Current Events > The Hill: Trump is wise to fear a socialist opponent

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/472987-trump-is-wise-to-fear-a-socialist-opponent

---

"Trump is wise" are three words that should never be put together

Ethosian posted...

"Trump is wise" are three words that should never be put together

Agreed

---

It is wise to fear a socialist opponent, they sweet talk the voters into their destruction by offering unfeasible, and near impossible promises.
---

Hop103 posted...

It is wise to fear a socialist opponent, they sweet talk the voters into their destruction by offering unfeasible, and near impossible promises.

New and exciting

---

TBH a socialist President would just fail at getting things done and be an embarrassment for the modern socialist movement.
---

HellRatUFO posted...

This. And Bernouts are oblivious of all the dirt that the Trump campaign could highlight lol. Older Democrats would sooner vote for Trump the moment Bernies praising of the USSR, Castro, Sindinstas, and so on regimes and leaders gets promoted everywhere.

nah, people dont seem to realize that trump isnt gaining any voters in 2020. his base is maxed and his rhetoric is why he is historically unpopular. bernie is much more accepted than someone like trump who is the bitch of a fascist regime


---

Hairistotle posted...

does he have any socialist opponents yet

"Democratic Socialists" are socialists.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

"Democratic Socialists" are socialists.

only if you dont understand what either term means

---

andel posted...

only if you dont understand what either term means

If they were social democrats, they would call themselves social democrats. Bernie Sanders has literally identified as a socialist in the past.
---

Sanders is not a Democratic Socialist. He is a Social Democrat. He also doesn't know what these words mean so that adds to the confusion. Most people who say they are socialist actually have zero idea what that means and are usually just welfare state capitalists of some variety.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

"Democratic Socialists" are socialists.

Democratic Socialists are welfare state capitalists and thus cannot be socialists.

---

ledbowman posted...

Agreed

---

Democratic Socialist =/= Social Democrat for the record. It's confusing. All these terms are a mess because of the nature of politics. The actual definitions of capitalism and socialism are fairly straight forward but the politicians obfuscate it.

---

The Sandinistas were the good side of that conflict.
---

Bernie Sanders' Corporate Accountability and Democracy Plan seems more than government regulation or welfare to me. That is the government trying to control the economy. It's not quite a planned economy but it's close.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Bernie Sanders' Corporate Accountability and Democracy Plan seems more than government regulation or welfare to me. That is the government trying to control the economy. It's not quite a planned economy but it's close.

Yeah, that's still not socialism. You can have a centrally planned economy that isn't socialist. The German economy under the Nazis was extremely centrally planned.

---

I mean everyone would be wise to fear a socialist candidate.

---

The government could completely control the economy and it wouldn't be socialism. That's not what the word means. It has to do with workers controlling the means of production. Communist command economies like the USSR, PRC, North Korea, etc. have much more in common with fascism than socialism. They're basically fascists who wear red and justify it using different rhetoric but the end result is largely the same (which is why they always end up being massively nationalist and oppressing minorities despite claiming to represent internationalism).

For the record I don't think socialism is an ideology that has any value in the real world. It would only work in a post-scarcity economy at which point economics no longer has any meaning and the label is pointless. Welfare state capitalism completely solves every complaint socialists make and all actual socialist movements just devolve into the red fascism I described before so there is no reason to pursue it as an ideology.

---

Oh god the Actually Squad showed up

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

The German economy under the Nazis was extremely centrally planned.

Almost every economy in World War II was centrally planned. That was the nature of total war. Check out the US tax rates at that time and the way materials were rationed. They also directed companies on what to produce and bought mass quantities of products.

---

ssjevot posted...

The government could completely control the economy and it wouldn't be socialism. That's not what the word means. It has to do with workers controlling the means of production. Communist command economies like the USSR, PRC, North Korea, etc. have much more in common with fascism than socialism. They're basically fascists who wear red and justify it using different rhetoric but the end result is largely the same (which is why they always end up being massively nationalist and oppressing minorities despite claiming to represent internationalism).

For the record I don't think socialism is an ideology that has any value in the real world. It would only work in a post-scarcity economy at which point economics no longer has any meaning and the label is pointless. Welfare state capitalism completely solves every complain socialists make and all actual socialist movements just devolve into the red fascism I described before so there is no reason to pursue it as an ideology.

