For me, it’s very basic, and I know people don’t like to hear this:
The will of the people is being suppressed by the elites.
The republic is a failed experiment.
I’ll make my presidential campaign speech very simple:
I want to be the last president and turn this over to direct democracy.
It’s better to go out the most beautiful flower the world has ever seen, and make all of our conquerors envy us for all time, than to be a putrid bloom… and who knows, we may actually make it!!
It seems that you are saying that everyone should vote for socialism because they promised a lot of free stuff. And after they take the money from the rich, line their pockets, devastate the economy, and move into their distant palaces, we can all proudly proclaim that they were not “real socialists”.
Of course by that time, they won’t care. The economy will be destroyed, there will be no means to rebel, and voting will be Soviet style. Realize that along with economic control comes media control (if those weren’t already the same people). And with media control, all electable candidates and voting shall be as prescribed or not at all. Actual democracy doesn’t exist in socialist countries.
The US DNC is already a socialist party and already doing all of those very things. So try not to think about it too hard. Of course you are still free to say that they aren’t the right kind of socialists. They won’t mind, as long as you gain them votes.
Socialism is a cult methodology, forbidding truth to be known. They demand that everyone only speak State approved thoughts and recoil violently against any signs of divergence. Socialism seeks to protect itself above all else and thus freely seeks to program people into obedience, same as with Communism (displayed by China).
As I originally said, you are obviously very lost in the murky deep waters within your propaganda bubble of belief. If you were to actually use dictionaries and encyclopedias to discover the real meanings of things, I fear that the bright sun of reality would cause within you horrific insecurity, anxiety, fear, anger, hostility, and possibly extreme violence, as your bubble burst. It is a common occurrence these days.
I realize that you believe that socialists are all good Samaritans and exceedingly humane, but what happens if one of those deplorable bad people accidentally sneak into power? Think about how you would get any of your rights back once you fall under socialist control?
The Right believes that the Left has bad ideas.
The Left believes that the Right are bad people, so their ideas are not to be heard.
Look to Los Angeles, New York City, Venezuela. You can see what your socialist promotion brings. And they viciously seek to control the entire world the same way - extreme poverty for the unworthy, extreme wealth for the elite.
I know that you can’t accept any of that even if your mind would let you see it so I’m not going to pressure you as so many others would.
Sounds more like the synopsis of a dystopian horror movie than a good critique of socialism.
I think it’s time for you to ask a Rosa, 524.
This guy didn’t listen to a word I said, he’s talking to a stereotype, not to me.
His thinking is too binary to have a conversation with.
Not very, observant.
I’m not even a socialist, in some ways I prefer the US economy and society, in some ways I prefer the Scandinavian economy and society (which’s still predominantly capitalist), and in others I prefer the Visegrad Group (which’s again still predominantly capitalist), I have tried to synthesize them in my thinking.
That really sux man, should be free.
Would I be correct in thinking that everyone so far is not in favour of Progressivism?
Would then the primary point of dispute be over whether Social Reform is part of Socialism? The OP clearly states they do not think this is the case.
The other half of the OP is in favour of economic reform as distinct from social reform.
Assuming I am correct in thinking that nobody is in favour of social reform, there seems little point in arguing over it. Instead, what do you guys think about economic reform? Is it needed? If it is, when what kind?
That being said, I don’t support this Rosa Lichtenstein, this has nothing to do with me.
She’s anti-free speech and a thug.
I’d like to see a synthesis of rep and direct internet democracy, where the legislative, judicial and executive branches still existed and could propose bills, but they’d still have to pass through all three branches of government and could be vetoed by the people, likewise the people could propose bills with sufficient backing by the people (like say 10000 supporters), but they’d have to pass through all three branches of government and could be vetoed by the people.
Of course internet democracy is dangerous because there’s no paper trail.
I think we should still elect representatives, including those who administer the internet democracy by paper, while voting for bills online.
well i don’t know about that, but she is straight thuggin’.
if you ever change your mind, marx, rosa and i will be right here waiting for you…
Actually, internet democracy is pretty solid. You just have to make the source code public domain so people can see if it’s been altered. When a person shows their physical registration at a voting center, they walk in and receive a random serial number for that vote, which they can always check.
The problem of anonymous and transparent
voting through internet has been solved
We have the tools to do this
In socialism, there is no democracy.
Last I checked, they had democracy in Fennoscandia, which’s again not to say I like everything about it.
I think about society, government and economics 3 dimensionally.
I’m a nationalist, anti-immigration and a libertarian on social issues.
These positions also factor into who and what I’ll support.
