Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TheCid

Future of Democratic Party?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Even Marx admitted that "America was a bourgeois society from its very beginning." America has always had abstract labor, surplus value, and all of the other capitalist components. It was made up of petit bourgeois immigrants from Europe and never properly went through the slave society > Feudalist modes like in Western Europe. 

It didn't have to. It had Africans be its slaves rather than just plain folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article by Steve Peoples, AP.  More and more Democrats, including those in House and Senate and state offices are providing the GOP with ammunition it will use to persuade more and more people to vote REPUBLICAN in 2018 and 2020 and beyond.

Democratic Socialism Party (from their constitution) "...rejects private profit and shares a vision of popular control or resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution..."

1/3 of Senate Democrats and 2/3 of House Democrats have signed on to Bernie Sanders' free government health care for all.  Including Sens. Warren, Booker, Gillibrand and Harris who may run in 2020.  Estimated cost is $32 TRILLION.

DSA sponsored candidates, except Ocasio-Cortez, have performed very poorly in elections.

Apparently the Dems. did not learn a damn thing in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016.

https://apnews.com/a1770fd620d94bf58d0ff1035d3e0eea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Good article by Steve Peoples, AP.  More and more Democrats, including those in House and Senate and state offices are providing the GOP with ammunition it will use to persuade more and more people to vote REPUBLICAN in 2018 and 2020 and beyond.

Democratic Socialism Party (from their constitution) "...rejects private profit and shares a vision of popular control or resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution..."

1/3 of Senate Democrats and 2/3 of House Democrats have signed on to Bernie Sanders' free government health care for all.  Including Sens. Warren, Booker, Gillibrand and Harris who may run in 2020.  Estimated cost is $32 TRILLION.

DSA sponsored candidates, except Ocasio-Cortez, have performed very poorly in elections.

Apparently the Dems. did not learn a damn thing in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016.

https://apnews.com/a1770fd620d94bf58d0ff1035d3e0eea

I assume most Dems that voted for this so called 'free' healthcare-for-all understand that nothing is 'free'. 

Medicare isn't 'free';  anyone that is working knows this by looking at what gets deducted from their paycheck.

By overselling their proposals with words like 'free' instead of articulating how such programs would be paid for, they give the GOP a big opening.    The same is true for their 'free' college proposal.    

Statements like "rejects private profits" will NOT fly and plays right into the hands of the GOP.   Something like 'strife for reasonable private profits' would be much better (since 'reasonable' is vague).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Statements like "rejects private profits" will NOT fly and plays right into the hands of the GOP. Something like 'strife for reasonable private profits' would be much better (since 'reasonable' is vague).

What a wonderful rationale for keeping insurance companies that skim off half the money that gets spent on "health care".

Thank heaven the U.S. is the only first world nation that clings to such lunacy. It thinks it can afford that waste, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, darkblue said:

What a wonderful rationale for keeping insurance companies that skim off half the money that gets spent on "health care".

Thank heaven the U.S. is the only first world nation that clings to such lunacy. It thinks it can afford that waste, I guess.

I have pushed for a Swiss type heath care type system for the USA for decades now (and have mentioned that at this forum).   No company involved in any administrative function should make a profit from a health care system.

If the 'rejects private profits' statement from their constitution was a reference to ONLY a health care system,  then I was mistaken (but based on what Cid posted it didn't look that way to me).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I highly doubt that is what this girl (and mentally that is what she is),  was referring too.    Look at what she is pushing for;  living wage, minimum guaranteed salary,   free college for everyone,  rent-control in all areas,,,,  implying that today we have a much more of a free-market,  laissez faire,  economic system then 'back in the day'.

Total nonsense;  we have Social Security and all the New-Deal programs,  a minimum wage,  workers-compensation,  etc..

Hey, I get that self-called Social democratic have identified legit concerns but this girl isn't the one to be the main talking head about them.      

 

Maybe her definition of capitalism is different from mine, but she is correct that early America

was not a capitalist society. And her previous statement that capitalism has not always existed

in the world and will not always exist is pretty straightforward Marx. Her policy prescriptions sound

typically democratic socialist. She is also correct that capitalism is much more entrenched than it

was back in the early days of America. But we do have a mixed economy with the free market

being regulated by the government. She only has to win her own district anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheCid said:

More proof that she knows less than Trump about history, US History and the economy.  America, even during the colonial period, has always been a capitalist society.  Even the agrarian society was capitalistic.  Farmers hoped to raise enough so they could trade for what they needed, if not actually sell it. 

