PoliticalGround Democratic socialism rising in the age of Trump

7/22/18 1:14 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 21103

.

7/22/18 1:43 AM
10/16/10
Posts: 25043

 

7/22/18 2:02 AM
10/16/10
Posts: 25044

 

7/22/18 2:09 AM
6/20/13
Posts: 7512

 

Edited: 7/22/18 7:05 AM
12/26/05
Posts: 38643
Pustak -
fubar_ - Seems like a lot of people want pretend like democratic socialists are social democrats.
Democratic Socialists are basically commies with patience,ie they want to vote in socialism instead of a violent revolution.

 

I'm a dues paying DSA member. If people vote for something shouldn't they get it?

 

At a recent meeting of my local chapter we held a vote on our electoral endorsement policy. There were a few people who felt like we should not endorse candidates for positions in the "bourgeois capitalist state." Their motions to that effect we're sounds defeated, like 55-3. I was pleased by that, since I refuse to take part in any organization that is authoritarian. I would have quit if the vote had gone in a "revolutionary Socialist" direction. The Democratic is equal in my eyes with the Socialist. I'd argue, in fact, that Socialism that is not Democratic is not worth the name. 

 

That means that if we don't win support of the populace we don't get to rule. If we don't retain support we leave government. That's key to my understanding of the whole project.

 

Anyone who thinks I'm an authoritarian can meet me in the parking lot of the Dairy Queen. (So I can buy you an ice cream and talk to you about syndicalism. Duh, what did you think I meant?)

No, people shouldnt get anything they merely vote for, and that idea is so ludicrous I dont think i even have to give examples of why that doesn't work, do i?

And yes if you're a socialist, you're an authoritarian.  A hope for socialism almost necessarily requires  ignoring or refusing to acknowledge certain individual and property rights.  Even the most peaceful of socialists are simply fools walking  in front of  societal bulldozers being driven by the utmost vile kind of people.

No I dont separate your specific strain of socialism from all the others responsible for unbelievably brutal suffering over the past 100 years around the globe.

 

I think people should view you and your group like people view the alt right....just a new strain of the same authoritarian virus, and people should shun you at the very least.

7/22/18 10:56 AM
4/12/11
Posts: 10194
Stache -

Democratic socialism rising in the age of Trump

The Associated Press Steve Peoples

Last Updated July 21, 2018 11:00 AM EDT

 

PORTLAND, Maine — A week ago, Maine Democrat Zak Ringelstein wasn’t quite ready to consider himself a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, even if he appreciated the organization’s values and endorsement in his bid to become a U.S. senator.

Three days later, he told The Associated Press it was time to join up. He’s now the only major-party Senate candidate in the nation to be a dues-paying democratic socialist.

Ringelstein’s leap is the latest evidence of a nationwide surge in the strength and popularity of an organization that, until recently, operated on the fringes of the liberal movement’s farthest left flank. As Donald Trump’s presidency stretches into its second year, democratic socialism has become a significant force in Democratic politics. Its rise comes as Democrats debate whether moving too far left will turn off voters.

“I stand with the democratic socialists, and I have decided to become a dues-paying member,” Ringelstein told AP. “It’s time to do what’s right, even if it’s not easy.”

 

There are 42 people running for offices at the federal, state and local levels this year with the formal endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America, the organization says. They span 20 states, including Florida, Hawaii, Kansas and Michigan.

The most ambitious Democrats in Washington have been reluctant to embrace the label, even as they embrace the policies defining modern-day democratic socialism: Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition and the abolition of the federal department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Congress’ only self-identified democratic socialist, campaigned Friday with the movement’s newest star, New York City congressional candidate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old former bartender who defeated one of the most powerful House Democrats last month.

Her victory fed a flame that was already beginning to burn brighter. The DSA’s paid membership has hovered around 6,000 in the years before Trump’s election, said Allie Cohn, a member of the group’s national political team.

Last week, its paid membership hit 45,000 nationwide.

 

There is little distinction made between the terms “democratic socialism” and “socialism” in the group’s literature. While Ringelstein and other DSA-backed candidates promote a “big-tent” philosophy, the group’s constitution describes its members as socialists who “reject an economic order based on private profit” and “share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.”

Members during public meetings often refer to each other “comrades,” wear clothing featuring socialist symbols like the rose and promote authors such as Karl Marx.

