'll understand why you're wrong. Good bye

 

Apparently that's you in the picture. I know the facts. You are in essence claiming that jobs left the country because Reagan made operating a business here cheaper and less complex and more profitable.

 

Apparently you didn't read the post.

 

Socialism has been attempted many times. But it fails each and every single time.

Look at it this way. You say that Trump attempted an insurrection, and I've seen many who've denied it then be told that "just because he failed doesn't mean it wasn't insurrection!". Use that same logic to the groups you mentioned. Socialism, Communism, Fascism. They've all been attempted. It might be able to be argued with some of them as being successful or not. Except socialism, that has failed each and every time its been tried. So, just because we haven't had a truly socialist country yet...doesn't mean it hasn't been attempted.

 

Apparently you remain convinced that 3+3 =75

 

Like everything you post concerning President Biden, that's an incomplete equation. If you add the proper variable that could very well be a true statement.

 

But it completely describes everything about biden to a tee. Not to mention the beliefs of many Democrats.

 

My point IS, it hasn't actually been, according to definition, been tried as national government. Other than some coop's or Indian tribes, every time something "called" socialism comes along it turns out to be Totalitarian Dictatorship.

At a national level "socialism has never failed; it's never actually existed.

At a national level "socialism, has never failed; it's never actually existed. Communism, may have been tried in the first days after the Russian revolution but almost immediately devolved into Totalitarian Dictatorship. And, my observation is fascism has never been anything but another word for Totalitarian Dictatorship.

Actually on a micro level that's not true, where it usually succeeds.

But, to get back to the real point of my OP; OK, lets take the tack that socialism always fails.

Which may be and even stronger argument for why it has not, is not and never will be a treat, from within, to These beloved United States. It's expedient political bullshit to claim and accuse Democrats of being Socialist. ALL Democrats I know are fully vested in our capitalist economy, they differ with Republicans/tRumpublicans on philosophically how it should be implemented but they are capitalists the same or more so than any Republican/tRumpublican ever.

ALL, the democrats I know, I'm from a very blue area of a purple State so I know quite a few. ALL Democrats "I" know are or were, because they've retired, very successful capitalists and would stand shoulder to shoulder with Republicans/tRepublicans to defend these United States against socialism, if it ever became a threat; which it won't.

So PLEASE quit calling us "socialists" just because we out number you.

Which IS the point.

I guess, to tie it in a bow, for every Democrat, you can name, that actually IS a socialist, I can name a Republican/tRumublican that is actually a wanna be fascist; like your current presidential candidate for example.

 

It actually has been tried on a national government level. Cuba and Venezuela to name just two countries governments that have tried it. But it always fails before it can fully take hold. That is why its a failure. And it will ALWAYS be a failure every time its even attempted. Because humans are not that altruistic. Some are. Most aren't when it gets down to brass tacks. That is why it will always fail before it can be fully implemented.

As for calling Democrats "socialists", I personally do not go down that route. Its worthless imo. I might consider a particular policy as "socialist". But I don't go around calling Democrats it. Frankly I'm of a mind that a bit of socialism is OK. So long as its just a bit and not a whole lot. And then only for those that truly need it.

 

Totalitarian Dictatorships.

Which is the point I'm making, it's not viable on a large scale. Only Dictators take advantage of it to oppress people.

And it's probably a "social" program to protect workers from Wall Street and Banking **** ups.

I'm of a mind that any Socialism is dangerous, but social programs in a capitalist society are AbsaByGodLutely necessary. The more deregulated capitalism is, the more of a social safety net is needed.

 

Yet you’re going to vote for a guy who will NEVER force his greatest contributors to pay “their fair share” or much at all thanks to the loopholes he allows them to enjoy.

 

That's what they are now yes. But the point is that they tried. Hard.

Great! Then you and I are on the same page.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean that there are those that do not wish to implement socialism in our country. And their numbers are growing. Lots and lots of well meaning rubes out there that are buying into the narrative that capitalism is evil and socialism is great. And its those people that more often than not vote Democratic Party. Because unlike Republicans, Democrats do want socialist type policies to be implemented by the government. Its like the saying...Not all Republicans are KKK, but all KKK are Republican. Only its... Not all Democrats are socialists, but all socialists are Democrats.

 

I’m going to vote for the guy with the best chance of defeating tRaitor tRump. That’s the only way OUR Constitution has to continue this great American experiment.

 

There are, in their wildest dreams, MAYBE 5000 registered socialists in the U.S., there is AbsaByGodLutely NO chance of America becoming socialist unless a dictator takes over and "calls it socialist" which it wouldn't be.

 

I tend to believe that Socialists should define themselves. There are socialist parties that will help with that . Social Democrats and Democrat Socialists and Progressives and American Modern Liberals should also define for themselves what those labels mean. Remember, the label can describe a political, social or economic aspiration, rather than a current reality.

