The Key Word In "Democratic Socialism" Is "Socialism"

Authored by Bill Anderson via The Mises Institute,

The recent New York Democratic primary upset in which self-described “democratic socialist” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, age 28, defeated the high-ranking Congressman Joe Crowley is another example of socialism being pushed front-and-center into modern American politics. As usual, the pundits have it wrong when trying to explain what one means by “democratic socialism.”

Part of the reason for the upsurge in favorable views toward “democratic socialism” has been the perpetual presidential candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who most likely would have been the Democratic Party candidate for president in 2016 had party insiders not rigged the process for Hillary Clinton. AlthoughSanders in his earlier years identified with the full-blown communism of the former Soviet Union (he called himself a “Trotskyite”), today he claims that socialism can be better organized through the electoral politics of a democracy, hence the name “democratic socialism.”

According to John Haltiwanger of Business Insider, “democratic socialism” differs from outright socialism in the level of state control of the economy, with socialists wanting the government to own almost all property and all means of economic production, while “democratic socialists” would allow for some private production (although it would be heavily regulated by government). He writes:

Democratic socialists also believe strongly in democracy and democratic principles. They are by no means proponents of authoritarian government systems many Americans associate socialism with.

As the DSA's (Democratic Socialists of America) website states: "At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people."

Seeking the Same Ends Through Different Means

To be honest, we are looking at distinctions without real differences, as both socialists and their “democratic” counterparts differ only about the means by which to reach the same ends: total state control of the lives of everyone in a society. Furthermore, even Bernie Sanders has not fully renounced his allegiance to Leon Trotsky and his Bolsheviks, and that would have to include the infamous Red Terror:

At these times, there were numerous reports that Cheka interrogators utilized torture methods which were, according to Orlando Figes, “matched only by theSpanish Inquisition.” At Odessa the Cheka tied White officers to planks and slowly fed them into furnaces or tanks of boiling water; in Kharkiv, scalpings and hand-flayings were commonplace: the skin was peeled off victims’ hands to produce “gloves”; the Voronezh Cheka rolled naked people around in barrels studded internally with nails; victims were crucified or stoned to death at Dnipropetrovsk; the Cheka at Kremenchuk impaled members of the clergy and buried alive rebelling peasants; in Orel, water was poured on naked prisoners bound in the winter streets until they became living ice statues; in KievChinese Cheka detachments placed rats in iron tubes sealed at one end with wire netting and the other placed against the body of a prisoner, with the tubes being heated until the rats gnawed through the victim’s body in an effort to escape.

One should recall that prominent “democratic socialists” like the late John Kenneth Galbraith effusively praised both the communist economies of China during the Mao years and the USSR (the latter less than a decade before it collapsed), although there is no record of Galbraith having supported the mass executions of millions of people in order to make the socialist utopia a reality (and no record of Galbraith having condemned communist mass murder, either). Still, one can say unequivocally that Galbraith and others in the “social democracy” camps have lavished praise over the years of the communist system after it was put into place — and the main reason it was in place was because of outright terror and murder.

Likewise, in an interview with Sojourners Magazine in December, 1976, Dorothy Day, the so-called Catholic anarchist, laid unrestrained praise upon Chinese communism, claiming that China was a place with no hunger and a near-utopia. She added in an afterthought, however, that she disagreed with the violent means used to put that system into place, as though the implementation of the communist state she so adored could be done any other way.

That prominent “democratic socialists” have endorsed the ends of socialism without openly embracing violence and murder to install it into place does not mean that they should be left off the hook. We further can assume that employing an electoral process to vote socialist measures into place is going to make socialism work better than it has in the past, since the mechanics of socialism do not differ whether the socialist regime is installed via revolutionary violence or through the ballot box. After all, both Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro were overwhelmingly elected to office in Venezuela in what generally are believed to be relatively free and fair elections, and now that the state-directed economy has collapsed, “democratic socialist” supporters in the USA either pretend that the government is not socialist or that the Maduro regime is not socialist enough. Declares The Nation:

If socialism is understood as a system in which workers and communities (rather than bureaucrats, politicians, and well-connected entrepreneurs) exercise effective democratic control over economic and political decision-making, it would appear that Venezuela is suffering not from too much socialism, but from too little.

