Reply With Quote
Poor girl
(bites tongue about unflattering things that float)
Poor girl
are you saying israel is not occupying the west bank and gaza strip?
Lol
Shes really re ed dude, c'mon
Seems like she is taking a principled stand for something she believes.
I thought that was what you want.
My family fled the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia before I was born. They were subjected to "re-education" camps (forced labor), witnessed the rape and execution of relatives and friends, had to swim across the Mekong River to Thailand, and then stay in a refugee camp for 3 years until they could legally enter the US. I've always wondered how differing political views could ever escalate to the mass murder of an entire people. I see now, especially with social media, how a mob mentality can create these situations. God bless the 2nd.
I wonder how many people have ever fled capitalism?
Communism is a failure as an idea, just like libertarianism, for many of the same reasons.
I would not ever advocate communism, and no one I know thinks we should try that here.
Means of production should be kept in private hands.
The right in this country LOVES to blur the lines there, in a rush towards ad hominems and strawmen, which are dishonest ways to frame discussions and control a narrative.
This is why the old saw of "but Venezuela" is always trotted out, while any discussion of Norway, Denmark, Germany, et al. are always avoided.
Capitalism has its own inherent flaws. Monopolies, special interests, nepotism, etc. Capitalism MUST be given solid rules to protect the interests of societies.
Pure capitialism in this country has led to the country lurching from financial crisis to financial crisis. Depression to Recession.
The problem is that, like in many Communist states, pure capitalism tends to concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands.
two words:
Gini coefficient
Confused with socialism, which you apparently believe in now?
Article II. Purpose
We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.
https://www.dsausa.org/cons ution
Sounds pretty similar to the Khmer Rouge...
not at all.
for me (key) "resources" includes eg water, air, energy, transportation, capital.
All of which are out of control of The People.
Khmer Rouge? scare tactics by the bad faith ignorant
No scare tactics...just personal family experiences and trying to generate discussion.
worth pointing out what concentration of power, and a lack of free press and other rights can do.
Yes...on either side of the spectrum.
Some US Americans don't have maps, such as, and the occupation of Palestine, and such as the children in Africa and such as
See the DNC
Hmm. If that is the case, I am out.
Thanks for the info. I am back to being a mere Democrat again. That goes counter to my previous understanding.
Fully agree.
At this point though, political power is entirely concentrated in the U.S. in line with weath concentration. .4% of the population owns roughly 50% of all assets, and essentially control the country, acting in their interests over everyone elses.
No social democracies in Europe are Khmer Rouge, and proponents of American democratic socialism are not proposing Khmer Rouge, USSR Stalinism, Maoist Communism, or any other such crap.
Khmer Rouge? bad faith scare tactics.
Unless you are a Capitalist, capitalism sucks.
Which European social democracy do you think we should pattern the new American social utopia after?
Whichever one didnt lead to people eating out of Garbage cans Venezuela style I'm guessing
Denmark would be fine. Holland, Norway.
Each has a sovereign wealth fund that invests and earns a return. Part of the returns are then used to fund the government, and is run by a investment management board.
Each has better standards of living, and lower poverty rates than the US.
Denmark poverty rate of 13.4% is only 1.7% lower than the US poverty rate, not that much difference for a high welfare country. And how do the people of Denmark better themselves by using all of that welfare? Turns out not a whole lot:
The first big idea is that Denmark is not a nation of Horatio Algersens. Its high social mobility is not the result of an economy that is uniquely good at helping poor children earn middle-class salaries. Instead, it is a country much like the U.S., where the children of poor parents who don’t go to college are also unlikely to attend college or earn a high wage. Social mobility in Denmark and the U.S. seem to be remarkably similar when looking exclusively at wages—that is, before including taxes and transfers.
...
But despite this far greater investment in young children and public colleges, Danish children of high-school graduates are still extremely unlikely to go onto college. Put slightly differently, a tiny share of Denmark’s college graduate population comes from homes where neither parent finished high school. The children of college-grads almost always go to college; the children of non-grads often don’t—even in Denmark.
...
The third big idea is that Denmark’s welfare policies might reduce its citizens’ incentives to go to college. In the early 1990s, when Denmark raised the minimum age of eligibility for social assistance, college enrollment among Danish twentysomethings fell below its trajectory. Based on this finding, the researchers conclude that welfare policies may reduce college enrollment. Denmark makes it more comfortable to be poor and less lucrative to be rich, so many young people decide to end their education after high school
...
The most significant implication of this paper is not a happy one: Equality of opportunity is a fantasy. It does not exist in the U.S., it does not exist in Denmark, and it probably doesn’t exist anywhere. The children of rich college graduates are far more likely to grow up to become rich college graduates, even in the world's social-democratic fantasyland. That is because, everywhere, parents matter.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...enmark/494141/
So what?
I see some bolded here, with other important bits from the article left out.
If you are attempting to show "socialism doesn't work", this article does not do that.
For example:
College attainment is not a good in and of itself. Differing rates have different consequences and meanings. The comparison of the two is interesting but without you saying why you feel it important, somewhat moot, if you can't spell out how it is meaningful.
Ironically:
This large public investment in kids seems to increase cognitive skills among poor Danish children compared to their American peers. In international math and reading scores, for example, the poorest quartile in Denmark far outperforms their counterparts in the U.S.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
