Spot on! Don't forget Ike's parting caution about the military industrial complex. In the early sixties several naval shipyards built nuclear subs, now only one private builder does. And we spend a fortune on every late, overbudget sub.
Or plane drone tank radar. . . And safety standards are crap. Why? Because our soldiers, or their families, cannot sue when the super expensive transport carrying sailors from big ship to small boat dock capsizes. That happened, ~20 sailors died. That was the majority of our fatalities in whatever fracking war, aka pissing contest, that was.
I completely agree. Just think of how much tax money it took to keep the economy afloat in the last few fiscal crises brought on by the Wall Street Gamblers and their cronies. With mountains of Treasury debt that the rich do not want to pay for - they expect the middle and working classes to pay for those financial messes for the remainder of the century. And there is another gigantic financial mess in the making right on our doorstep this minute.....
".... every socialist experiment in the 20th century - without exception - has been crushed, overthrown or invaded or corrupted, perverted or destabilized or otherwise had made life impossible for it, by the US. Not one socialist gov't or movement ... was permitted to rise or fall on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against its all powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.
It's as if the Wright brothers first experiments with flying machines all failed because automotive interests sabotage each test flight. And, then the good, God-fearing folk of the world looked upon them, took notice of the consequences, nodded their heads and wisely intoned solemnly 'man will never fly' " .. This is from Wm Blum "Killing Hope: US military and CIA Interventions since WWII" 2004
Every time I hear Trump use the word "communism," I just want to find a way to tape his mouth shut. He works on scaring the people who don't understand Democratic Socialism. The only way I see to overcome it is to get enough Democratic Socialists in Congress to show people what we can do!
Corbin, I think you miss the point. The wageslaves who vote MAGA long ago gave up the hope that this system, or indeed any system, can do anything for them. Proof of Drumpf's corruption is irrelevant, proof of the current régime's failure is beside the point. Proof of how the country could work for all of us is a waste of time. MAGAs, drug-soaked and obese as they are, aren't stupid. They know all politicians are crooked and steal. They know what Senator Pettit of Indiana said 160 years ago; the Declaration of Independence is a self-evident lie. They are resigned to being robbed and enserfed. Thirtyfive years ago H. Ross Perrot warned them the capitalists would sell them out. They voted for Clinton and NAFTA. Drumpf and Pence gave Carrier Corp 7 million taxpayer dollars to keep union jobs in Indiana; within six months the jobs went to Mexico, and union workers in their millions voted MAGA anyway. The secret? This country needed a war that cost 600,000 dead to abolish Black slavery, after every other country (save Brazil, but including Czarist Russia) had abolished slavery without a shot being fired. That war is not yet over; as long as there is one Black or Brown person in this country, the aforesaid drug-soaked, obese bigots will sell their lives and their children's lives for that despicable cause. My first witness is President Lyndon Johnson: “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” Your witness.
No, I think you miss the point. The key is the last part of the Johnson quote: “Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” Certainly, this is most evident regarding Black people because skin tone is easily and visually distinguishable. As to slave uprisings in this hemisphere, you omit the obvious case of Haiti as well as the many slave revolts (wars where shots were certainly fired and millions died) and political maneuverings before eventually securing emancipation in every country in the Western Hemisphere except maybe Canada. Let’s kill the self-aggrandizing propaganda that slaves were "given" freedom benevolently by "good" White people rather than the slaves themselves and others fought for it no less than the founding fathers.
So here’s the point. Every conceivable human characteristic has been and is used to “give him somebody look down on” from skin tone, facial features, country of origin, language, religion, culture, level of wealth/poverty, ad infinitum…there’s no end to the creativity of the depraved and selfish human mind. If you drew a timeline, it would be over 450 years long of exploited peoples seeking solidarity to resist injustice in this country. That timeline would be filled with suppression, progress, and backsliding, and unfortunately too many instances of one group ganging up on some other exploited people to be better than. It’s all about how we learn from history, keep pushing against our lesser selves to fight amongst ourselves, and take control of the table rather than fighting over the crumbs that trickle off it. I am admittedly an optimist.