 

The reality is there are near zero American's that want or would tolerate a true "socialist" government; not matter what you call them. The right uses fear to control their voters and get them to consistently vote against themselves because they're convinced that evil Democrats are going to destroy their lives. When it was evil Republicans that actually have.

 

You missed the point. I am disinterested in your view of what is 'true socialism' because I don't believe that socialism has some stagnant definition that you get to pick and petrify by historical standards or definition. Its a changing adaptive morphing ideal that alters with the culture that which adapts to, much like 'liberalism' is. That means that American style socialism can be a different as American style liberalism is from European or classical liberalism. I am really only interested in what American socialists claim to want in their political platform, and that too can be subdivisivable by subgroupings. defined by a modifier.

 

Wuuuuaaaaaaaat?

My view????????

That socialism does not have a definition and it doesn't matter anyway, because anything like "socialism" would be rejected in the United States overwhelmingly and without question, IS my point.

Right wing fearmongering that Democrats are trying to take the country socialist, is a lie. Democrats down want a socialist system any more than they do, probably less.

 

Okay. I understand your point. I am an old fashioned modern American liberal with a progressive streak, and have been around that lie since the days of Edward Kennedy and Tip O Neal and Rev. Jesse Jackson. the term 'socialist' was weaponized by a frightened America that turned it into a version of 'communism-lite', a viral and pungent mistrust of communism that Europe largely kept in better perspective. Thus you have seen a much greater willingness in Europe to accept the deocratic 'socialist' party or social democrat party as just another party among many with varying degrees of support. The label is not a killer over there. That's a direct result of a fanatic embrace of the cold war narrative coupled with the war in Vietnam. You can tahnk J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy for twisting all manner of protests from pro union to civil rights to anti war protests into versions of anti American pinko subversion.

We need to try a new tactic with younger Americans and good ol Bernie is leading the charge by embracing his democrat Socialist/ independent self identification. We don't have to wear it, or validate it as our own ( I am not a socialist ), but we need to top running away like terrified rabbits from a word European left leaning politicians and parties have not.

 

I don't understand what that means. Liberal, progressive, left is all the same to me. People that care about the well being of other people and want everyone to live the life they choose even if we don't understand it.

It was weaponized by conservative tax free think tanks. Americans were frightened for sure, I remember. I'm a boomer and I remember looking up and the night sky and looking out at the beautiful universe we travel through and then, rather than becoming inspired by that beautiful night, the possibility that it all could be destroyed by the appearance of an oversized bottle rocket became an overwhelming fear deep inside me. I was probably one of thousands of children that grew up with that fear and our parents must have had similar thoughts they never shared with us. But, I'm certain that America was frightened. Conservatives used that fear, called it communism and got everyday Americans to throw away all the progress that had been made for working Americans because the programs that gave them that progress were called "social" and that must be socialism and socialism is communism and ... and ... if we don't stop it we're all going to die.

Because they didn't have wealthy Americans using tax free think tanks to scare the **** out of them. Tax money that should have been going to the government to pay for "social" programs. Not that they gave a **** about socialism. They wanted to cut any government programs to reduce their taxes. Never mind that those programs were created to protect the working class from wealthy bankers and wall street when they **** up; as they always do.

And consequently Europeans have a much better social safety net for their workers, health care being the most obvious, that we do in America and it was U.S. that showed them the way. It's not socialism, or any other ism tyrants hide behind; as Europe's great recovery proves. While we've been fighting each other over **** that doesn't exist to the rich can get richer; Europe, and since globalization, the rest of the world has beat us at the game we invented.

We, U.S. need to stop fighting and fearing each other and work together to Make America Greater.

 

They HAD a much much better social safety net when they were ethnostates. That is imploding given the unprecedented mass immigration from the 3rd world. When millions of legal and illegal immigrants get immediate access to the free government handouts, it does not take them long to break systems that prospered for decades before their arrival. The question is how long can ethnic Europeans continue to provide free handouts to 3rd worlders before their money runs out? Looking at the absolute catastrophe facing Great Britain's health system, the answer appears to be measurable in years and not decades.




https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/06/business/nhs-strikes-private-healthcare-uk/index.html




https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/16/world/europe/uk-nhs-crisis.html


The absolute proof of this is comparing Japan to Great Britain.

Japan with no mass migration:



Great Britain with mass migration:

 

That doesn't make sense. If people call you names you don't like, you aren't likely to side with them. You are more likely to dig your heels in deeper. Why would someone do that unless it were true? Name calling is just a symptom of the political divide we Americans enjoy. I'm not aware of any socialist conservatives, however. There could be a few here and there but, for the most part, socialists are liberal. Socialism is a very liberal thing, after all.