I find this format (ranking) a bit confusing.
I read the article and the Wikipedia article about "Democratic Socialism" and I still can't quite understand what exactly this means, Marxist Democracy? Anti-Capitalism?
From the survey: "A democratic socialist elected official in your town or city, whose agenda is primarily focused on how to make life more affordable for working people in your community by bringing down the costs of housing, groceries, and electric bills."
So this is the definition of a "democratic socialist"? Doesn't every politician say they'll bring down costs and make things more affordable? The question being how? How is this elected official going to do that?
"Democratic socialists believe that the government should take a more active role to improve Americans' lives." -> Is this a survey or a sales pitch?
"What is your familiarity with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)? " -> 4% I am a DSA member, or personally know DSA members, 20% "familiar with the organization"
What would be an example of a successful country that where government is more or less based on these principles? Scandinavian countries? China?
Obviously(?) these trends are driven by social media?
"15% of Donald Trump voters prefer democratic socialism to capitalism. These voters tended to be younger and non-white." -> Does your average person even know what these mean?
It is transforming society to socialism (a system which is based on needs and capabilities rather than ownership of private property) by using the available democratic institutions.
Easiest to understand in contrast to Revolutionary Socialism that advocates the complete overthrow of the existing institutions.
Scandinavian countries, yes, China no.
It is not hard to understand
Why not like China? Because it got there via a revolution? But otherwise the same end goal just via democratic means?
What you're describing sounds like the USSR or China to me.
The survey didn't really discuss the idea of Revolutionary Socialism but I imagine that likely has some support as well.
If my tone sounds negative it's because I am negative. I support the state being more involved but all examples of pure socialism that I'm aware of end up as a total failure - because it is unworkable. In the US somehow healthcare is considered socialism but I mean "real" socialism (like the idea the grocery stores are owned by the state somehow being able to make food more affordable). The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model probably doesn't work for everyone either. I think the term "mixed-market capitalist" is more appropriate there. Maybe people are also confused vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Democratic socialists have to convince you. Not so much th Bolsheviks, they just make you.
> all examples of pure socialism that I'm aware of end up as a total failure
"Pure socialism" is a bit silly. How could there ever be such a thing? The Bolsheviks and the CCP were fascists to my way of thinking.
In Western Europe , France had a number of revolutions but recovered. The rest of them went the Democratic Socialist route.
Democratic Socialists, by necessity originally and these days as a positive policy, believe in a mixed economy.
Point is I do not think that Western Europe can be classed a "total failure" nor as "pure socialism".
> "real" socialism (like the idea the grocery stores are owned by the state
Yes. Mixed economies work better. It comes down to culture for a lot of places.
Even if such a system was possible and was implemented, 30 seconds after it was implemented, it would be exploited such that favoured groups benefitted more than others.
Maybe it wouldn’t benefit the heirs of capital owners, but it would be the heirs of the socialist revolutionary Vanguard, or some future authoritarian who makes his way through the socialist hierarchy, who knows, but it would be somebody.
What is the relevance of that comment?
Objectively measuring "everyone’s needs and capabilities" is unnecessary in most cases (excluding a "total war" economy, or at times of famine, when it becomes very important, albeit imperfect) and a more free market economy does a very poor job for some goods (e.g. housing)
Free markets work well if participants are free to come and go, and have adequate information. Then price discovery in a Free Market is quite a phenomena. But when people cannot leave a market (e.g. in a famine) or when information is distributed unevenly Free Markets lead to all sorts of terrible outcomes.
Capitalism, without intervention and redistribution by the state (or some other powerful agency - there can be others) leads to concentrations of wealth and impoverishment of many. This is because the second dollar is easier than the first, and that idea scales.
There's two baskets: one is a "centrally planned" economy led by government spending. One is "free market" economy led by market forces. You can't leave either basket empty or your economy crashes. The government spending keeps money moving during the busts. All we're arguing about how full each basket should be and which sectors of the economy go where. This shouldn't be some us vs them thing dammit, we all have the same vision for the economy and arguing over the details—because they are details—ought to be civil rather than territory grabbing and flag planting.
In my reading, I came across the term "Mixed economy" which I think aligns with what you're saying. Nobody is arguing in good faith that socialism/communism would have 100% coverage of the economic system. There would be room for luxury goods to operate under roughly the same economic conditions. The key difference being that basic needs like food housing and Healthcare would operate under state control for the benefit of all citizens. We would have some vote in their operation via representatives, unlike now where we have 0 say in private operations unless we pay to play. And some people don't have the means to pay, so they don't get to play.
Before the ACA, there were dozens of reasons for which you could be deemed uninsurable, not the least of which is that you had a "pre-existing condition" (i.e., you were unlikely to be profitable enough). North of 15% of the US population lacked health insurance as a result. Even after ACA's passage, we straddle 10% uninsured, rising above some years and falling below in others.
When we have regular, required medication like insulin costing tens or hundreds of times more here than anywhere else on the planet, being uninsured can be a particularly cruel, slow death sentence.
Still, the joke's on GP: he/she still is relying on Trump not to take away healthcare and housing from people he doesn't like (re: poor people, i.e., nearly everyone). The BBB guts medicaid and ACA subsidies, which will ultimately remove health insurance from millions either directly or pricing it out of reach, and his combination of tariffs and deportations of (often times not-so-)illegal immigrants make building more housing difficult and significantly more expensive.
Expect even harsher austerity measures and/or batshit insane policies the next time the Republican party wants to shake the tax cut for billionaires tree or perhaps even just for shits and giggles since many of the cruel policies are there to put the rabble in their place.