I think the Democratic Socialist candidates can win everywhere if they clearly and specifically explain exactly what their policies are. Poll after poll shows the majority supports all the things you just laid out.
are you actually saying that democratic socialism co-existed with slavery and genocide? Imagine that we can have democratic socialism without public healthcare for all? I have read a lot of ignorant posts by Americans, but this is absolutely shocking.
This is an absurd argument. Have you never heard of public goods? Having public goods is not socialism; do you think that public sewers were stupid so that we continued to have constant epidemics; this requires government to build as it crosses whole cities, certainly we would not want those only for the rich. Public education for all (the system needs people that have skills), access to free energy and clean drinking water ... guess when these happened, yes in the 20th century. The New Deal (again 20th century and put in because Roosevelt and co were so worried about socialists, communists and anarchists organising successfully). This, unfortunately, is called managed capitalism; Keynes was not a socialist, he hated socialists (he was a Liberal).
It is only the reascendancy of classical liberalism in the form of neoliberalism with its destructive laissez faire beliefs and the nonsense that the state cannot create economic growth so beloved of the right-wing libertarians who even oppose the basic functions that the state needs to do.
If we had socialism for 250 years, did we invent it? Because socialism as a concept did not exist in 1776; it is invented in the early 19th century and certainly not in the US. What did you invent before it was created. Your argument expresses corporatism; again not an American invention, that comes from Europe and is a favourite of people that argue for the world as harmonious with no class conflict; you find it in the writings of the liberal John Stuart Mill as well as Benito Mussolini ... there is a reason for this and it is an argument that hides the reality of exploitation and oppression that is inherent in the capitalist economic system.
Got it. I had actually booked a cruise to Cuba in 2019, but trump canceled it. I have to admit that I am having a hard time picturing the country you are proposing.
I would expect that when someone decides to declare the writers ignorant and absurd, that person might at least know what she is talking about. This is obviously not the case here. Socialism was not invented in the 19th Century. It has been around in various forms for centuries. Most things existed before there were names for them. I still can’t tell if you disagree with his points, or if it is just the part about America being built on Democratic Socialism.
Have a great evening. Or day, depending on where you are.
What the writers said *is* ignorant and absurd, though. They clearly don't know what socialism is, and your comment makes clear that ignorance on that particular subject is probably a prerequisite for appreciation of the piece.
It's just that we're in a situation where stakes are quite high, and it's important for people to actually understand what they're talking about. There is a lot of money being spent to confuse people about what capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. actually are in order to avoid them actually pursuing alternatives to the existing system, and articles like this are the result of that confusion.
How can we have socialism without capitalism? In the absence of a working class in itself, that is impossible as the social conditions that give rise to the idea of socialism don't exist.
Your confusion is that you do not understand what socialism is; you are trying to take ideas and ideologies outside of their historical context. Even more absurd you are arguing that a country built on racism and genocide could be democratic socialist. You do realise that voting was based on property ownership and racialisation and gender do you not? Socialism is not having public goods, most capitalists used to argue that state monopolies actually can do things more efficiently.
If you know the history of the creation of state controlled fire departments due to private fire insurance being unsustainable to protect people from fire then you should know that. It did not only happen in Britain ... the attack on the efficiency and functionality of the state running these things was because profitability fell and capitalists believed they could make money off of doing it. Instead, many lost access to clean drinking water, heating, and energy due to commodification.
Do you think that Jesus was a socialist or that the protection of the price of bread and its guarantees to working people in the Holy Roman Empire is socialism? Never confuse a small sample of people living in communes to advocacy of a general system of a society.