The only time capitalism did not exist was when there were dictators.  Even then some forms of capitalism existed.  

Slavery and share-cropping were a part of agrarian economy, but also part of the capitalist economy.  See above also.

I doubt there is any adult of sound mind who knows less about U.S. history than Trump.

This hinges on one's definition of capitalism. It would be very hard for an agricultural society

to also be a capitalist one for Marx. The basics of the capitalist society were simply not in

place yet. That's one reason why the agricultural society of early 20th century Russia would

not seem to be a place for a Marxist revolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Even Marx admitted that "America was a bourgeois society from its very beginning." America has always had abstract labor, surplus value, and all of the other capitalist components. It was made up of petit bourgeois immigrants from Europe and never properly went through the slave society > Feudalist modes like in Western Europe. 

I wonder if he discriminates between a bourgeois society and a capitalist one. Early America was

basically an agricultural society with some small industry and likely some home piece work. There

was really no large industrial base that would give rise to a capitalist form of economy. Then there

were slaves who could not sell their labor for wages. Of course America evolved into a capitalist

society, but I really can't see how it was one from the very beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

She only has to win her own district anyway.

Like usual you're not paying attention (I guess that is what happens to people that are too lazy to vote).

There is a large group Dem politicians that are saying she is the NEW face of the Dem party.   That she represents a populist movement to remove the establishment Dems from power (which she clearly did by her impressive win in the primary).

Most of the people criticizing her here are NOT members of the GOP and welcome 'messing with' the establishment \ corporate Dems.    But like Gershwin fan said,  this girl isn't the one to lead such a movement.

Is it because is cute that you're so easily fooled? 

  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Like usual you're not paying attention (I guess that is what happens to people that are too lazy to vote).

There is a large group Dem politicians that are saying she is the NEW face of the Dem party.   That she represents a populist movement to remove the establishment Dems from power (which she clearly did by her impressive win in the primary).

Most of the people criticizing her here are NOT members of the GOP and welcome 'messing with' the establishment \ corporate Dems.    But like Gershwin fan said,  this girl isn't the one to lead such a movement.

Is it because is cute that you're so easily fooled? 

  

 

It's actually not a matter of laziness but numbers, though I wouldn't want to waste a lot of

time standing in a voting line either. Yeah, I've read all that stuff about her being the new

face of the Democratic party. That's always been a media theme when a young person

comes along and has an upset win, no matter what their politics. Whether she'll have much

of an impact in 2018 is something we'll have to wait and see. Cute doesn't hurt in politics

but my what big teeth you have. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph Nader: The Democrats Are Unable to Defend the U.S. from the “Most Vicious” Republican Party in History

"..... Raising money from Wall Street, from the drug companies, from health insurance companies, the energy companies, kept [Democrats] from their main contrasting advantage over the Republicans, which is, in FDR’s parlance, “The Democratic Party is the party of working families, Republicans are the party of the rich.” That flipped it completely and left the Democrats extremely vulnerable. ......

If you don’t run a 50-state campaign, number one you’re strengthening the opposing party in those states you’ve abandoned, so they can take those states for granted and concentrate on the states that are in the grey area. That was flub number one. ........

— policy precedes message. That means they kept saying how bad the Republicans are. They campaigned not by saying, look how good we are, we’re going to bring you full Medicare [for all], we’re going to crack down on corporate crime against workers and consumers and the environment, stealing, lying, cheating you. We’re going to get you a living wage. We’re going to get a lean defense, a better defense, and get some of this money and start rebuilding your schools and bridges and water and sewage systems and libraries and clinics.

Instead of saying that, they campaign by saying “Can you believe how bad the Republicans are?” Now once they say that, they trap their progressive wing, because their progressive wing is the only segment that’s going to change the party to be a more formidable opponent.....

the Democrats should have landslided them. Not just beaten them, landslided them in legislatures around the country, governorships, president and the Congress.

But no, it’s always the scapegoat.... “Oh, it’s Nader, oh, it’s the Koch Brothers, oh, it’s the electoral college, oh, it’s misogyny, oh, it’s **** deplorables.” They never look at themselves in the mirror. ....

Nobody gets fired. They have defeat after defeat, and they can’t replace their defeated compadres with new, vigorous, energetic people. Labor unions, the same thing. They [stay in positions] into their eighties no matter how screwed up the union is. You don’t get fired no matter how big the loss is, ...

the Democrats (seem) unable to defend the United States of America from the most vicious, ignorant, corporate-indentured, militaristic, anti-union, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-posterity [Republican Party] in history. ....."

