I don’t think any of your #2 examples are socialism. Although an argument might be made for government health care, but not necessarily single payor. In short, the welfare state is not socialism.
Socialism is characterized by central planning of the production and distribution of goods and services. (Cuba, North Korea) I agree with your observation that most modern economies are mixed. Here in the USA, we attempt to control the distribution of goods and services with varying degrees of regulations. That varies a lot by a given objective. But overall I’d say our distribution of goods and services is mostly driven by free markets.
Those who see themselves as American socialists, aren’t really. Their economics is driven by slogans not substance “Tax the Rich,” “people over profit,” “costs are too high,” are vacuous positions detached from reality of government action. These people still like their smart phones and vegan smoothies, products of free market capitalism.
Do you believe Mamdani’s administration would make NYC more like current Scandinavia or behind-the-Iron-Curtain East Germany?
Probably neither. I don’t think any Mayor can have that kind of influence. But as far as NYC is concerned, he would have a significant impact that is not about left or right, but more about common sense or craziness. I think public safety will suffer, I think Sharia law would get traction, and municipal tax policy will be a disaster.
I should put this out there, because I think a lot of you assume things that might not be true: you can make empirical observations about economies, how much socialism and how free their markets, etc. without making value judgments about them or efficiency evaluations.@co-hoosier I've asked this question before to Brad, when can we call it socialism? I don't know how governments can control this much of the capital and it not be socialism, but no matter what we choose to call it the results will be the same. Declining living standards and societies.
https://twitter.com/michaelaarouet/status/1977261720084292029?s=46
I think that thinking about these things should be driven by data, though, and not ideology. Saying (1) "socialism always leads to collapsing economies" while also saying things like (2) "single payor healthcare is socialism! Social security is socialism! Welfare benefits is socialism! A progressive tax rate is socialism! etc." is not supported by the data. History has shown that the welfare state does not necessarily collapse in upon itself and much of what is called "socialism" is just moving the needle on how much welfare is provided.
Rebranding every type of intervention in the market economy as a form of "socialism" is what allows people to make inane statements like 'The far left is the left."
@bradstevens I literally included 5 different objective datapoints. Also, I try to consistently post about how much of GDP governments control because it's what's most important and I want to avoid the subjective argument of their "mixed economies".
@goat or making inane statements like requiring the labeling of something - as if it matters. whether it's collective gov ownership, or it's raising taxes for redistribution, the net intent is the same: social welfare and a perceived more equitable distribution.
the reality for those of us who aren't living in lalaland is that the radical left is the left. but that's obvious to all with an ounce of common sense at this point. it's clear some in this thread still lack same 😉 your understanding of life based on your posts is on par with hickory
@goat or making inane statements like requiring the labeling of something - as if it matters. whether it's collective gov ownership, or it's raising taxes for redistribution, the net intent is the same: social welfare and a perceived more equitable distribution.
the reality for those of us who aren't living in lalaland is that the radical left is the left. but that's obvious to all with an ounce of common sense at this point. it's clear some in this thread still lack same 😉 your understanding of life based on your posts is on par with hickory
Haha I didn't even realize what thread we were in. But I'm still right. You guys redefine everything you don't like as extreme so that it is easier for you to dismiss and vilify.
I'm guessing you had to edit your post five times to tone down what I'm sure was an especially acerbic original draft. It's good you're working on that.
@goat you missed the point. Yet again. And per usual you’re wrong. Definitions don’t matter. It’s the desired outcome that matters. Redistribution. Social welfare expansion. More gov.
That’s what the radical left once desired. Now it’s what the left desires and yes what this iteration of the left promotes is indeed extreme
yes this format/playform is a nightmare on my cell
@goat you missed the point. Yet again. And per usual you’re wrong. Definitions don’t matter. It’s the desired outcome that matters. Redistribution. Social welfare expansion. More gov.
That’s what the radical left once desired. Now it’s what the left desires and yes what this iteration of the left promotes is indeed extreme
yes this format/playform is a nightmare on my cell
The definitions do matter for the reasons Brad explained already above, which I expanded on. The Western world is a giant mixed economy made of up a collection of other mixed economies. None of them are socialist in the traditional sense, but they all contain varying levels of governmental intervention. There is a huge difference between, say, confiscating all property and dividing it equally among all people (wealth distribution) and, say, using a progressive taxation scheme to raise money to provide social welfare for the poor (also wealth distribution). Simply attacking both as "socialism!!!!!!!" purports to ignore that very real difference so that anything that falls to the left of complete laissez-faire, near anarchic levels of capitalism can be dismissed as extreme or radical.
