17 30

This is Democratic socialism not capitalism.

By 48thRonin8
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Democratic socialism?? do the bankers understand that?

Touched Level 4 Mar 6, 2019

Ummm nope would be my guess


The best way to help those in need is to raise their potential productivity in a way that increases your own, rather than knocking everyone down to equal submission. If you want a change in the world you should build it from the ground up, not wait for everyone else to make their move or tell you what to do. The rich get rich because they command people rather than wait to be commanded. Socialism makes it imposible for anyone to do that, meaning everyone ends up equal impoverished. I'm not saying capitalism is the best solution but I would rather be a slave to myself than to society.

Holy shit no one has said anything about destroying or removing capitalism. And no one has said that it’ll be forbidden to start a business own or start a damn business.

But hey it is and willing still be a free country despite whet the media and the other corporatists propagandist. Just saying


"Socialism" is a scare word, a dog whistle, the billionaires and multi-millionaires employ every time something will cut into their UNTAXED investment wealth. Why wouldn't they? It hurts them. All beings, including slugs, react to defend themselves when they might lose something they covet. Socialism is a word that means taking care of the people. ALL PEOPLE. That is scary as shit to those with wealth because it means they may have to help out the people they don't want to help: the non-"white"s, the non-"straights", the non-"christians"... I put those in that context to point out they want no one DIFFERENT from them to exist. Plain and simple. If you don't accept Socialism, you either don't understand the meaning of the term or you are a rich fucker I would like to take down with a crowbar.



It's not Socialism its called government providing social programs.
Is there private industry, are these services functions of the government (provide welfare, security, or equity)? If you answered yes it's not Socialism.
Does the government own means of production? If you answered yes then it is a form of Socialism.

Social Programs are not Socialism, they can be but mostly are not
Social Security requires a pay in, aka not a handout or Socialism.
Obama care not Socialism, Capitalism at its best.


Can’t wait!

RodLisht Level 4 Mar 5, 2019

Oh so when are you moving to a 3rd world communist country because that’s what you’re telling me.

We already have forms of “ democratic socialism “ and for decades now?
No one is proposing that we’re getting rid of capitalism because who else is going to pay for rebuilding our infrastructure?

@48thRonin if we democratically vote for bread lines then it can’t be wrong!

@RodLisht You know your propaganda well sir.
It’s all you know


@RodLisht That is so beautiful Comrade.
It brings tears to eyes.


Democratic - Mob rule.
Socialism - I own nothing. The mob owns all.

Social - Same thing.
Democracy - Different wording.

BryanLV Level 6 Mar 5, 2019

Your definition.
Webster’s definition


I noticed the definition you posted left out the definition.

@BryanLV ok dude whatever ????


It's just Capitalism that pays for it all.

And make sure not to blame Capitalism for all of socialisms failures, too.

BryanLV Level 6 Mar 5, 2019

I love Democratic Socialism. Without it I would have money problems with no Social Security. On that issue alone the Republicans would have less money for their masters because in many cases all over America someone would have to be taking care of their parents at home. No money for nursing homes any longer. You cannot take care of elderly parents and still work a job.

The above is only one issue in a very long line of opposition to much needed services. The GOP is out of touch and they seem to only support Pacman Capitalism. Real capitalism is where you actually build a better mouse trap.


but capitilism gets rich of it


The big problem with private enterprise is that it is run primarily for profit. When it's done by government it is usually an essential services for the people by the people. You can't vote out a private company but you can vote out a government. The other point is that privatisation usually has a record of over priced expense with an inefficient outcomes. The best example is that electricity was privatised in Australia and we have gone from having the cheapest most reliable system to one of the most expensive and unrealiable systems in the modern world. I believe in capitalism but not at the expense of the people and small businesses.

Jammo Level 5 Mar 4, 2019

That's a mixed bag of nuts.

  1. Governments are slow and inefficient, people stop buying inefficient products unless it's a monopoly
  2. The best structure for a natural monopoly is a monoploly.
    Monopolies should be regulated but offer Economies of Scale

energy production is a natural monopoly there by privatizing it only will lead to increased costs.