The issue I have with your statement is that we could in essence live in a post scarcity society (insofar as the basic necessities of food, water, shelter) now were it not for profit motive. Most of our scarcity is caused artificially so people can wring more money out of the system. In the US alone for every homeless person in the US there are 5 empty residence (home or apartment) and the amount of food we grow is enough to feed the worlds population 3 times over.

---

HellRatUFO posted...

Nazi Germany was totally fucking socialist. Having Bernies preferred implemented economic policies are not overridden because of nationalistic views. Jesus Christ lol.

Again it was very similar to the centrally planned economy of the Soviet Union, because the USSR was much more like fascism than socialism. It has to do with the control of the means of production. Neither country puts the means of production in workers hands, so they weren't socialist. Though the USSR at that time claimed it was actually a transitionary state to socialism called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

---

HellRatUFO posted...

Nazi Germany was totally fucking socialist. Having Bernies preferred implemented economic policies are not overridden because of nationalistic views. Jesus Christ lol.

Oh good lord, another "teh nazis were the real socialists" guy. If that were in fact the case why did Hitler rail in Mein Kampf or in damn near all of his speeches about the evils of "Jewish Bolshevism".

---

Workers owning the means of production on a country-wide scale is always going to turn into the USSR, China, North Korea, etc. A large group of individual workers will never have the coordination to run a country. And even if you have democratic elections to vote in representatives, the fact that the state is so powerful basically means that a few elites will have all the power in the country. There's no way a "democratic socialist" country would be democratic for very long.

People who want welfare capitalism need to work on disassociating it from socialism. Calling yourself a democratic socialist if you want welfare capitalism doesn't help.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

The issue I have with your statement is that we could in essence live in a post scarcity society (insofar as the basic necessities of food, water, shelter) now were it not for profit motive. Most of our scarcity is caused artificially so people can wring more money out of the system. In the US alone for every homeless person in the US there are 5 empty residence (home or apartment) and the amount of food we grow is enough to feed the worlds population 3 times over.

That's objectively not true. You're focusing on basic goods and defining scarcity around that. Outside intellectual property all goods have real existing scarcity. Imagine everyone wants a spaceship for example. We could put the entire world's economy toward building rockets and it wouldn't be possible to make one for everyone. I picked an extreme example because it's important to understand that when we talk about economics we're talking about the system for how you deal with people's unlimited wants with a scarcity of resources. We can't give everyone everything they want for free because of scarcity. Economics isn't defined around just basic goods, it's unlimited wants, not needs.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Workers owning the means of production on a country-wide scale is always going to turn into the USSR, China, North Korea, etc. A large group of individuals will never have the coordination to run a country. And even if you have democratic elections to vote in representatives, the fact that the state is so powerful basically means that a few elites will have all the power in the country. There's no way a "democratic socialist" country would be democratic for very long.

People who want welfare capitalism need to work on disassociating it from socialism. Calling yourself a democratic socialist if you want welfare capitalism doesn't help.

Yeah I agree that socialism isn't practically possible and is pretty pointless as far as ideologies go which is why states that talk about quickly end up just becoming a totalitarian command economy. It's just not possible to have everyone magically decide they want to work as much as they want for free at whatever they want, and have everyone have equal access to resources, and then think it will balance out into a functioning society. It's important to remember this idea was thought up a long time ago when our understanding of economics and sociology was effectively zero.

Bernie is the one who doesn't know what he is talking about and calling himself a Democratic Socialist despite being a Social Democrat. Social Democrats in Europe don't call themselves socialists. Social Democrats are welfare state capitalists and were oppressed by regimes in both Nazi Germany (they were among the first sent to concentration camps) and the USSR.

---

lol I like how you put "The Hill" in the topic title to distract people from it being an opinion piece from a socialist.

It is true that some members within the early Nazi party had socialist roots and ideas but they were purged once they came to power. Kind of like what the USSR did actually...

---

ssjevot posted...

That's objectively not true. You're focusing on basic goods and defining scarcity around that. Outside intellectual property all goods have real existing scarcity. Imagine everyone wants a spaceship for example. We could put the entire world's economy toward building rockets and it wouldn't be possible to make one for everyone. I picked an extreme example because it's important to understand that when we talk about economics we're talking about the system for how you deal with people's unlimited wants with a scarcity of resources. We can't give everyone everything they want for free because of scarcity. Economics isn't defined around just basic goods, it's unlimited wants, not needs.

