Could democratic socialism become the brand of a new generation of political actors — not just on the fringe, not just in New York City, but across the country?
Socialism failed. You have a bunch of people making excuses for it, but it obvious to anyone with any common sense that a system involving excessive central planning always winds up being an Animal Farm kind of thing. This has been proven by history but there’s people making dumb excuses about how the started conditions weren’t right and “next time it will work for sure.” Socialists are basically that old guy from Jurassic Park.
Supply side economics failed. Should be obvious that businesses aren’t benevolent organizations that are going to “create jobs” just because they have some extra money lying around. They aren’t charities, they’re businesses.
Reasonable people understand that neither extreme works. It makes sense to use more socialist policies where it makes sense to (like healthcare) and have regulated capitalism where that makes sense. The peak of human prosperity was under a capitalist system before the oil crisis of the 1970s (and before Reagan). Maybe we should go back to “we’re all Keynesian now” kind of system because that fucking worked? Instead what a lot of people learned was oil dependence is good (despite oil crises always causing economic problems) and if the wealthy are even wealthier then that’s good for everyone somehow. It’s as dumb as socialists believing some altruistic vibes by the people in power will make everything work out.
But the internet has resulted in people being incapable of understanding anything beyond “thing good” or “thing bad” and preferring slogans and populism over economic policies that have been proven to work. Compromise is considered a bad thing to those with brain rot, so people are gravitating towards radical extremes which have been proven by history to be complete failures.
Socialism failed. You have a bunch of people making excuses for it, but it obvious to anyone with any common sense that a system involving excessive central planning always winds up being an Animal Farm kind of thing.
So you don’t know what socialism is and its different types. Wikipedia has a nice overview.
Supply side economics failed.
So you don’t know much about macroeconomics either. Supply-side is just a set if tools which works in certain conditions like a supply shock. Its opposite is pushing demand which works when there is a lack of demand (usual recessions). Krugman has good books to clarify this.
Reasonable people understand that neither extreme works.
Knowledgeable people point out that extreme authoritarian capitalism worked throughout history, and that is a main concern for those who don’t want to go back there. Piketty has studied the issue pretty well.
The peak of human prosperity was under a capitalist system before the oil crisis of the 1970s
Russia went from a country lagging ~80 years behind Europe to the first space faring country. So there is an argument to be made about there not being one solution.
Plus the peak of accidental prosperity is mostly linked to the great compression.
we’re all Keynesian now
Keynes was about something else (understanding that an economy is a closed / semi-closed system which lead to the concept of a fiscal multiplier which is still being studied.).
So you don’t know what socialism is and its different types. Wikipedia has a nice overview.
Do you think anyone in the working class has the time to read a bunch of hair-splitting from academia? The USSR had socialist in it’s name. The word socialist will always have a connotation of “something to do with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”. You’re the ones who chose to describe yourselves with a loaded and ambiguous word. You’ve chosen to always be on the defensive in the political arena. Whoever you’re debating with can just say “I don’t want breadlines” and win the debate, because nobody in the working class has time for academic hair-splitting.
So you don’t know much about macroeconomics either. Supply-side is just a set if tools which works in certain conditions like a supply shock.
Ok so you’re pedantic. When I talk about supply-side economics, I’m talking about reaganomics, trickle down, all of that bullshit, not some specific “certain conditions”. Obviously.
Russia went from a country lagging ~80 years behind Europe to the first space faring country.
How many people starved to death in that time period? How many people got sent to the gulag?
Also I note how you are simultaneously saying “there’s many forms of socialism” to distance yourself from the Soviet Union while also wanting to stick up for the Soviet Union. You’re not coming across as honest here.
And this is why socialism loses in any debate from the perspective of the working class. It only works in academia. Some “socialists” (whatever that even means) may win in safe Dem districts with a large number of people that went to university and took a poli-sci class. It loses in any debate from the perspective of the working class. Academics fail at being able to communicate with the working class. If you were serious about communicating with the working class, you’d stop using the word “socialist”. But you won’t because the point of 21st century socialism is to impress your peers, not to be effective.