This quote is significant in analyzing “social democracy” if only for the use of rhetoric as a tool of social organization. To put it in another way, “social democrats” promise all sorts of “free” goods and services from medical care to housing as part of their platform, yet want us to believe that rhetoric by itself also provides the means to provide these “free” items without creating economic havoc. For example, after her victory, Ocasio-Cortez told CBS late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert:

I believe that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live. What that means to me is health care as a human right, it means that every child no matter where you are born should have access to a college or trade-school education if they so choose it. I think that no person should be homeless if we have public structures or public policy to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States.

In the mind of “democratic socialists,” all that is lacking to provide massive amounts of “free” goods and services is political will. Things like “free” healthcare and “free” higher education and “free” housing do not exist because capitalists have kept people from massing together to vote these things for themselves. As the Democratic Socialists of America website proclaims:

Traditional left prescriptions have failed on both sides of the Communist/socialist divide. Global economic integration has rendered obsolete both the social democratic solution of independent national economies sustaining a strong social welfare state and the Communist solution of state-owned national economies fostering social development.

The globalization of capital requires a renewed vision and tactics. But the essence of the socialist vision — that people can freely and democratically control their community and society — remains central to the movement for radical democracy.

The site goes on to claim (falsely) that poverty rates are increasing and that people around the world are poorer than they were a half-century ago. But even though poverty is increasing and everything in the world (due to capitalism) is worse than it ever was in history, “democratic socialists” through political organization and government takeover of commercial and social institutions — done through the ballot box, of course — will create the utopia that socialists a century ago only dreamed of crafting.

It is not as though socialists suddenly have discovered the word “democratic.” One recalls that the socialist nation we know as North Korea is actually the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The country we knew as East Germany — famous for its wall preventing people from escaping over its borders — officially was named the German Democratic Republic, and so on. For that matter, the deadly Cambodian regime that murdered more than a third of the nation’s population from 1975 to 1979 ruled over the nation named Democratic Kampuchea.

While it is true that the DSA website calls for “market mechanisms” and does not call for elimination of all private property and business enterprises, it is clear that anything associated with “markets” would be heavily regulated — through “democratic” state planning, of course. Furthermore, the sheer volume of “free stuff” that socialists guarantee would require vast increases of government coercion just to obtain the resources needed to fulfill such campaign promises. One cannot have such large-scale changes in direction of resources without creating economic dislocations.

The “democratic” portion of “democratic socialism” also is troubling in itself. Does “democratic” mean that economic decisions that now are made by the various players in the market now will be subject to widespread voting? One cannot have both “market mechanisms” and an economic system in which major decisions on production and exchange carried out through a political voting mechanism that lacks what Mises would have called a method of economic calculation. Voters in winner-take-all elections are no more adept at creating a vibrant (or even functioning) economy than central planners, and the idea that a popular vote for nearly everything economic would produce anything but chaos is laughable.

Given that the United States has a representative democracy, it would seem that “democratic socialism” would be implemented by elected representatives that would direct factors of production and determine what should and should not be created. They would set up a system that would be highly confiscatory and order things like single-payer medical care to be put into place.

We have two major historical examples of this kind of “democratic socialism” in action.

The first is well-known to readers of this page, the “democratic socialist” regime in Venezuela. Voters in that country freely elected Hugo Chavez, who promised — and delivered — a socialist regime in which government confiscated huge amounts of private property, nationalized the oil sector, and then spent the new windfall on things that socialists believe to be important. Such action garnered Chavez much admiration in the USA, Canada, and elsewhere in the West as the regime claimed to be improving the lives of Venezuela’s poor through medical and educational services.

Salvador Allende and Chilean Democracy

The second example is that of Chile, in which voters in 1970 gave the legislative faction led by Salvador Allende, who was a committed communist (he insisted upon being called “Comrade President”) a slight plurality of votes. Once in power, Allende’s government did what socialists do: it seized private property, expropriated whole industries, tripled wages to some workers, and then touched off one of the worst hyperinflations in the 20th century. (Venezuela has the honor of creating the worst hyperinflation of the 21st century.) Allende died during a 1973 coup that brought a decade of dictatorship to Chile, but ultimately the new regime ended the socialist economy — and in return, Chile’s economy became the best in Latin America, and it also threw off the shackles of dictatorship.

