The complete Sovietization of the Democrat party

As they do in the country which is why they keep winning the popular vote.

 

Government-run public schools are collective production and different from purchasing education services privately with public money through charter schools or vouchers. Public roads created and maintained by city crews are socialist while roads built by private firms with public money are not.

 

And there's that!

 

Built by business and therefore not socialist.

 

di

I think you have a different definition of socialist than mine but we still agree.

Socialist and Capitalist have not really existed since WWII IMO.

 

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. That's the old Marxist definition. The dictionary includes the means of distribution and exchange though I'm pretty sure Marx did not, though he could not have known how those would change in the 20th century or even the later 19th.

No place, not even North Korea (I think) has that today, not in anything even approaching a pure form at least. I can't think of any that ever had it really, though Russia may have had it in the 1930s and China may have closely approached it during the Cultural Revolution.[/QUOTE]

This entire thread is silly. There is no such thing as "Sovietization" and it's certainly not being done to any American Political Party

 

I agree with you 100%. Although it's easy to pander around words like socialist, communist, Stalinist etc., America, even in its most left-leaning regions, is, by any objective standard, a center-right democracy. Has been for as long as I recall.

American Democrats are to the right of British Conservatives on policy.

 

That's true. It is a few cities against huge expanses of territory. This is why the left and right can't get together. The needs and desires of each group are very different.

 

There is actually little difference in what they want. No one wants socialism, but there are groups in each party who want a larger piece of the economic pie. The odd thing about the groupings these days is that Republicans and Democrats both have lower income and higher income groups they're trying to keep happy. They can't, of course, and they're going out of their way to gin up conflict to avoid internal conflict.

We could declare "peace" by legalizing drugs, abortion and stopping gun-grabbing. A little law-and-order is in order, and we need to make sure people have a warm, safe place to sleep. That way, we don't need to have tent cities and the accompanying crime.

We need a lot of reform and that could step on a few toes, but mostly wealthy ones.

 

If British Conservatives aren't left of Democrats, they're a lot more left than Republicans.

The whole political spectrum is more to the right in America. It's definitely right of Canada on social issues.

 

Collectivism has nothing to do with politics. It's a mode of living practised by all social mammals. Every wolf pack, every primate troupe, every tribe, rural village, family, etc. It's economics only in so far as members of the group share resources.

 

Americans can band together and start employee-owned enterprises any time they like. They clearly don't want them.

 

Sorry but I'll take the dictionary's word for it.

 

Exactly my point!

 

Socialism IS collectivism, so of course it's possible.

Your mistake is in thinking that STATE socialism/collectivism is possible. It isn't. Take collectivism to the state scale and it's totalitarianism .. it can't be anything else.

 

It doesn't matter who funds and owns/operates these things, if they involve purchased goods and services (rather than being directly constructed by the end user), they are capitalist enterprises.

Unless you're building and maintaining the road yourself, it's not socialist. You're purchasing the services and labour of others, to create things you can't or won't provide for yourself. That's 100% capitalism. The more of these things you can afford to purchase, the more robustly capitalist your society is.

 

Absolutely it is. Even the most leftward US states like CA are, from a policy perspective, to the right of Canada but to many on the right here those Californians are lefty, Stalinist, commie scum yet Canadians are just fine.

That sure is a head scratcher for me.

 

Let Trump speak for himself..

truthsocial.com

 

Why should he be believed?

 

You have to understand how the left work when it comes to definitions You simply only see what you are trained to see

 

Definition of collectivism


1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distributionalso : a system marked by such control
2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

So yep, the dictionary

 

Prove him wrong .... why should we believe you?

 

Durandal wrote:

"I suggest that Republicans all across the country step up to de-Sovietize their party instead of allowing it to continue down this path to authoritarianism, which always begins with pernicious, anti-democratic lies spewed by a charismatic strongman figure who establishes a cult of personality through pseudo populism and vilification of all who stand in his way to gaining absolute power."

Gosh. I always thought Trump was a Rrepublican. Not à Soviet l'overdose, although it is a matter of recor.d that he does admire Putin and likes to consider him à good buddy.
Do you live in à mirror world? Are you telling me Biden is a charismatic figure establishing à cult following??
Just stop and figure out which way your head is screwed on.

 

Then shareholders are à collective.
They décidé who will act for their greatest interest.
Logically the whole system of shareholding is a collective you can buy into.
Thought it is self sélective and the less well off can't buy into it, it controls the global economy.

 

And what was wrong with mine fine Sir? Was it not to your liking of desired end