There is no notion of socialism before capitalism; as it is capitalism which creates the ideological and actual physical basis for the advocacy of the elimination of private ownership of the means of production and distribution and the end of exploitation. The evolution towards capitalism required the weakening of feudalism and absolutist state; the ideological justifications around getting rid of the Divine Rights of Kings and the transition to a more democratic system took hundreds of years. John Locke was not a socialist; the argument of the right to subsistence is not socialism.
Finally, do not confuse corporatism for socialism which is what is done in the article. They are very different beasts; class harmony (corporatism) vs class conflict (socialism) ... we do not all together harmoniously for the greater good of "society"; we are forced to sell our ability to labour to feed ourselves and families.
I am sorry to say this but you seem to be someone with a great sense of self-importance and unfortunately a limited knowledge on what you are speaking.
Ironically, your last paragraph pretty much describes my opinion of you. NO ONE is suggesting we are not a Capitalist society, and NO ONE is suggesting we should be a Socialist society.
Instead of insulting one another, let’s just agree to disagree.
Lots of people are suggesting we should be a socialist society, including people who - unlike you and the authors of the original post - know what socialism is. You should look into it sometime.
Actually many people are talking about socialism because capitalism is destroying the planet, the massive increase in wealth and income differentials is tremendous and it is impossible to live a decent life in the US it is so bad that your children's prospects are far worse than yours. Accessing health care is still impossible in the US for some people (not your concern obviously) ... capitalism has made it so that you cannot survive on a full-time job. A lot of people want to get rid of this system and move towards one that prioritises the needs of the planet and population and not the tiny number of multi-billionaires ...
Corporatism is not the same as socialism or democratic socialism. In order for socialism to exist it requires the existence of capitalism first -- as socialism is a response to the exploitation and oppression of capitalism; these are systemic and structural within the system. There is a class system and there is oppression which codifies structural differences within the majority of the population
Oppressioncannot be eliminated (although reform can be fought but never to the full elimination of oppression) because capitalism requires oppression to function; by systemic oppression, I am referring to racialisation (the US is founded on genocide and slavery), misogyny (women's role in social reproduction is based still on unpaid labour in the home), LGBTQI+ phobia (maintenance of binaries, many of which exist to ensure that social reproduction) and disablism (the role of the working class -- those that do not own independent wealth they can live on is to sell your ability to labour -- if you cannot do this, you face eugenics and constant complaints that you are living off the wealth of others). These oppressions are fundamental to capitalism which maintains them.
Since you are white you probably do not understand the depth of how these oppression are interwoven and how they impact people's lives; we have never benefited from this system equally and our access to bodily autonomy is being eroded. With all reforms of the 1950, 1960s, and later being so easily eliminated, you can hopefully see that the US is neither democratic or socialist ... but you are so lost in bizarre ideologies that you are unable to understand reality
I will now stop talking to you. You need an understanding of history, you need an understanding of the history of economic and political thought to understand what I am talking about and quite honestly, it is not my job to teach you. You could read any number of things but choose to cling to ideologies (do you even know any of the people I mentioned? do you even bother to google who they were?). If you did you would probably do better than whine at me.
then you didn't understand what I wrote; the US did not invent democratic socialism in 1776, that is absurd. My comment instead was discussing the difference between liberalism, public goods, corporatism. Keynes is not a socialist, class exists and we do not live in a harmonious society where we are all working together for the good of the country.
The article incorrectly describes welfare-state capitalism as 'democratic socialism'. Even more absurdly, it suggests that an agrarian slave society can be 'democratic socialism'. At a certain point, we have to ask whether there is anything that - based on these strange definitions - would NOT be socialism.
God bless you Corbin!
... and my fallback response regarding Socialism:
Socialism: Expecting government services in exchange for the money you pay in taxes.
Is that really such a radical idea?
Bravo!!!!
Spot on! Don't forget Ike's parting caution about the military industrial complex. In the early sixties several naval shipyards built nuclear subs, now only one private builder does. And we spend a fortune on every late, overbudget sub.