 

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/democratic-socialism-surging-in-the-age-of-trump

 

I agree this is troubling and hopefully self destructive for the dems. I do believe that the thread title should be reversed. The rise of trumpism in the age of socialism. 

7/22/18 11:03 AM
8/21/07
Posts: 7390
Pustak - 
fubar_ - Seems like a lot of people want pretend like democratic socialists are social democrats.
Democratic Socialists are basically commies with patience,ie they want to vote in socialism instead of a violent revolution.


I'm a dues paying DSA member. If people vote for something shouldn't they get it?

 

At a recent meeting of my local chapter we held a vote on our electoral endorsement policy. There were a few people who felt like we should not endorse candidates for positions in the "bourgeois capitalist state." Their motions to that effect we're sounds defeated, like 55-3. I was pleased by that, since I refuse to take part in any organization that is authoritarian. I would have quit if the vote had gone in a "revolutionary Socialist" direction. The Democratic is equal in my eyes with the Socialist. I'd argue, in fact, that Socialism that is not Democratic is not worth the name. 

 

That means that if we don't win support of the populace we don't get to rule. If we don't retain support we leave government. That's key to my understanding of the whole project.

 

Anyone who thinks I'm an authoritarian can meet me in the parking lot of the Dairy Queen. (So I can buy you an ice cream and talk to you about syndicalism. Duh, what did you think I meant?)


socialism is by nature ultimately authoritarian since it doesn't allow people to opt out and must rely on centralized planning.

Also, even if it wasn't authoritarian it still wouldn't work since their is no way to calculate economic value.
7/22/18 11:04 AM
8/21/07
Posts: 7391
there
7/22/18 11:09 AM
3/16/06
Posts: 17393

Socialism works best when implemented democratically. Look how well it worked for Nazi Germany! 

7/22/18 11:15 AM
8/12/16
Posts: 5104
Pablo Duke -
Dashabox -
darkm -
androb -
Stache -

Democratic socialism rising in the age of Trump

The Associated Press Steve Peoples

Last Updated July 21, 2018 11:00 AM EDT

 

PORTLAND, Maine — A week ago, Maine Democrat Zak Ringelstein wasn’t quite ready to consider himself a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, even if he appreciated the organization’s values and endorsement in his bid to become a U.S. senator.

Three days later, he told The Associated Press it was time to join up. He’s now the only major-party Senate candidate in the nation to be a dues-paying democratic socialist.

Ringelstein’s leap is the latest evidence of a nationwide surge in the strength and popularity of an organization that, until recently, operated on the fringes of the liberal movement’s farthest left flank. As Donald Trump’s presidency stretches into its second year, democratic socialism has become a significant force in Democratic politics. Its rise comes as Democrats debate whether moving too far left will turn off voters.

“I stand with the democratic socialists, and I have decided to become a dues-paying member,” Ringelstein told AP. “It’s time to do what’s right, even if it’s not easy.”

 

There are 42 people running for offices at the federal, state and local levels this year with the formal endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America, the organization says. They span 20 states, including Florida, Hawaii, Kansas and Michigan.

The most ambitious Democrats in Washington have been reluctant to embrace the label, even as they embrace the policies defining modern-day democratic socialism: Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition and the abolition of the federal department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Congress’ only self-identified democratic socialist, campaigned Friday with the movement’s newest star, New York City congressional candidate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old former bartender who defeated one of the most powerful House Democrats last month.

Her victory fed a flame that was already beginning to burn brighter. The DSA’s paid membership has hovered around 6,000 in the years before Trump’s election, said Allie Cohn, a member of the group’s national political team.

Last week, its paid membership hit 45,000 nationwide.

 

There is little distinction made between the terms “democratic socialism” and “socialism” in the group’s literature. While Ringelstein and other DSA-backed candidates promote a “big-tent” philosophy, the group’s constitution describes its members as socialists who “reject an economic order based on private profit” and “share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.”

Members during public meetings often refer to each other “comrades,” wear clothing featuring socialist symbols like the rose and promote authors such as Karl Marx.

 

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/democratic-socialism-surging-in-the-age-of-trump

 

Besides the free college tuition it sounds  like Canada 

universal healthcare for all

$15 min wage

no ice. 

I definately don’t consider myself a socialist 

Are you stupid?

 

canada has deportation agents 

That is the equivalent of ICE

The fuck is wrong with you

I used to work along side those agents a while back.  There were many, many times we were forced to release illegals on their own recognizance even though they had no ID and we had no idea who they were.  Do you really think that they showed up to court?