Keynes was about something else (understanding that an economy is a closed / semi-closed system which lead to the concept of a fiscal multiplier which is still being studied.).
We know Keynesian policies and trust busting solved similar economic problems we’re having now. We know absolutist socialism failed.
The USSR had socialist in it’s name. The word socialist will always have a connotation of “something to do with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”.
The German Democratic Republic had the word “Democratic” in its name. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea currently has the word “Democratic” in it. Therefore we can look to those nations for what the word “democratic” means, right?
Socialism failed. You have a bunch of people making excuses for it, but it obvious to anyone with any common sense that a system involving excessive central planning always winds up being an Animal Farm kind of thing. This has been proven by history but there’s people making dumb excuses about how the started conditions weren’t right and “next time it will work for sure.” Socialists are basically that old guy from Jurassic Park.
Supply side economics failed. Should be obvious that businesses aren’t benevolent organizations that are going to “create jobs” just because they have some extra money lying around. They aren’t charities, they’re businesses.
Reasonable people understand that neither extreme works. It makes sense to use more socialist policies where it makes sense to (like healthcare) and have regulated capitalism where that makes sense. The peak of human prosperity was under a capitalist system before the oil crisis of the 1970s (and before Reagan). Maybe we should go back to “we’re all Keynesian now” kind of system because that fucking worked? Instead what a lot of people learned was oil dependence is good (despite oil crises always causing economic problems) and if the wealthy are even wealthier then that’s good for everyone somehow. It’s as dumb as socialists believing some altruistic vibes by the people in power will make everything work out.
But the internet has resulted in people being incapable of understanding anything beyond “thing good” or “thing bad” and preferring slogans and populism over economic policies that have been proven to work. Compromise is considered a bad thing to those with brain rot, so people are gravitating towards radical extremes which have been proven by history to be complete failures.
So you don’t know what socialism is and its different types. Wikipedia has a nice overview.
So you don’t know much about macroeconomics either. Supply-side is just a set if tools which works in certain conditions like a supply shock. Its opposite is pushing demand which works when there is a lack of demand (usual recessions). Krugman has good books to clarify this.
Knowledgeable people point out that extreme authoritarian capitalism worked throughout history, and that is a main concern for those who don’t want to go back there. Piketty has studied the issue pretty well.
Russia went from a country lagging ~80 years behind Europe to the first space faring country. So there is an argument to be made about there not being one solution.
Plus the peak of accidental prosperity is mostly linked to the great compression.
Keynes was about something else (understanding that an economy is a closed / semi-closed system which lead to the concept of a fiscal multiplier which is still being studied.).
Do you think anyone in the working class has the time to read a bunch of hair-splitting from academia? The USSR had socialist in it’s name. The word socialist will always have a connotation of “something to do with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”. You’re the ones who chose to describe yourselves with a loaded and ambiguous word. You’ve chosen to always be on the defensive in the political arena. Whoever you’re debating with can just say “I don’t want breadlines” and win the debate, because nobody in the working class has time for academic hair-splitting.
Ok so you’re pedantic. When I talk about supply-side economics, I’m talking about reaganomics, trickle down, all of that bullshit, not some specific “certain conditions”. Obviously.
How many people starved to death in that time period? How many people got sent to the gulag?
Also I note how you are simultaneously saying “there’s many forms of socialism” to distance yourself from the Soviet Union while also wanting to stick up for the Soviet Union. You’re not coming across as honest here.
And this is why socialism loses in any debate from the perspective of the working class. It only works in academia. Some “socialists” (whatever that even means) may win in safe Dem districts with a large number of people that went to university and took a poli-sci class. It loses in any debate from the perspective of the working class. Academics fail at being able to communicate with the working class. If you were serious about communicating with the working class, you’d stop using the word “socialist”. But you won’t because the point of 21st century socialism is to impress your peers, not to be effective.
We know Keynesian policies and trust busting solved similar economic problems we’re having now. We know absolutist socialism failed.
The German Democratic Republic had the word “Democratic” in its name. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea currently has the word “Democratic” in it. Therefore we can look to those nations for what the word “democratic” means, right?
Right!?