WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Speaking of social democracy have you seen the headline over at Huffpo?
Quote
Republicans Have Been Smearing Democrats As Socialists Since Way Before You Were Born
Republicans believe they have hit on a bold, brand new line of attack that is sure to doom Democrats heading into the 2020 elections. President Donald Trump made it a central point of his State of the Union. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, promises to bring this fresh hit in his party’s effort to regain control of the House.
The big plan is to ― wait for it ― attack Democrats as socialists.
“Socialism is the greatest vulnerability by far that the House Democrats have,” Emmer told the New York Times.
As any American who has developed to the stage of object permanence can tell you, this isn’t a new plan. It is, in fact, the oldest trick in the book.
Every single political actor since the late 19th century advocating for some form progressive social change ― whether it be economic reform, challenging America’s racial caste system or advocating for women’s rights or LGBT rights ― has been tarred as a socialist or a communist bent on destroying the American Free Enterprise System.
Those of us who believe in Utopian Social Democracy (would it suit you better if I called it that? Are pretty much used to being slandered as the Socialists of your imagination, which is largely a product of conservative brainwashing since the day you became politically aware.
We don't care anymore.
You beat me to it. How is it that they so damned effective with the scare tactics? I wish we could find a way to make this go viral again somehow:
Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them." (Philip K. Dick)
In this case, the word being manipulated is "SOCIALISM". Conservatives have been attacking people as socialists for over a century now. Everyone who doesn't agree with them is a socialist, everything done for the general good is socialism, any investment in society is socialism, it's all socialism and it is all leading to totalitarianism.
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD deepfreezefilms.com
And the extremely weird thing is that the head of the KGB under communist rule in the USSR, was Vlad Putin, President Trump's best buddy. So who's the socialist now?
I think the new politico/religio/economo brand for the Be Excellent To Each Other Party should be “Americanism”. Let the Regressives try to make that into a negative!
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
In this case, the word being manipulated is "SOCIALISM". Conservatives have been attacking people as socialists for over a century now. Everyone who doesn't agree with them is a socialist, everything done for the general good is socialism, any investment in society is socialism, it's all socialism and it is all leading to totalitarianism.
And the irony is, those attacking "socialism" ARE the totalitarians. As it ever was.
The history of socialism in western europe and america is as interesting a social, political and Labor history as anything else. We, as a society, haven't done well in navigating co-operation, inclusion and contribution with our existing consumer set up. It's being successfully argued that were in a front row seat to witness the unassailable contradiction of the current system. For me, the main thrust of Marx was the criticism of capitalism (which he supported in his early life as a progressive force but witnessed it turning the corner into a familiar feudal pattern (taking a lot of liberty in paraphrasing). As Harvey states in his lecture linked above, America has always gotten out of it's economic contradictions by house building and making things to fill them up with. Expansion and wealth accumulation are capitalism's laws of motion that have to exist for it to function. China pulled our chestnuts out of the fire by expansion similar to our suburban housing expansion from WW2 to apx. 1968. For china to achieve enormous growth rate as well as lifting countries invested in the China trade out of recession, they poured as much concrete as the U.S. did in it's last 100 yrs, between 2008-2011! That also represented all associated planetary resources for ore and minerals that went with that scale of expansion.... Expanding the global GDP the historical 2.5% sweet spot on a apx. 50 trillion world GDP. We are now working at apx. 85 trillion world GDP and rising. How will we expand to stay within the historical 2.5% after having depleted planetary resources?
What then?
History provides me with some answers. One way I would prefer but it is the historical underdog. The other way is pretty repressive and intolerable. I have that sentimentalism of always rooting for the underdog. I think a good deal of America has that 'underdog' cultural roots and mystique.
To be clear, though, I don't view politics thru a romantic lense. I prefer history and rational economics mixed with public goods and assets and democratic workplaces to what's been on tap and getting worse in Murika.
I guess I just don't understand the socialist thing. I agree, the Republicans use "socialism" as a whipping boy and punish Democrats for being socialists. Its actually kinda interesting. They do that because IT WORKS! Those of you who support using the word 'socialist' are, obviously, among those determined to stick with a losing path. The word 'socialist' is flat out demonized. You cannot change that and, again obviously don't get it. There seems to be a strong contingent who are determined to lose. Hillary lost for two reasons. The first is that the Democrats were beat when they decided to ignore the electoral college to work in blue states (basically, the Dems got outsmarted). The second is because Hillary had been well demonized. Hell, large numbers of the population actually believe she was a murderer, child abuser and child trafficker. People believed this so much that they encouraged the Republican Congress to spend 100 million dollars trying to prove their point!
I do, however, give up. This business with socialism just isn't worth it. I guess there are true believers on both sides and I would prefer not to get involved.
I guess I just don't understand the socialist thing.
I do, however, give up.
I don't recall you ever putting the time in to understand it JGW. No one is saying you have to agree with something to understand it. Frankly, I don't see you making an effort but restating mischaracterizations that you've apparently picked up from your childhood. For myself, I wold like to at least be aware of what a large portion of the world is on about. I don't see capitalism as a sustainable system under it's desribed laws of motion. THere's not enough planet to continue it.
Once again, chunk, you keep missing because you're shooting at the wrong target. Lack of resources is not a "capitalist" thing. Communists and capitalists alike work with limited resources. Since the age of Carthage vs. Rome, power seeks expansion. Monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, Republic or Soviet - it applies to all. Growth and expansion are sides of the same coin - Just ask Lenin.
The resource that will (has) run out before oil is water. And with it, food. Human existence requires sustenance. We don't currently have the resources to sustain the current population. The crash has started. The best we can do right now is divvy up what we have, but that is not sustainable. What comes next will be devastating.