... I seriously read his "no ice." to mean no physical frozen ice, as in a generally better weather bonus.   

 

I am also stoned.

That must have been some good shit! lol

7/22/18 11:28 AM
2/5/06
Posts: 35435

There's no such thing as democratic socialism, it's a made up phrase 

7/23/18 7:41 AM
8/13/02
Posts: 12470
Stache - ^ The Nazis were democratically elected as well. That's not much of a justification for the authoritarian and murderous policies that followed.

The Nazis never garnered more than 18% of the German vote before seizing power after the Reichstag fire. They manipulated von Hindenburg to let them tear up the Weimar constitution and suspend civil rights in Germany. Even after they were effectively in complete control of the state they only took 33% in the Federal elections of 1933. And they were so democratic that they arrested all of the KPD ministers when they tried to take their seats in Parliament.

Fascism arises from the *collapse* of democratic institutions, not from their normal functioning.
7/23/18 7:43 AM
8/13/02
Posts: 12471
CavemanDave - 
Pustak -
fubar_ - Seems like a lot of people want pretend like democratic socialists are social democrats.
Democratic Socialists are basically commies with patience,ie they want to vote in socialism instead of a violent revolution.

 

I'm a dues paying DSA member. If people vote for something shouldn't they get it?

 

At a recent meeting of my local chapter we held a vote on our electoral endorsement policy. There were a few people who felt like we should not endorse candidates for positions in the "bourgeois capitalist state." Their motions to that effect we're sounds defeated, like 55-3. I was pleased by that, since I refuse to take part in any organization that is authoritarian. I would have quit if the vote had gone in a "revolutionary Socialist" direction. The Democratic is equal in my eyes with the Socialist. I'd argue, in fact, that Socialism that is not Democratic is not worth the name. 

 

That means that if we don't win support of the populace we don't get to rule. If we don't retain support we leave government. That's key to my understanding of the whole project.

 

Anyone who thinks I'm an authoritarian can meet me in the parking lot of the Dairy Queen. (So I can buy you an ice cream and talk to you about syndicalism. Duh, what did you think I meant?)

No, people shouldnt get anything they merely vote for, and that idea is so ludicrous I dont think i even have to give examples of why that doesn't work, do i?

And yes if you're a socialist, you're an authoritarian.  A hope for socialism almost necessarily requires  ignoring or refusing to acknowledge certain individual and property rights.  Even the most peaceful of socialists are simply fools walking  in front of  societal bulldozers being driven by the utmost vile kind of people.

No I dont separate your specific strain of socialism from all the others responsible for unbelievably brutal suffering over the past 100 years around the globe.

 

I think people should view you and your group like people view the alt right....just a new strain of the same authoritarian virus, and people should shun you at the very least.


It's more than a little ironic that I'm saying people should get what they vote for, but you're telling me they shouldn't and you're the one accusing me of being undemocratic.

Ok, let's start here - what is Socialism? What, in your mind, do I advocate?
7/23/18 9:15 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 21105
Pustak -
Stache - ^ The Nazis were democratically elected as well. That's not much of a justification for the authoritarian and murderous policies that followed.

The Nazis never garnered more than 18% of the German vote before seizing power after the Reichstag fire. They manipulated von Hindenburg to let them tear up the Weimar constitution and suspend civil rights in Germany. Even after they were effectively in complete control of the state they only took 33% in the Federal elections of 1933. And they were so democratic that they arrested all of the KPD ministers when they tried to take their seats in Parliament.

Fascism arises from the *collapse* of democratic institutions, not from their normal functioning.

That’s not an argument in favor of electing socialists...

7/23/18 9:29 AM
10/16/10
Posts: 25058
Pustak - 
Stache - ^ The Nazis were democratically elected as well. That's not much of a justification for the authoritarian and murderous policies that followed.

The Nazis never garnered more than 18% of the German vote before seizing power after the Reichstag fire. They manipulated von Hindenburg to let them tear up the Weimar constitution and suspend civil rights in Germany. Even after they were effectively in complete control of the state they only took 33% in the Federal elections of 1933. And they were so democratic that they arrested all of the KPD ministers when they tried to take their seats in Parliament.

Fascism arises from the *collapse* of democratic institutions, not from their normal functioning.

That's how democracy works for countries that don't have a two-party system. Absolute majorities are very rare.