Why would we allow the president to do that? Because at some point in the last 300 years we decided it was a necessary power for him to get past some crisis, and no President ever relinquishes power.
With that being said, the major problem I have with pretty much all candidates is that they just campaign on an end goal, rather than a process. Yes, we all want to "tax the rich", but what does that look like in reality? Are we sending out wealth assessors? Are we requiring new reporting? Are we doing something else? (this is just an example that can be applied to just about any major political platform today)
Further, it seems to me there are forces at play recently trying to put people at odds with each other over as many dimensions as possible.
What I'm not sure about is whether this is some sort of organic mitosis like force that naturally oscilates over time, an unfortunate accident (e.g. side effects of attention economy) or if it's a conspiracy (e.g. most advertising dollars are spent trying to drive division).
Either way, everyone's constantly being influenced into a victim mentality with boogymen galore.
I agree.
I don't necessarily think the two baskets analogy is even the right framework tbh. The important issues imho are transparency, corruption, incentive alignment, feedback loops, it doesn't really matter to me - and I think probably most people - if its in the government or business space.
What matters, at least to me, is how decisions are made, how information flows, and how citizens (or employees) can see whats going on, influence and hold accountable the decision-makers.
You can't kumbaya your way to peace with Nazis. Black people have been trying to explain this forever. Look at how Germany does it: Speech and expression related to Nazism is heavily regulated and subjects you to imprisonment. Demonstrations/rallies are often banned. The Nazi party itself is banned. AfD is being monitored by intelligence agencies and might be banned in the future, etc. They do this defensively when groups demonstrate an "actively belligerent, aggressive stance" towards the democratic order. Because it's like pointing a gun at people in public - it's already violent even if you don't pull the trigger. Eventually America will have to learn this.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
- The German penal code prohibits publicly denying the Holocaust and disseminating Nazi propaganda, both off- and online. This includes sharing images such as swastikas, wearing an SS uniform and making statements in support of Hitler.
- It also places strict rules on how social media companies must moderate and report hate speech and threats. These hate-speech laws were tightened last year, after three far-right terror attacks in 2019 and early 2020 prompted German authorities to warn of increasing extremism.
But I think there is plenty of debate possible on free market vs. centrally managed market, tax rates, immigration policies, etc. that can be fact based and is with people who do have the same vision (a free prosperous society) but disagree on how we do it.
And well... As a Pole, it saddens me to see this. Mainly because it's clear that Americans don't know what socialism is, to conservatives, state existing is literally communism, to progressives, if a state has health care, it is socialism. I was reading a book recently - What Everyone Needs to know about China - and there was one sentence I remarked. Author naming Norway socialist country. In an otherwise reputable publisher.
Communism and socialism are evil ideologies, and never again. Words have their meanings, and this I fear will mangle it all up. After all, if communism is health care, it can't be that bad, right?
I know it's popular to blame landlords, but this isn't a serious take. Landlords are operating in a market of artificially constrained supply, so of course prices are going to rise! The issue, IMO, is on three groups: NIMBY homeowners, voting landlords, and local government officials because they all propose/support policies that make it harder to build homes in their locality.
Someone wanting even more government involvement in housing at this point would be quite surprising.
Depends, if a person owing 1 or 2 properties, probably correct.
If a large company with multiple units, yes 100% that companies fault.
What’s important is whether you care about resolving the scarcity so that neither has the power to exploit it, or whether you’re OK with scarcity just so long as your preferred party is the one benefitting from it.
This is specifically about commercial buildings in NYC and will vary for residential and other areas.
Zohran Mamdani supports a new Social Housing Development Authority. https://citylimits.org/proposed-state-social-housing-authori...
Hmm, that seems a bit contradictory and circular: government makes it hard to build --> market reacts to that with higher prices --> government blames private sector --> government decides public housing with a bunch of regulations needs to be built?
Obviously there are certain localities like NYC that probably require something like this due to limited physical space but the bill[0] is at the state level. It seems like it'd be better to focus on de-regulation rather than something like this state-wide.
Wherever you live, I guarantee the largest bylaw in your municipality is the one that is composed of the government listing the residential buildings you aren’t allowed to build on most of the land in the municipality.
In NYC so much of the high-rise residential development is done in locations that are terrible commutes with 10 to 15 minute walks to the train... because there was no one there before to protest the zoning change. Meanwhile the buildings around the closest subway stops remain 4 story walk ups.
I don't see how the city getting more directly involved in social housing is going to help, as we already have NYCHA, which is run so poorly that the feds had to step in for oversight. The city just piles on regulation on top of regulation for buildings, but then doesn't really follow them themselves.
That Legionnaires' disease outbreak uptown was mostly city owned buildings that were in violation of city water tower inspection laws. Meanwhile some on city council have suggested tightening up the law to increase inspection cadence (cost) city wide, when again, the city isn't following its own law in the first place.
Another example - mandating $10k/elevator safety software upgrades after an elevator fatality due to elevator maintenance guy messing around with the elevator safety mechanisms (was like a safety patch to precent that particular override). Does anyone in their right mind think the city did these updates in city owned buildings?
Guys, I found the landlord.
Democrats as a whole are polling at record low levels. 34% surveyed approve of the Democrats, 59% disapprove.
That’s not from a single poll, it’s an average of the most recent polls.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/rcp_aver...
zer00eyz•4mo ago
I find this stat odd.
It runs counter to another set of data that exists, the rate of home ownership: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
Home ownership is a great indicator of "I will vote" and furthermore its an indicator of "I will vote to protect the price of my home"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/if-you-lived-here-you-...
So for as much as this data may be true, I'm fairly certain that it isnt an accurate measure of how people are going to vote.
appreciatorBus•4mo ago