@goat it doesn't matter to the average voter. people aren't getting into the weeds on any of htis stuff. you're talking about a candidate who doesn't even have authority to raise the city's earnings tax much less anything else. he's an empty suit. what matters is the narrative and the idea not definitions and weeds. whether it's just to have billionaires. whether it's just to have growing income disparities. whether it's attractive to voters to revisit new deal type welfare program/gov expansion.
nyc rhetoric is a totem of the left. this is a guy who wants to take from the rich and give to the poor in ways that had historically been the province of the far left. he wanted to defund police. replace them with social workers. on and on. the progressive radical left is now about to occupy the largest city in america. and those principles are being explored in discussions in other places as a result. what form it takes. taxes. gov ownership. that's all after a vetting of who we are as a country and what we want. what shape it takes is of little moment. it's taking from earners to give to non earners. directly. in the form of gov owned entities. whatever. same shit at the end of the day to my pocketbook.
as i said the radical left is now the left. all voters who subscribe to this want to know is "am i gonna get free/cheap shit now."
@goat it doesn't matter to the average voter. people aren't getting into the weeds on any of htis stuff. you're talking about a candidate who doesn't even have authority to raise the city's earnings tax much less anything else. he's an empty suit. what matters is the narrative and the idea not definitions and weeds. whether it's just to have billionaires. whether it's just to have growing income disparities. whether it's attractive to voters to revisit new deal type welfare program/gov expansion.
nyc rhetoric is a totem of the left. this is a guy who wants to take from the rich and give to the poor in ways that had historically been the province of the far left. he wanted to defund police. replace them with social workers. on and on. the progressive radical left is now about to occupy the largest city in america. and those principles are being explored in discussions in other places as a result. what form it takes. taxes. gov ownership. that's all after a vetting of who we are as a country and what we want. what shape it takes is of little moment. it's taking from earners to give to non earners. directly. in the form of gov owned entities. whatever. same shit at the end of the day to my pocketbook.
as i said the radical left is now the left.
None of this matters to the average voter, I agree. That's why your strategy has to be to villainize the entire left as "socialist!!!!" That's the only way to get your message home to the average voter.
Your problem, of course, is that the average voter isn't someone who is rich and worried about the government taking away a bunch of their money. The average voter gets a modest paycheck and thinks shit is too expensive, and maybe the government could help them out a bit.
It's all just economic populism. Your guy blames immigrants; my guy blames the wealthy. But they are both trying to confirm what the average voter already suspects - that they are getting screwed.
your strategy has to be to villainize the entire left as “socialist!!!!”
no. that mischaracterizes. it doesn't have to be "the entire" to dominate the party. and socialist is but one factor in this pie, along with defund, dei, energy, borders, etc. this is just another piece. as i eloquently stated in the title: the radical left is the left. that is who controls the party as evidenced by: 1) who they nominated for president, 2) policies promulgated under biden and in lefty cities, and 3) who they are about to elect as mayor of our largest city
Along those lines . . . .
Gallup poll: 42% of democrats have a positive view of capitalism, 66% have a positive view of socialism!
This is scary. This is why AOC, Bernie, and Mamdani get traction. These people actually believe government free cheese would improve living conditions and advance living standards. Entrepreneurs, capitalists, innovators, and risk takers are not part of a socialist’s future. The inevitable result of socialism is a system collapse. It happens every time.
your strategy has to be to villainize the entire left as “socialist!!!!” That’s the only way to get your message home to the average voter.
your condemnation of characterizing the radical left as the left along with the above is hickory-esque. it's this bizarre effort on the left to refuse to own progressive policies and still pretend same is just the extreme of the party and doesn't represent the party.
at this point what more does it take?
https://twitter.com/claytravis/status/1985895329728782594?s=46
https://twitter.com/auronmacintyre/status/1985892614499967273?s=46
Surely it's ok to call these two shit libs @goat?
@snarlcakes anomalies. the radical left isn't really the left.