And yes, authoritarians don't like to relinquish power so they are always a threat to democratic institutions, like when Chavez blacklisted political opponents from state agencies, stacked the courts with loyalists and censored the media to quell opposition and free speech.

Socialism and fascism have more similarities than differences. Both are a threat to democracy.
Edited: 7/23/18 9:44 AM
8/13/02
Posts: 12474
amadeus - 
Pustak -
Stache - ^ The Nazis were democratically elected as well. That's not much of a justification for the authoritarian and murderous policies that followed.

The Nazis never garnered more than 18% of the German vote before seizing power after the Reichstag fire. They manipulated von Hindenburg to let them tear up the Weimar constitution and suspend civil rights in Germany. Even after they were effectively in complete control of the state they only took 33% in the Federal elections of 1933. And they were so democratic that they arrested all of the KPD ministers when they tried to take their seats in Parliament.

Fascism arises from the *collapse* of democratic institutions, not from their normal functioning.

That's not an argument in favor of electing socialists...


No, it's not. But it is a refutation of your non sequitur. Fascism arises from the collapse of democracy, not from its actual workings.

PS. I got my figures wrong in the initial post. The Nazis garnered ~37% in 1932. I was looking at the wrong line of the table I have.
7/23/18 3:30 PM
11/9/10
Posts: 62164
Stache -
VTCO -

Also anyone watch that Bernie Sanders "CEOs vs Workers" town hall a few days ago?

I had to stop 10 minutes in when one of the workers brought up how she has to buy generic brand groceries as an example of being oppressed.

 

I just watched the first few minutes.  They lay it on pretty thick. 

 

Yeah lets go with socialism so she has to resort to hunting rats like Venezuela. I mean that's where Bernie said the American dream can be realized.

7/23/18 3:50 PM
11/9/10
Posts: 62165
VTCO -

People need to stop using Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's win as some sort of insurgency.

 

There was less than 12% voter turnout. Under 30,000 people voted in the primary and she won by around 4,000 votes.

 

That is not indicative of the start of some major revolution.

 

This is why she had a Twitter meltdown at Crowley still being on the ticket this November under the WFP. Because she knows that her "massive upset win" was largely due to voter apathy rather than the strength of her political views.

That is the problem. The media want it to be so bad they are clinging to her like she is the future.

 

If Crowley had agreed to even one debate with her or done any sort of campaigning she'd have been blown out. He could have had a highlight reel of idiocy to make a campaign commercial. She has no idea what the hell she is talking about. And that is on every topic I have heard her try to discuss.

7/23/18 3:52 PM
3/16/06
Posts: 17401
Pustak -
amadeus - 
Pustak -
Stache - ^ The Nazis were democratically elected as well. That's not much of a justification for the authoritarian and murderous policies that followed.

The Nazis never garnered more than 18% of the German vote before seizing power after the Reichstag fire. They manipulated von Hindenburg to let them tear up the Weimar constitution and suspend civil rights in Germany. Even after they were effectively in complete control of the state they only took 33% in the Federal elections of 1933. And they were so democratic that they arrested all of the KPD ministers when they tried to take their seats in Parliament.

Fascism arises from the *collapse* of democratic institutions, not from their normal functioning.

That's not an argument in favor of electing socialists...


No, it's not. But it is a refutation of your non sequitur. Fascism arises from the collapse of democracy, not from its actual workings.

PS. I got my figures wrong in the initial post. The Nazis garnered ~37% in 1932. I was looking at the wrong line of the table I have.

61 different parties received votes in the national election in 1932. The Nat'l Socialist German Workers Party received 37.27% of votes. Just over 20% of the total German population voted for them.

Our last presidential election was won by 19% of our total population. We have 2 main parties, with only five who received any significant amount of votes. Total, we had 12 candidates receive votes. 

Dont try to pretend the Nazis somehow snuck into power through the dealings of a small percentage of the population.

7/23/18 4:48 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 21121
Pustak - 
amadeus - 
Pustak -
Stache - ^ The Nazis were democratically elected as well. That's not much of a justification for the authoritarian and murderous policies that followed.

The Nazis never garnered more than 18% of the German vote before seizing power after the Reichstag fire. They manipulated von Hindenburg to let them tear up the Weimar constitution and suspend civil rights in Germany. Even after they were effectively in complete control of the state they only took 33% in the Federal elections of 1933. And they were so democratic that they arrested all of the KPD ministers when they tried to take their seats in Parliament.