Or plane drone tank radar. . . And safety standards are crap. Why? Because our soldiers, or their families, cannot sue when the super expensive transport carrying sailors from big ship to small boat dock capsizes. That happened, ~20 sailors died. That was the majority of our fatalities in whatever fracking war, aka pissing contest, that was.
I completely agree. Just think of how much tax money it took to keep the economy afloat in the last few fiscal crises brought on by the Wall Street Gamblers and their cronies. With mountains of Treasury debt that the rich do not want to pay for - they expect the middle and working classes to pay for those financial messes for the remainder of the century. And there is another gigantic financial mess in the making right on our doorstep this minute.....
The best post I've seen, thank you!
".... every socialist experiment in the 20th century - without exception - has been crushed, overthrown or invaded or corrupted, perverted or destabilized or otherwise had made life impossible for it, by the US. Not one socialist gov't or movement ... was permitted to rise or fall on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against its all powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.
It's as if the Wright brothers first experiments with flying machines all failed because automotive interests sabotage each test flight. And, then the good, God-fearing folk of the world looked upon them, took notice of the consequences, nodded their heads and wisely intoned solemnly 'man will never fly' " .. This is from Wm Blum "Killing Hope: US military and CIA Interventions since WWII" 2004
Excellent reminder of who we really are!
Every time I hear Trump use the word "communism," I just want to find a way to tape his mouth shut. He works on scaring the people who don't understand Democratic Socialism. The only way I see to overcome it is to get enough Democratic Socialists in Congress to show people what we can do!
Corbin, I think you miss the point. The wageslaves who vote MAGA long ago gave up the hope that this system, or indeed any system, can do anything for them. Proof of Drumpf's corruption is irrelevant, proof of the current régime's failure is beside the point. Proof of how the country could work for all of us is a waste of time. MAGAs, drug-soaked and obese as they are, aren't stupid. They know all politicians are crooked and steal. They know what Senator Pettit of Indiana said 160 years ago; the Declaration of Independence is a self-evident lie. They are resigned to being robbed and enserfed. Thirtyfive years ago H. Ross Perrot warned them the capitalists would sell them out. They voted for Clinton and NAFTA. Drumpf and Pence gave Carrier Corp 7 million taxpayer dollars to keep union jobs in Indiana; within six months the jobs went to Mexico, and union workers in their millions voted MAGA anyway. The secret? This country needed a war that cost 600,000 dead to abolish Black slavery, after every other country (save Brazil, but including Czarist Russia) had abolished slavery without a shot being fired. That war is not yet over; as long as there is one Black or Brown person in this country, the aforesaid drug-soaked, obese bigots will sell their lives and their children's lives for that despicable cause. My first witness is President Lyndon Johnson: “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” Your witness.
No, I think you miss the point. The key is the last part of the Johnson quote: “Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” Certainly, this is most evident regarding Black people because skin tone is easily and visually distinguishable. As to slave uprisings in this hemisphere, you omit the obvious case of Haiti as well as the many slave revolts (wars where shots were certainly fired and millions died) and political maneuverings before eventually securing emancipation in every country in the Western Hemisphere except maybe Canada. Let’s kill the self-aggrandizing propaganda that slaves were "given" freedom benevolently by "good" White people rather than the slaves themselves and others fought for it no less than the founding fathers.
So here’s the point. Every conceivable human characteristic has been and is used to “give him somebody look down on” from skin tone, facial features, country of origin, language, religion, culture, level of wealth/poverty, ad infinitum…there’s no end to the creativity of the depraved and selfish human mind. If you drew a timeline, it would be over 450 years long of exploited peoples seeking solidarity to resist injustice in this country. That timeline would be filled with suppression, progress, and backsliding, and unfortunately too many instances of one group ganging up on some other exploited people to be better than. It’s all about how we learn from history, keep pushing against our lesser selves to fight amongst ourselves, and take control of the table rather than fighting over the crumbs that trickle off it. I am admittedly an optimist.