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/

 

-Yeah, I know.....it's Ralph Nader...but still some valid points ;)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I doubt there is any adult of sound mind who knows less about U.S. history than Trump.

This hinges on one's definition of capitalism. It would be very hard for an agricultural society

to also be a capitalist one for Marx. The basics of the capitalist society were simply not in

place yet. That's one reason why the agricultural society of early 20th century Russia would

not seem to be a place for a Marxist revolution. 

Tsarist Russia also had nobility and aristocracy and it can be argued was semi-feudal in mode. America has never really had nobility or aristocracy or hereditary classes like existed in Russia and under Feudalism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I have pushed for a Swiss type heath care type system for the USA for decades now (and have mentioned that at this forum).   No company involved in any administrative function should make a profit from a health care system.

If the 'rejects private profits' statement from their constitution was a reference to ONLY a health care system,  then I was mistaken (but based on what Cid posted it didn't look that way to me).

 

 

As I read the article, the Democratic Socialist Party is against any form of capitalism or private enterprise.

5 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I doubt there is any adult of sound mind who knows less about U.S. history than Trump.

This hinges on one's definition of capitalism. It would be very hard for an agricultural society

to also be a capitalist one for Marx. The basics of the capitalist society were simply not in

place yet. That's one reason why the agricultural society of early 20th century Russia would

not seem to be a place for a Marxist revolution. 

The definition may be the crux of this argument.  Basically though when people produce something and sell it to other people, that is capitalism.  The person or group of persons determine what to produce, how much to sell it for and how to market it. And they keep the money.  To me, that is capitalism.  Even under feudalism and similar, individuals were creating the products and selling them for money for themselves.

Even under slavery, the plantation owners were the capitalist.  While there was much subsistence farming in early American history, most small farmers and all large farm/plantation tried to raise enough that they could sell it and keep the money.  

The government was not involved, except in maybe deciding which lords, etc. got to be the capitalists.

Regardless, the issue is that the platform of the Democratic Socialist Party will be anathema to most of the people who vote in elections.  If the Democrats support it or even large parts of it, they will be doomed to defeat - again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Tsarist Russia also had nobility and aristocracy and it can be argued was semi-feudal in mode. America has never really had nobility or aristocracy or hereditary classes like existed in Russia and under Feudalism. 

That's why some folks say that Russia in 1917 was not "supposed" to have a revolution

of the proletariat since the capitalist system at the time was in a very early stage, if it

even was a capitalist system. America never had a feudal system or a nobility, but in its

earliest days it had no more of a capitalist economic system than Russia in 1917. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, TheCid said:

As I read the article, the Democratic Socialist Party is against any form of capitalism or private enterprise.

The definition may be the crux of this argument.  Basically though when people produce something and sell it to other people, that is capitalism.  The person or group of persons determine what to produce, how much to sell it for and how to market it. And they keep the money.  To me, that is capitalism.  Even under feudalism and similar, individuals were creating the products and selling them for money for themselves.

Even under slavery, the plantation owners were the capitalist.  While there was much subsistence farming in early American history, most small farmers and all large farm/plantation tried to raise enough that they could sell it and keep the money.  

The government was not involved, except in maybe deciding which lords, etc. got to be the capitalists.

Regardless, the issue is that the platform of the Democratic Socialist Party will be anathema to most of the people who vote in elections.  If the Democrats support it or even large parts of it, they will be doomed to defeat - again.

Capitalism isn't just buying and selling things. Asiatic, antique/ slave and Feudalism all involved buying and markets but they weren't capitalist. Capitalism has only existed since the 16th Century and has a completely different class structure from the previous modes. Also it relies primarily on Wage labor and Surplus value is directly taken by the employers as opposed to just peasantry or serfdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

As I read the article, the Democratic Socialist Party is against any form of capitalism or private enterprise.

The definition may be the crux of this argument.  Basically though when people produce something and sell it to other people, that is capitalism.  The person or group of persons determine what to produce, how much to sell it for and how to market it. And they keep the money.  To me, that is capitalism.  Even under feudalism and similar, individuals were creating the products and selling them for money for themselves.

Even under slavery, the plantation owners were the capitalist.  While there was much subsistence farming in early American history, most small farmers and all large farm/plantation tried to raise enough that they could sell it and keep the money.  

The government was not involved, except in maybe deciding which lords, etc. got to be the capitalists.

Regardless, the issue is that the platform of the Democratic Socialist Party will be anathema to most of the people who vote in elections.  If the Democrats support it or even large parts of it, they will be doomed to defeat - again.

