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.
Thank you for confirming my post. You have no clue about socialism other than USSR. You try to lash and smash everything because socialism bad. You have no clue about macroeconomics either, mixing supply side with Reaganomics and not knowing what and when demand side support “Keynesian policies" work or not (fun fact, now is not the time).
Yet you try to reach out on these exact issues on which you lack.
Do you think anyone in the working class has the time to read a bunch of hair-splitting from academia?
Wikipedia is academia now?
Also socialism in the common usage (e.g. non hair splitting lefties) covers from anarchism to European style soc-dems.
Among all these solutions several have worked or continue to do so. Your post started with “socialism failed”, so even your own arguments sink your initial post.
If you were serious about communicating with the working class, you’d stop using the word “socialist”.
“socialism failed”
Sonypu are not serious either. Good then, keep it that way, but don’t try to act like you know what you are saying.
Thank you for confirming my post. You have no clue about socialism other than USSR.
You’re lacking in reading comprehension. The working class doesn’t care about your hair splitting. You’re in a socialist movement that’s incapable of communicating with the working class. But your post confirms this… you care more about sounding smart than convincing anyone of anything.
Also socialism in the common usage (e.g. non hair splitting lefties) covers from anarchism to European style soc-dems.
Lemmy and the content algorithmically recommended to you (by systems created by capitalism) is no “common usage”. You’re in a bubble and you can’t handle anything coming from outside your bubble.
Hasan Piker is currently on the front page of a website owned by Jeff Bezos. You never question why that is LOL.
You’d just have two parties debating over which failed system is better.
Can you elaborate
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 can’t tell the difference between Canada and North Korea. Got it.
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.
Thank you for confirming my post. You have no clue about socialism other than USSR. You try to lash and smash everything because socialism bad. You have no clue about macroeconomics either, mixing supply side with Reaganomics and not knowing what and when demand side support “Keynesian policies" work or not (fun fact, now is not the time).
Yet you try to reach out on these exact issues on which you lack.
Wikipedia is academia now?
Also socialism in the common usage (e.g. non hair splitting lefties) covers from anarchism to European style soc-dems.
Among all these solutions several have worked or continue to do so. Your post started with “socialism failed”, so even your own arguments sink your initial post.
“socialism failed”
Sonypu are not serious either. Good then, keep it that way, but don’t try to act like you know what you are saying.
You’re lacking in reading comprehension. The working class doesn’t care about your hair splitting. You’re in a socialist movement that’s incapable of communicating with the working class. But your post confirms this… you care more about sounding smart than convincing anyone of anything.
Lemmy and the content algorithmically recommended to you (by systems created by capitalism) is no “common usage”. You’re in a bubble and you can’t handle anything coming from outside your bubble.
Hasan Piker is currently on the front page of a website owned by Jeff Bezos. You never question why that is LOL.
Says the one who stated socialism doesn’t work without knowing a definition and refusing to even learn in wikipedia
You don’t represent working class.
So you don’t know what socialism is, don’t know the movement I support, nor its current political score, yet you again try to sound so sure.
Goodbuy troll
It’s probably more important to do things well than to do them based on a strict ideology.
Russia for instance was a great example of how to completely fuck up turning a country free market capitalist. And generally really just fuck up.