I think the Democratic Socialist candidates can win everywhere if they clearly and specifically explain exactly what their policies are. Poll after poll shows the majority supports all the things you just laid out.
Bravo!!! You are exactly right!!! Why is this so hard for people to understand? Brainwashed I know.
Right on! And please don't forget the wonderful public education system that we built that is now being "privatized." Such a shame.
Stand up people!
very well done Sir
Outstanding history lesson!! Outstanding article!!
Truth! Let’s keep sharing it, people are more open to hearing than they were even two years ago.
are you actually saying that democratic socialism co-existed with slavery and genocide? Imagine that we can have democratic socialism without public healthcare for all? I have read a lot of ignorant posts by Americans, but this is absolutely shocking.
This is an absurd argument. Have you never heard of public goods? Having public goods is not socialism; do you think that public sewers were stupid so that we continued to have constant epidemics; this requires government to build as it crosses whole cities, certainly we would not want those only for the rich. Public education for all (the system needs people that have skills), access to free energy and clean drinking water ... guess when these happened, yes in the 20th century. The New Deal (again 20th century and put in because Roosevelt and co were so worried about socialists, communists and anarchists organising successfully). This, unfortunately, is called managed capitalism; Keynes was not a socialist, he hated socialists (he was a Liberal).
It is only the reascendancy of classical liberalism in the form of neoliberalism with its destructive laissez faire beliefs and the nonsense that the state cannot create economic growth so beloved of the right-wing libertarians who even oppose the basic functions that the state needs to do.
If we had socialism for 250 years, did we invent it? Because socialism as a concept did not exist in 1776; it is invented in the early 19th century and certainly not in the US. What did you invent before it was created. Your argument expresses corporatism; again not an American invention, that comes from Europe and is a favourite of people that argue for the world as harmonious with no class conflict; you find it in the writings of the liberal John Stuart Mill as well as Benito Mussolini ... there is a reason for this and it is an argument that hides the reality of exploitation and oppression that is inherent in the capitalist economic system.
I worry when writers revel in ignorance.
Got it. I had actually booked a cruise to Cuba in 2019, but trump canceled it. I have to admit that I am having a hard time picturing the country you are proposing.
To whom were your comments directed?
the writers of the article: https://www.americasundoing.com/p/for-250-years-happy-birthday-america
I would expect that when someone decides to declare the writers ignorant and absurd, that person might at least know what she is talking about. This is obviously not the case here. Socialism was not invented in the 19th Century. It has been around in various forms for centuries. Most things existed before there were names for them. I still can’t tell if you disagree with his points, or if it is just the part about America being built on Democratic Socialism.
Have a great evening. Or day, depending on where you are.
What the writers said *is* ignorant and absurd, though. They clearly don't know what socialism is, and your comment makes clear that ignorance on that particular subject is probably a prerequisite for appreciation of the piece.
Gee, I hope you feel better about yourself for that attack.
It's just that we're in a situation where stakes are quite high, and it's important for people to actually understand what they're talking about. There is a lot of money being spent to confuse people about what capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. actually are in order to avoid them actually pursuing alternatives to the existing system, and articles like this are the result of that confusion.
How can we have socialism without capitalism? In the absence of a working class in itself, that is impossible as the social conditions that give rise to the idea of socialism don't exist.
Your confusion is that you do not understand what socialism is; you are trying to take ideas and ideologies outside of their historical context. Even more absurd you are arguing that a country built on racism and genocide could be democratic socialist. You do realise that voting was based on property ownership and racialisation and gender do you not? Socialism is not having public goods, most capitalists used to argue that state monopolies actually can do things more efficiently.
If you know the history of the creation of state controlled fire departments due to private fire insurance being unsustainable to protect people from fire then you should know that. It did not only happen in Britain ... the attack on the efficiency and functionality of the state running these things was because profitability fell and capitalists believed they could make money off of doing it. Instead, many lost access to clean drinking water, heating, and energy due to commodification.