@Biosteelman actually if you look at the evidence taking aside the US, UK and Australia, your more or less completely wrong. In fact the big argument in the US at the moment is the lack of infrastructure that the government is doing. Socialism is not just business, it's schools hospitals and the defence force. Are you claiming that the the US defence force is slow, inefficient badly run monopoly. Compare you health system to say anyone else that has a broad government run Medicare, you can see how the privately run setup is far worse. The people suffer for it and the privileged profit!

@Jammo oh boy we get to get into the weeds.
Socialism isn't government services that provide Welfare, Security, or Equity as that is the government's job.
Yes the military is grossly inefficient. We grossly overpay to achieve the efficiency we have with it.
US has the worst medical...according to you but not according to research, Nobel prizes, people who travel from social medicine countries to the US to receive better treatment. It costs money, yes but it is not the worse by a long shot. It's also not equally good across the board.
Government should expand the current infrastructure but it's not as easy as you might think. The US has a low population density which means bang for the buck infrastructure investments aren't as fruitful here.

P.S. Math says I'm right and so does history. So there's that.

@Biosteelman I don't agree with your description of socialism. I guess your pro business where profit is the imperative and most of Europe and even the UK and Australia do better with socialism as it main priority is people. So I guess even if the military is grossly inefficient if it was run for a profit, China would own America because noone else could afford it and it would be paid for on credit. Or has that been happening already because of the privatised parts already. The maths is definitely stacking up especially if you get sick!

@Jammo please go learn what words mean. Socialism is an economic model that means of production are owned by the people not capitalist. Your example of countries with higher taxes and using that money for social programs isn't socialism. That's the disconnect. You using words wrong. Words have meanings.
P.S. The US leads the world in best rated hospitals , medical research, and Nobel prizes in medicine. (You're welcome)


Yes, and it's a beautiful thing too!!


Capitalism and socialism are not opposites—both are manifestations of cooperative effort, a fundamental attribute of nature.

Maybe the question is whether projects are better done by government or by the private sector. Obviously some things are better done by government: justice, warfare, international diplomacy, planning for large public construction projects, etc. Maybe health care should be on that list because currently the private sector is failing abysmally.

I have worked for and dealt with government extensively, and I have worked in the private sector. IMO it is a mistake to think of government as “we the people”. Government is a large, somewhat disorganized power structure that can be roughly compared with a feudal system, with fiefdoms ruled by bureaucratic lords, each fighting for power and money. The only goal of government is the perpetuation and expansion of government, and if you think those people are looking out for you and the public interest, you are mistaken IMO.

A well-run, vibrant private company has a public mission, and is well-motivated, and those involved are rewarded in kind. Government workers are paid with tax money—their only concern is the perpetuation of their jobs, and the covering of their asses by refusing to make any decision not previously sanctioned by written regulations. I could talk about my very frustrating, infuriating encounters with government bureaucrats, but I’m trying to relax.

Let me say though, if you think those people are going to take over society and run every aspect of life in an efficient and successful way, you are mistaken IMO.

In a free society we have a right to form up into cooperatives, unions, associations, companies, and corporations, and for whatever purpose we wish as long as our goals are legal. Government is a necessary evil that we allow to exist.

Both government and private industry are necessary evils but neither should be allowed to have absolute control for the sake of the people.

So therefore I don’t that “ those “ are going to do anything because my point is purely aimed at those who don’t understand how democratic socialism works and has existed for quite some time.
Nothing more nothing less.


I disagree that govt is necessary. People can voluntarily cooperate for their own best interests.


Kick Butt!

Varn Level 8 Mar 4, 2019

This is egalitarian, classical liberal capitalism.

egalitarian - all individuals are and should be treated equally. Explain how that makes sense in context to the above pictures... Similar type of thought but don't see how it fits.

Your statement is a classic misuse of the English language and yes I do believe in that all things should equal to everyone which is egalitarianism.

I don’t see how classic liberalism applies which means that everyone is entitled to have rights from what I remember. And has nothing to do with examples of democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism pretty much means that through government or by vote conducted citizens the creation of certain duties as well as those who will perform them and the budgets to pay for them are created.

