A Democratic Soclialist has just been elected in Virginia

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: DanteGaland

Kansas government isn’t doing all that well. But the economy is and unemployment in Kansas has been below the national average for a long time now.

Where did you get that information?

Brookings calls the Kansas experiment a cluster**** and infact the GOP legislature raised taxes over Brownie's veto.

www.brookings.edu...

a reply to: XAnarchistX


Anarchy I can at least understand. Most anarchists are of above-average intellect, and wish to abolish the state precisely because a less-intelligent/less-capable majority attempts to dictate said anarchist's life. A person of such intelligence recognizes that they alone are best suited to make important decisions for themselves, not by any type of majority (or even documents, like the Constitution).

That is my entire problem with communism/democracy/majority rule. A majority is fine, provided it acts within the confines of the Constitution.

Anarchy, as a principle, I kind of actually (big shock, right?) agree with. The problem is that not everyone is capable of self-governance and acting in accordance to common decency. Which is why I believe anarchy wouldn't work for such a large nation (as it stands right now). At its very core, however, I don't find anarchy to be unpalatable. Simply because it is the ultimate expression of individual rights/liberty/freedom IMHO.

Props to you, sir. That star is from me BTW

a reply to: JBurns

Right, which is why a lot of anarchists reject the thought of communism and socialism, in fact, most anarchy is the negation of all economic and forced economic platforms, communism has inherent qualities of suppressing the individual and turning into a hegemonic 'populism', while there are those "anarcho-communist" that wish to achieve communism through anarchism, but, that is not "anarchy"... especially now, anarchy has been extremely watered down and started to turn more into a 'political platform' versus an anti-political platform, these so-called "social-anarchist" are nothing like those Insurrectionary-Individualist anarchists of the past....

It may seem like I am defending communism at times, but only to make sure the definitions are understood, and the difference between communist dictators, and the original ideology of communism.

but, as stated, anarchy is about destroying all forms of domination, not installing new ones

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: DanteGaland

Kansas government isn’t doing all that well. But the economy is and unemployment in Kansas has been below the national average for a long time now.

Where did you get that information?

Brookings calls the Kansas experiment a cluster**** and infact the GOP legislature raised taxes over Brownie's veto.

www.brookings.edu...

Kansas = DISMAL FAILURE.

And it's a dry run for what the GOP wants to do the entire nation

Socialism will not grow that much in the US, except maybe on the coasts and in major cities. In the country we are already socialist, socially. Just not politically. We loan stuff to our neighbors, buy christmas presents for the kids in our communities that won't get any, stuff like that.

It isn't zero sum. We don't have to turn to socialism in order to reign in corporatism. In actuality, the best way to fight corporatism is to fight globalism, which seems to be opposed to the apparent goals of the supporters of socialism, as we are starting to see national borders blurred in concept.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: DanteGaland

Kansas government isn’t doing all that well. But the economy is and unemployment in Kansas has been below the national average for a long time now.

Where did you get that information?

Brookings calls the Kansas experiment a cluster**** and infact the GOP legislature raised taxes over Brownie's veto.

www.brookings.edu...

There is a reason why the Kansas side of Kansas City is flourishing, including all its Kansas side suburbs like Lenexa, OP, Olathe, etc. They're growing like weeds and stealing businesses from the Missouri side as fast as they can. I ought to know, I live out here.

The problem with Kansas is the government is too large and it is held hostage to the education dept. by its own SCOTUS. Education is roughly 48% of state spending! And every time they try to tame that, the unions go to court and sue and the SCOTUS tells the legislation what they *must* spend.

That is out of control.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Painterz


Democracy itself is evil enough without the socialism component.

Mob rule = tyranny of majority.



We already have more socialism in this country than we can handle (hence the disgusting national debt), and has caused government to inflate beyond its only purpose of providing for the national defense and ensuring Constitutional compliance.

You're blaming national debt on socialism? How quaint...wasn't it Reagan who made the national debt a real news topic? I'm pretty sure he didn't do that based on social programs...oh that's right, it was military programs.

Wasn't it under Clinton, a Democrat, when this country had a surplus?

National debt has and will always be an issue when this country panders to corporate croneyism and kowtows to the military industrial complex.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Congress controls the purse strings. Generally speaking, Reagan had a Democrat Congress and Clinton had a Republican during those budget cycles.

In order to get what he wanted, Reagan had to give. In order to get what he wanted ... Clinton had to give (or in this case, cut).

That's how it works.

The GOP started to spend massively the last time they lost Congress. People saw no reason to think they were different than Democrats.

This time around, if they don't pass what they said they would, they'll lose Congress for the same reasons. President Trump has little to do with it, and failure to remove Obamacare and pass tax reform and block illegal immigration will have much more. But the GOP will choose to blame Trump because they never wanted to do any of those other things anyhow and blaming Trump is in fashion.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Except that's not even really socialist. That's just being charitable. You pay it forward because you know you might need your neighbor when what goes around comes around.

To me, socialism is when it's compelled by force.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek


...but the military (national defense) is one of the government's only reasons to even exist.

