What you're calling socialism is really welfare statism which is to say, capitalism strongly regulated. I'm guessing your critics are in favor of regulated capitalism and don't argue that the current form of it is adequate. Anyway, that's my opinion.
Yeah, it is a welfare state. My primary point was you don't get there from here absent a strong socialist presence, which we obviously don't have, hence the abysmal state of the state when it comes to caring for citizens. People can be as enamored of a robust social welfare system as they want, but it is simply not gonna happen without a threat to the established order.
What I call socialism is socialism: seizing the means of production and so on. What I think socialists could accomplish, with sufficient numbers of them, is the establishment of a welfare state here akin to those in other developed countries, which were established either by socialist governments or by other governments under pressure from socialist parties.
It's an intermediate step. Expecting Democrats to do this without facing a meaningful threat is useless, and one can't threaten Democrats by saying hey, I'm still going to vote blue no matter who, but please establish a robust social welfare state.
Life is full of bad choices. If you don't vote blue, you're gonna get red and you'll like that even less. As for real socialism (government controlling and operating the means of production), can you point to any place where that has worked? And I don't mean in terms of pressuring liberal governments; I mean their actually controlling and operating the economy.
Again, I'm talking about socialism as a lever to reform capitalism. You can scoff at it, but can you point to a country that has a robust social welfare system without having had socialist party governments or strong socialist parties in opposition? Welfare states and strong regulatory regimens are concessions by capital to forestall something they think is worse. If you support those things, why would you advocate on behalf of someone who will never deliver them except under duress? Why not become the duress?
It takes a mass movement. You can vote for whomever you wish — lots of DSA members vote Democratic — but without sufficient participation in organizations to the left of Democrats, nothing like the kind of change we genuinely need to implement quickly, can happen.
I envision a little "Vote Blue No Matter Who" flag waving bravely above the sea as the last city goes under.
What you're calling socialism is really welfare statism which is to say, capitalism strongly regulated. I'm guessing your critics are in favor of regulated capitalism and don't argue that the current form of it is adequate. Anyway, that's my opinion.
Yeah, it is a welfare state. My primary point was you don't get there from here absent a strong socialist presence, which we obviously don't have, hence the abysmal state of the state when it comes to caring for citizens. People can be as enamored of a robust social welfare system as they want, but it is simply not gonna happen without a threat to the established order.
I'm not explaining this well.
What I call socialism is socialism: seizing the means of production and so on. What I think socialists could accomplish, with sufficient numbers of them, is the establishment of a welfare state here akin to those in other developed countries, which were established either by socialist governments or by other governments under pressure from socialist parties.
It's an intermediate step. Expecting Democrats to do this without facing a meaningful threat is useless, and one can't threaten Democrats by saying hey, I'm still going to vote blue no matter who, but please establish a robust social welfare state.
Life is full of bad choices. If you don't vote blue, you're gonna get red and you'll like that even less. As for real socialism (government controlling and operating the means of production), can you point to any place where that has worked? And I don't mean in terms of pressuring liberal governments; I mean their actually controlling and operating the economy.
Again, I'm talking about socialism as a lever to reform capitalism. You can scoff at it, but can you point to a country that has a robust social welfare system without having had socialist party governments or strong socialist parties in opposition? Welfare states and strong regulatory regimens are concessions by capital to forestall something they think is worse. If you support those things, why would you advocate on behalf of someone who will never deliver them except under duress? Why not become the duress?
It takes a mass movement. You can vote for whomever you wish — lots of DSA members vote Democratic — but without sufficient participation in organizations to the left of Democrats, nothing like the kind of change we genuinely need to implement quickly, can happen.
I envision a little "Vote Blue No Matter Who" flag waving bravely above the sea as the last city goes under.
More likely a red flag as Nader-like factions split the liberal/progressive vote or fail to vote at all and elect Republicans.
I'll put you down as a "no," then.