Furthermore, the Nordic model is too corporatist for my liking.
From my understanding, it’s difficult to move up or down the economic ladder in Fennoscandia.
I want to make it easier for the poorest 99% to climb the ladder and the richest 0.1% to fall by eliminating taxes on the 99% and small businesses while increasing taxes on the 0.1% and big business (but of course not beyond what would render them unprofitable) while redistributing the wealth in the form of universal supplementary income (everyone with a legitimate source of income (an aboveboard job or income assistance) will be given an additional 10 grand by government or whatever we can afford).
Minimally regulate small businesses while maximally regulating big.
Increase corporate welfare for small businesses while eliminating it for big.
What I’m proposing is, as far as I know, historically unprecedented.
It would mean a gradual transfer of ownership and management of the economy from the top 0.1% to the bottom 99%.
Of course an overnight transfer would result in economic ruin.
either all that or partly nationalize and unionize or cooperativize all megacorps and run them in the interests of workers and consumers.
I say partly, because of course government and unions or workers won’t be able to run them by themselves, at least not initially.
Really?
I’ll have to look into that.
I’d want a mix of direct and indirect democracy, at least for a while, until the people became more educated about governance.
essentially the Fennoscandinavian model is democratic social corporatism, whereas mine is either proper social democracy or democratic socialism.
From my experience, most people here are lukewarm about or opposed to progressivism.
However, they’re split down the middle about socialism.
In general I think social democrats and democratic socialists could broaden their appeal if they ditched progressivism.
Most white and even some black and brown people don’t like hearing about how whites are bad, we’re not and we don’t owe anyone anything, and we still make up the majority of the Anglosphere, including the majority of voters.
Whatever success the left has had in recent years, it’s been in spite of progressivism, not because of it.
I think it’s by design, the deep state keeps the races, religions and sexes squabbling over scraps to distract us from itself.
They keep the working and middle classes fighting over taxes and wages.
They don’t want us to know it’s possible for government to help both classes simultaneously by going directly after the elite full tilt.
Here’s something like what I think should be done to help the economy:
eliminate immigration, so the working class doesn’t have to compete with immigrants for housing, jobs and social services.
In the 21st century, we no longer need economic or population growth, we need economic justice and sustainability.
While the offspring of skilled immigrants might, immigrants themselves don’t create housing, jobs and social services, they just compete for them.
eliminate offshoring.
Nationalize the central banks.
eliminate corporate welfare.
eliminate the war on drugs, the war on terror and bring all our troops home.
eliminate foreign aid.
Maximally deregulate small businesses while maximally regulating big business.
eliminate the carbon, sales and all taxes except the income tax and the unnecessary bureaucracy that goes along with them, eliminate the income tax on the poorest 99% and maximally increase the income tax on the richest 0.1%.
Nationalize postsecondary education and improve healthcare and public transportation.
Implement what I call universal supplementary income (USI, similar to but not the same as UBI): government gives at least 10 grand annually (or whatever we can afford) to everyone with a legitimate source of income (everyone with an aboveboard job or on income assistance).
so far the plans look good, but when you get into office be prepared to be heckled by economists who are going to worry you to death with their spreadsheets and market predictions and budget analyses and all that shit. that’s the real bitch about governance; a plan looks good… but how well can it predict what will happen when policy x, y, and z are affected.
‘The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.’ - hayek
I’m a big picture guy, I’ll leave the detail and grunt work to my underlings.
But if I like start getting the feeling they’re just trying to protect the elite’s interests, I’ll take a little more than they say I can take and see what happens.
If it works out, I’ll replace them with new underlings, but if it doesn’t, I’ll pull back a bit, and think of other ways to redistribute more.
holy shit… you’re like the platonic guardians, dude. that’s so radical. its like the republic 2.0 version. you’re like an auxiliary; you rule but you let those below you do the ruling until they fuck up and then you put some rule on they ass. but look, you have to also live in a near state of poverty so you won’t ever be tempted to establish legislation that is bias toward keeping your wealth. if you’re broke, then you can’t stack the deck in your favor, see.
okay so here’s a typical problem that will arise in the proceedings of the democratic bodies that determine the value of the labor of the workers who are part of the government. in the absence of natural free market value adjusting (commodities that are popular are more valued), worker syndicates have to agree on the wages allotted for x type of work, since that wage won’t be adjusted and determined by a private owner participating in a free market. now if that’s the case, what’s to stop one or more of these delegates from deciding their job is worth more than the other guy’s job? some pretty serious artificial price fixing might go down, dude. how do you propose this can be prevented?
holds microphone forward