Which is why Marx's essential tenet of "to each according to ability, to each according to need" has to be adhered to in that context. IE if you aren't an astronaut you don't a fucking spaceship ; p.
But I do agree that there is a disconnect with modern society and what Marx envisioned., The Communist Manifesto was written at a time before all of the modern things we take for granted existed. Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, and their contemporaries were concerned with the absolute most basic of necessities, food, water, shelter and that's really about it, and we do have the capacity to fulfill those most basic of needs. That's what I meant when I said we could live in a post scarcity society.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

But I do agree that there is a disconnect with modern society and what Marx envisioned., The Communist Manifesto was written at a time before all of the modern things we take for granted existed. Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, and their contemporaries were concerned with the absolute most basic of necessities, food, water, shelter and that's really about it, and we do have the capacity to fulfill those most basic of needs. That's what I meant when I said we could live in a post scarcity society.

Yeah, rather than fight over the particulars, I think it's safe to say we both recognize the massive disconnect of people following an ideology formed during an era no one alive now can even fathom what it would be like to live in. It's honestly weird how so many people who consider themselves modern and progressive find this dated idea so applicable to modern society. Though I also doubt many read it since they would probably be horrified by Marx opinions on some of their favorite Lumpenproletariat groups.

Since welfare state capitalism takes care of basic needs it goes along with what I said earlier about socialism being an effectively pointless ideology in modern society. It's actually had positive results we can look at and emulate unlike socialism which has yet to produce anything you could call positive (or even a state that actually functions according to its basic tenets).

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

lol I like how you put "The Hill" in the topic title to distract people from it being an opinion piece from a socialist.

Or because it's on the hill dot com. There's no need to be upset

---

ssjevot posted...

That's objectively not true. You're focusing on basic goods and defining scarcity around that. Outside intellectual property all goods have real existing scarcity. Imagine everyone wants a spaceship for example. We could put the entire world's economy toward building rockets and it wouldn't be possible to make one for everyone. I picked an extreme example because it's important to understand that when we talk about economics we're talking about the system for how you deal with people's unlimited wants with a scarcity of resources. We can't give everyone everything they want for free because of scarcity. Economics isn't defined around just basic goods, it's unlimited wants, not needs.

personally I would love to live in a society where the most pressing issue was allocation of spaceships

---

HellRatUFO posted...

A reminder that Marx was a racist that had plenty of racist things to say about black and Jewish people. Its truly amazing how the same people trying to cancel the Founding Fathers for slavery dont apply the same consistency to canceling Karl Marx or his ideas for Marxs racist bigotry.

I wouldn't say a racist so much, but he had pretty low opinions of the homeless, criminals, sex workers, unemployed, etc.

He also failed to identify the actual groups that would form the backbone of socialist movements which were largely people he had a very low opinion of (rural farmers, etc.).

---

ledbowman posted...

Or because it's on the hill dot com.

suuuuuuuure

averagejoel posted...

personally I would love to live in a society where the most pressing issue was allocation of spaceships

If you're a tankie who defends red fascist regimes like the USSR and PRC, you would want to spend most of your day figuring out how to correctly lick boots so you don't get sent to a labor camp.

But anyway, there are no shortage of societies that provide for basic needs for people, it's just all of them happen to be capitalist.

---

HellRatUFO posted...

Older Democrats would sooner vote for Trump the moment Bernies praising of the USSR, Castro, Sindinstas, and so on regimes and leaders gets promoted everywhere.

So, they would instead vote for the guy who spends his time praising and sucking up to the leaders of Russia, North Korea and Saudi Arabia?

---

republicans call anything that helps people socialism.

---

You're making the same mistakes socialists make by trying to take the opinions of a dude who lived over 175 years and apply them to today's society. The language used at that time is not applicable to modern society. I don't like Marx or his writings and think people who worship them are equivalent to weird cultists, but I prefer to attack the idea on their lack of merit, rather than making poorly supported claims.

---

Phantom_Nook posted...

republicans call anything that helps people socialism.

They think the state, laws, and government spending are socialism, unless it's military spending, police spending, enforcing sexual morality, enforcing patriotism...

---

ssjevot posted...

But anyway, there are no shortage of societies that provide for basic needs for people, it's just all of them happen to be capitalist.

capitalism is unsustainable by its nature. it cannot exist without an exploited underclass. sometimes that underclass is outsourced to another country.

welfare state capitalism is no different. even now, the welfare states in scandinavian countries and some of europe are weakening.

in addition, the largest military power in history has historically done everything in its power to ensure that socialist states couldn't sustain themselves. do you think that might have had an effect on the ability of those countries to provide basic needs for their people?

---