Which in the case of capitalism all of these services would be provided by private industry and us the citizens would have to pay out of our pockets to have them.

Which in some countries if you don’t pay the fire department and your house is burning they’ll watch your house burn down and spray water on your neighbors.

Or in the case of socialism itself the ruling government decides what kind and how much of these services that they’ll provide.

@48thRonin, @JazznBlues My objective is to refute the validity of the phobia (irrational fear) of "capitalism". What we need to fear are crony capitalism and runaway plutocracy, which is currently happening in the U.S.
A healthy economy and society incorporates the best aspects of both socialism and capitalism.

@PBuck0145 you just defined social democracy of which I'm a huge fan.

Ok then you should’ve just said that.
Capitalism in itself is a necessary evil because we need for people to have viable incomes as well as trade to support our GDP.

Even Bernie acknowledges that it’s just that they the corporations and those who own them shouldn’t be in control of our government nor should they be allowed to hoard all of the wealth.

But the point that I was making is that people say that there’s no such thing as democratic socialism but in fact it’s existed for quite some time and these are simply examples of that.

@JazznBlues Please explain the taboo about acknowledging the capitalistic component of the SD ideology.

@PBuck0145 your original comment
"This is egalitarian, classical liberal capitalism."
Seems longhand for social democracy without mentioning social or democracy. That was my issue. Mentioning egalitarian in the same sentence gave a communist feel to it. My hang-up about politics is that we should be very precise about what we're talking about, so nothing is misconstrued. A fine example would be confusing social democracy with Democratic socialism, two very similar sounding things with different meanings.


I told someone the other day she needs to quit driving & to never call the police/fire departments for assistance if she hated the idea of Democratic socialism so much. She hasn't responded since then. It's possible she blocked me....

Heidi68 Level 8 Mar 4, 2019

It’s ok I get blocked a lot for doing stuff like that?

@48thRonin silly, blocking people... if they don't like what I say, either prove me wrong or maybe do a little research & educate yourself (themselves).

Not really. We do not have a voluntary system. Police and fire services have been usurped by people who call themselves govt. While I do not support govt police or fire services, I still pay for them involuntarily and therefore am every bit as entitled to them as everyone else.

Nice try, though.

@BryanLV no one said voluntary so where are you getting that? The point is don't cry you hate socialist programs yet use them every single day.


I don't have a choice! And actually, they use me and and the rest of us every day. A dam and a bridge are not socialism, its technology.

The rest are forced socialist programs that would be better off handled by the private sector.

@BryanLV oh you mean like health insurance? Please.


Insurance and the medical field both worked before government stepped in.

Now it sucks, and you want govt to control the entire thing. Yeah that will work out great.

@BryanLV how do you figured it worked? It has never worked - rates are continually going up [even before ACA so don't go there]. People are & have been dying because they can't get or afford healthcare/medications.


Next is universal healthcare, hopefully.


I'm slowly coming around to the positive view of democratic socialism. But it's really tough to overcome prejudice at 69 years old. smile009.gif

Then wisdom isn’t lost on you sir.?

It's hard to break through the propaganda and indoctrination of decades. Before moving to Germany, I was terrified of universal healthcare, but the reality is so much better than what we have here. I loved my doctors and the care we received there.

@GinaMaria The difference is that healthcare providers in countries with universal healthcare do the job because they want to do it and not to be rich.

Good for you. The BS ‘Socialism’ has been labeled with, like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were worth opposing. But considering Democratic Socialism rebuilt Europe, providing for it’s people many things my nation lacks, it’s time we acknowledge it’s necessity.

@48thRonin That's true, but they do make a healthy living, especially considering that they have no student loans to repay. They also work longer hours (opening their offices as early as 7 am for no-appointment illnesses, and making house calls, when needed) but seem less stressed. My doctor here always looked exhausted, and never had more than 15 minutes to spare in an appointment. It was a stark difference.

@GinaMaria Very very excellent point and I didn’t even think of it that way.??

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:303582'.
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • is a non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others!