I've been using the Marxist definition of capitalism, which is a lot narrower than others.

Of course people have always produced things to exchange for money, but for Marx

that would not, by itself, make for a capitalist economy. And a plantation with slaves

doesn't have a class that sells its labor for wages. But that's sort of inside baseball, so

understandably most people use a less rigorous definition that I can certainly understand.

I don't think many Democrats, even those who support Medicare for all or something

like it, would agree with the tenets of the Democratic Socialist Party. That's really a

wholly different animal.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Capitalism isn't just buying and selling things. Asiatic, antique/ slave and Feudalism all involved buying and markets but they weren't capitalist. Capitalism has only existed since the 16th Century and has a completely different class structure from the previous modes. Also it relies primarily on Wage labor and Surplus value is directly taken by the employers as opposed to just peasantry or serfdom.

Definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Seems we are splitting hairs here.  Capitalism as opposed by the Democratic Socialist has been around since before America was colonized.  IMO, essential elements of capitalism existed under even older systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Seems we are splitting hairs here.  Capitalism as opposed by the Democratic Socialist has been around since before America was colonized.  IMO, essential elements of capitalism existed under even older systems.

Yeah, I agree with you there. America was colonized by petite bourgeois merchants and traders. I'd say it was pretty much capitalist from the beginning. It certainly wasn't feudal, antique or Asiatic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

While I like this definition,  it does lead to debates related to the types of 'controls' all political systems impose on private owners.     (but hey,  what is wrong with debates!).

I.e:  when do the nature and \ or extent of such "controls" move an economic system from being capitalism to something else?      

E.g. in Orange Country CA,  the city of Santa Ana has on the ballot the first rent-control measure for the county,  and Anaheim,  home of Disneyland a bill that would set a minimum wage just for Disney and a few other companies of their size in the city. 

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fake Interview With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Was Satire, Not Hoax, Conservative Pundit Says

"CRTV, a streaming service that offers conservative punditry guaranteed to be “100% free of anti-American propaganda,” spent part of Tuesday arguing that a fake interview it created with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in which the congressional candidate appeared to be stumped by questions she was not, in fact, asked, was a satire rather than a hoax.

The network, which has verified accounts on Facebook and Twitter, had initially given viewers no way of knowing that they were not watching an embarrassing interview with the Democratic Socialist running to represent New York’s 14th Congressional District.

In fact, the fictional interview with one of the network’s hosts, Allie Stuckey, was created by splicing in answers Ocasio-Cortez had given to different questions during a recent appearance on the PBS show “Firing Line.”......

After Shane Goldmacher, a New York Times reporter, pointed out that the interview had racked up more than a million views on Facebook with no disclaimer, the network added one, calling it “Hilarious satire!” ......

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/24/conservative-network-says-fake-interview-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-satire/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FOX BusinessVerified account @FoxBusiness

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "We will not rest until every person in this country is paid a living wage to lead a dignified life."

--------------------------------------------

Matt TaibbiVerified account @mtaibbi 20h20 hours ago

 
 

Matt Taibbi Retweeted FOX Business

Hilarious that Fox put this together as a scare video.

 

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

 

Fake Interview With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Was Satire, Not Hoax, Conservative Pundit Says

"CRTV, a streaming service that offers conservative punditry guaranteed to be “100% free of anti-American propaganda,” spent part of Tuesday arguing that a fake interview it created with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in which the congressional candidate appeared to be stumped by questions she was not, in fact, asked, was a satire rather than a hoax.

The network, which has verified accounts on Facebook and Twitter, had initially given viewers no way of knowing that they were not watching an embarrassing interview with the Democratic Socialist running to represent New York’s 14th Congressional District.

In fact, the fictional interview with one of the network’s hosts, Allie Stuckey, was created by splicing in answers Ocasio-Cortez had given to different questions during a recent appearance on the PBS show “Firing Line.”......

After Shane Goldmacher, a New York Times reporter, pointed out that the interview had racked up more than a million views on Facebook with no disclaimer, the network added one, calling it “Hilarious satire!” ......

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/24/conservative-network-says-fake-interview-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-satire/

What a silly and immature thing to do,  but also,  dumb from a political perspective.   

Her actual interviews are embarrassing enough without having to fake them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

America was colonized by petite bourgeois merchants and traders.

That's the second time you've used the word "petite".

Do you mean "little" - or something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, darkblue said:

That's the second time you've used the word "petite".

Do you mean "little" - or something else?

Yeah, the term refers to merchants, shop keepers and traders and those type of things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...