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?
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?
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!?