Fascism arises from the *collapse* of democratic institutions, not from their normal functioning.

That's not an argument in favor of electing socialists...


No, it's not. But it is a refutation of your non sequitur. Fascism arises from the collapse of democracy, not from its actual workings.

PS. I got my figures wrong in the initial post. The Nazis garnered ~37% in 1932. I was looking at the wrong line of the table I have.

My non sequitur!?
Edited: 7/23/18 6:35 PM
2/18/17
Posts: 188
<blockquote>Pustak - <span id='userPost62744479' class='User-162622'><blockquote>fubar_ - Seems like a lot of people want pretend like democratic socialists are social democrats.<br />Democratic Socialists are basically commies with patience,ie they want to vote in socialism instead of a violent revolution.<br /><br /><br /></blockquote><p>I'm a dues paying DSA member. If people vote for something shouldn't they get it?</p><p> </p><p>At a recent meeting of my local chapter we held a vote on our electoral endorsement policy. There were a few people who felt like we should not endorse candidates for positions in the "bourgeois capitalist state." Their motions to that effect we're sounds defeated, like 55-3. I was pleased by that, since I refuse to take part in any organization that is authoritarian. I would have quit if the vote had gone in a "revolutionary Socialist" direction. The Democratic is equal in my eyes with the Socialist. I'd argue, in fact, that Socialism that is not Democratic is not worth the name. </p><p> </p><p>That means that if we don't win support of the populace we don't get to rule. If we don't retain support we leave government. That's key to my understanding of the whole project.</p><p> </p><p>Anyone who thinks I'm an authoritarian can meet me in the parking lot of the Dairy Queen. (So I can buy you an ice cream and talk to you about syndicalism. Duh, what did you think I meant?)</p></span></blockquote><br />Now let me preface this by saying that im drunk as a skunk or else i wouldnt bother commenting,i reason there will be a lot of spelling errors continuing on.<br /><br />Congratulations you are the least authoritarian of the authoritarians,good on you<br />The dsa still want to seize the means of production,how the fuck do you propose to manage that without turnin gauthoritarian.<br />I<br /><br /><br />I had this talk with another forum member who if i am being cynical was at best was being a useful idiot,at worst being malevolent <br />
7/24/18 9:18 AM
8/13/02
Posts: 12479
fubar_ - <blockquote>Pustak - <span id='userPost62744479' class='User-162622'><blockquote>fubar_ - Seems like a lot of people want pretend like democratic socialists are social democrats.<br />Democratic Socialists are basically commies with patience,ie they want to vote in socialism instead of a violent revolution.<br /><br /><br /></blockquote><p>I'm a dues paying DSA member. If people vote for something shouldn't they get it?</p><p> </p><p>At a recent meeting of my local chapter we held a vote on our electoral endorsement policy. There were a few people who felt like we should not endorse candidates for positions in the "bourgeois capitalist state." Their motions to that effect we're sounds defeated, like 55-3. I was pleased by that, since I refuse to take part in any organization that is authoritarian. I would have quit if the vote had gone in a "revolutionary Socialist" direction. The Democratic is equal in my eyes with the Socialist. I'd argue, in fact, that Socialism that is not Democratic is not worth the name. </p><p> </p><p>That means that if we don't win support of the populace we don't get to rule. If we don't retain support we leave government. That's key to my understanding of the whole project.</p><p> </p><p>Anyone who thinks I'm an authoritarian can meet me in the parking lot of the Dairy Queen. (So I can buy you an ice cream and talk to you about syndicalism. Duh, what did you think I meant?)</p></span></blockquote><br />Now let me preface this by saying that im drunk as a skunk or else i wouldnt bother commenting,i reason there will be a lot of spelling errors continuing on.<br /><br />Congratulations you are the least authoritarian of the authoritarians,good on you<br />The dsa still want to seize the means of production,how the fuck do you propose to manage that without turnin gauthoritarian.<br />I<br /><br /><br />I had this talk with another forum member who if i am being cynical was at best was being a useful idiot,at worst being malevolent <br />

What does it mean to seize the means of production? If you mean laws that encourage workers' syndicates forming, or the foundation of a sovereign wealth fund that pays out to every American like Norway has, then I am all for it. If you mean violent revolution, a la Lenin, I'll fight against that. Like, literally fight.