Do you think that Jesus was a socialist or that the protection of the price of bread and its guarantees to working people in the Holy Roman Empire is socialism? Never confuse a small sample of people living in communes to advocacy of a general system of a society.
There is no notion of socialism before capitalism; as it is capitalism which creates the ideological and actual physical basis for the advocacy of the elimination of private ownership of the means of production and distribution and the end of exploitation. The evolution towards capitalism required the weakening of feudalism and absolutist state; the ideological justifications around getting rid of the Divine Rights of Kings and the transition to a more democratic system took hundreds of years. John Locke was not a socialist; the argument of the right to subsistence is not socialism.
Finally, do not confuse corporatism for socialism which is what is done in the article. They are very different beasts; class harmony (corporatism) vs class conflict (socialism) ... we do not all together harmoniously for the greater good of "society"; we are forced to sell our ability to labour to feed ourselves and families.
I am sorry to say this but you seem to be someone with a great sense of self-importance and unfortunately a limited knowledge on what you are speaking.
Ironically, your last paragraph pretty much describes my opinion of you. NO ONE is suggesting we are not a Capitalist society, and NO ONE is suggesting we should be a Socialist society.
Instead of insulting one another, let’s just agree to disagree.
Lots of people are suggesting we should be a socialist society, including people who - unlike you and the authors of the original post - know what socialism is. You should look into it sometime.
Actually many people are talking about socialism because capitalism is destroying the planet, the massive increase in wealth and income differentials is tremendous and it is impossible to live a decent life in the US it is so bad that your children's prospects are far worse than yours. Accessing health care is still impossible in the US for some people (not your concern obviously) ... capitalism has made it so that you cannot survive on a full-time job. A lot of people want to get rid of this system and move towards one that prioritises the needs of the planet and population and not the tiny number of multi-billionaires ...
Corporatism is not the same as socialism or democratic socialism. In order for socialism to exist it requires the existence of capitalism first -- as socialism is a response to the exploitation and oppression of capitalism; these are systemic and structural within the system. There is a class system and there is oppression which codifies structural differences within the majority of the population
Oppressioncannot be eliminated (although reform can be fought but never to the full elimination of oppression) because capitalism requires oppression to function; by systemic oppression, I am referring to racialisation (the US is founded on genocide and slavery), misogyny (women's role in social reproduction is based still on unpaid labour in the home), LGBTQI+ phobia (maintenance of binaries, many of which exist to ensure that social reproduction) and disablism (the role of the working class -- those that do not own independent wealth they can live on is to sell your ability to labour -- if you cannot do this, you face eugenics and constant complaints that you are living off the wealth of others). These oppressions are fundamental to capitalism which maintains them.
Since you are white you probably do not understand the depth of how these oppression are interwoven and how they impact people's lives; we have never benefited from this system equally and our access to bodily autonomy is being eroded. With all reforms of the 1950, 1960s, and later being so easily eliminated, you can hopefully see that the US is neither democratic or socialist ... but you are so lost in bizarre ideologies that you are unable to understand reality
I will now stop talking to you. You need an understanding of history, you need an understanding of the history of economic and political thought to understand what I am talking about and quite honestly, it is not my job to teach you. You could read any number of things but choose to cling to ideologies (do you even know any of the people I mentioned? do you even bother to google who they were?). If you did you would probably do better than whine at me.
That is what I thought, but you seem to be agreeing with much of the article while reacting to the title.
then you didn't understand what I wrote; the US did not invent democratic socialism in 1776, that is absurd. My comment instead was discussing the difference between liberalism, public goods, corporatism. Keynes is not a socialist, class exists and we do not live in a harmonious society where we are all working together for the good of the country.
The article incorrectly describes welfare-state capitalism as 'democratic socialism'. Even more absurdly, it suggests that an agrarian slave society can be 'democratic socialism'. At a certain point, we have to ask whether there is anything that - based on these strange definitions - would NOT be socialism.