We didn't form a government to forcefully legislate a bunch of "social programs" (aka stealing from the few to give to the many)

That being said, like Texan said, we already have community based socialism. Only difference is that we don't have armed bozos going door to door for "forced redistribution" and "forced reparation." It is the "forced" part I take issue with, not the helping friends & neighbors part.

We have a family down the road from us who lost most everything in the recession, and we always help out to make sure their kids (and them) have a great Christmas. My wife bakes all kinds of food (all of our neighbors hate us for making them gain weight), and anonymously left an undisclosed amount of money in their mailbox last year a few weeks before the holidays. Their kids had a great Christmas, they had plenty of food and they know we are always here for them no matter what. I am not saying this to brag in any way, IMO it is just the decent thing to do and not extraordinary in the least. OTOH, if those same neighbors would show up at our door armed and demanding money/food/whatever else, I'd kindly tell them to make like a tree and leaf.

The concept of socialism isn't the problem. It is the idea that people must be forced to give something away for nothing (the forced part). If a total stranger showed up at my door right now asking for help, I'd give them everything in my pantry/fridge and whatever money we've got laying around here/in the checking account. They can even have the shirt I'm wearing if they need it, I've got other clothes. It isn't those possessions I care about, it is the "give them to me, or face violence" that is the problem.

So the Veterans Administration isn't the only 'VA' that will be in financial shambles anymore...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Uh-oh! Do I sense the gorilla is finally starting to come around where national borders are concerned?

a reply to: JBurns

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis talks about the idyllic Christian society. He says it would look a lot like what socialists say they envision but it wouldn't be because there wouldn't need to be any government compelling anyone to do anything. People would still have and keep their own things, even prosper.

it's just that everyone would make sure that all the others would have what they needed, and those who needed would be satisfied with what they received as enough and when they were able, help in their turn.

No greed, no envy - two big components needed to form what we think of as a socialist society with socialist governments because greed and envy drive the compulsion to ensure everything is fair as defined by someone or some other entity with the power to make it so.

a reply to: olaru12

Been a couple of years since I left Kansas. I haven’t really been keeping up with what’s going on. Those were the conditions I left.

a reply to: ketsuko


That is a perfect example ketsuko!

Those who live in our region understand this perfectly. We happily "pay it forward" because we know that we are only one disaster/house fire/job loss/death in the family away from that same downtrodden state.

I spent years in LE, and worked EMS after I retired. My wife has been in healthcare a good part of her life as well, and we both worked very hard to instill into our now-adult children the values of service to country/community/neighbors/friends/strangers by the examples we tried to lead by.

We don't need that giant government forcing us to do anything. We'll gladly do it out of the kindness of hearts and expect nothing in return. Service to others is one of the most important and impactful things a person can do, in my opinion! Forcing people to engage in acts of kindness out of fear of violence/retaliation cheapens the entire prospect of giving.

The greed/envy/anger paradigm is what (forgive the language) bastardizes those ideals and seeks to turn them into forced equity - which simply is unsustainable.

Unless North Korea's standard of living is appealing to you!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Except that's not even really socialist. That's just being charitable. You pay it forward because you know you might need your neighbor when what goes around comes around.

To me, socialism is when it's compelled by force.

Yeah, im using hyperbolic license.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Uh-oh! Do I sense the gorilla is finally starting to come around where national borders are concerned?

Only in relation to the notion of globalism.

The kicker is globalism is a dead end road in the fractional debt system. Once we have Africa looking like China did 30 years ago (which will be maybe 15 more years) we will see economies worldwide begin to unravel. The only solution is off planet, or to break the status quo.

a reply to: Ohanka

Socialism doesn't really have a fixed definition.

It most certainly does. Regardless of how it’s packaged, socialism democratic, national, Fabian all generally work the same and adhere to the same general philosophies. The difference is scale.

Fabian socialists are global in scale and they are scary one worlders who don’t think very highly of the poor, sick, or otherwise “not useful”.

National Socialism is hardcore nationalism with socialist structure and policy.

Democratic socialists let the people vote on the kind of tyranny they want.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: CB328


This is a blessing in disguise for America. Republicans might now appreciate how precious it is to have House/Senate/WhiteHouse, and start getting the big projects passed. Starting with Tax-Cuts for the majority of Americans.

The Republican position on tax cuts is getting worse by the day. Their donors want to pocket the savings from the cuts at the expense of everyone else. The Republicans either piss off their voters or their donors. Financial realities don't allow them to appease both and failing either one will cost them a lot of power.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Congress controls the purse strings. Generally speaking, Reagan had a Democrat Congress and Clinton had a Republican during those budget cycles.

In order to get what he wanted, Reagan had to give. In order to get what he wanted ... Clinton had to give (or in this case, cut).

That's how it works.

The GOP started to spend massively the last time they lost Congress. People saw no reason to think they were different than Democrats.

Exactly...that's why compromise and discussion is so important.

But I still stick to my guns about corporate croneyism and the military industrial complex...our national debt would be under tighter control if we weren't obsessed with spending (and losing track of) trillions of dollars just to reinvent large scale murder.