Theoretically, if a “democratic socialist” regime can be voted in, then it should be able to be voted out. Socialists, however, see things differently, as they view the establishment of a socialist regime to be a social and political “triumph” that cannot be undone by the whim of voters. The view from socialists is that once a system of state ownership and control has been put into place, anything that would change those arrangements would be illegitimate, reactionary, and fought against at all costs.

Indeed, nowhere in the entire DSA website can one find any mention that voters can and should be free to vote out socialism after it is established in a society. So-called democratic socialists, it seems, believe that once socialism is put into place, that any attempt to remove it is a crime against progress itself. Whatever democratic processes remain after socialism becomes woven into the economic and political structures are to be directed toward the continuance of socialist “progress,” not away from it.

In a final plea, democratic socialists claim that they don’t want a totalitarian system; they just want us to be like Denmark. As the Occupy Democrats meme tells us, Denmark is the world’s “happiest country” because it has lots of free stuff, like healthcare, education, and childcare. Come to think of it, the old USSR had the same setup — and many American leftists like Galbraith claimed that the imagined cornucopia of “free stuff” legitimized the old Soviet regime.

Yes, Denmark has lots of government services paid for via very high marginal tax rates. However, would the followers of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez be willing to put up with the relatively-low business taxes that exist in Denmark in order to ensure that private enterprise can produce enough wealth to fund the Danish welfare state? The recent political caterwauling over the reduction in corporation taxes in the USA from 35 to 21 percent tells us that democratic socialists in this country have no idea that the vast welfare state they want to create must be undergirded by someone, somewhere, producing all of that “free stuff.”

There is another point that few people make, but should be central to the “we-should-be-like-Denmark-and-Sweden” demands from American democratic socialists: the overarching demands for total social conformity. While much of the current call for socialism in the USA is coming from entrepreneurial billionaires, and especially those on the West Coast, there is no room for such people in Denmark. There are no Mark Zuckerbergs, Steven Jobses, or even a David Trone. (Trone is the billionaire wine distributor running as a Democrat in our Democrat-gerrymandered Western Maryland congressional district whose platform essentially is one of so-called democratic socialism.) The fact is that the society Trone wants to create would have no place for people like him who took an idea, purchased resources in the face of uncertainty, and built a thriving business, enabling him to become a billionaire.

The demand for utter conformity is something that neither Sanders nor his inarticulate acolyte Ocasio-Cortez can explain away. In order to create their utopias, they ultimately would have to respond to the normal resistance that comes when authorities are heavy-handed and when they try to expropriate one’s property to use it for political purposes. The government response almost always is the same: gratuitous violence. Once upon a time, Sanders understood the “need” for violence and even murder in the creation of the socialist state, and he tacitly approved it. Today, he and Ocasio-Cortez pretend that they peacefully can create that happy utopia where everyone is happy, and there is a coffee shop on every corner.


hedgeless_horseman Wed, 08/08/2018 - 14:57 Permalink


Some of us are independent by nature, but many of us choose to live (or at least accept) a life dependent on the state for life, liberty, and property.

My thesis is that when things inevitably go bad, because shit happens, dependents are prone to play the victim, and immediately search for an abuser to blame.  Whereas independents tend to blame themselves, and in taking responsibility are able to learn from the event.  

I believe that these two different approaches to life's natural tragedies, small or big, are what often cause independents and dependents to self-sort into learners and blamers, and eventually into haves and have nots.

Free This Looney Wed, 08/08/2018 - 15:09 Permalink

Deadly people, democratic socialists are, the hive mentality and once they get going, they become a train wreck.

Interesting, I went to a business meeting just a while ago and on the teeeeveeeee was a story:

Russia is moving towards Christianity (orthodox) and a station Savada?? was being run by a Christian Russian.

Then the story said due to democratic socialism, America was moving away from Christianity, church attendance is way down.

Then focused on China, which is clamping down on Christianity, raiding churches and taking down pictures of Jesus and putting up Xi.

We sat there in stunned silence for a while, and then said to each other, the world us upside down, but in fact, it is just changing. Some good, and some bad.

I am for rugged individualism myself, the businessman was for big government, yet we did business together.

I rail against democrat socialists, because I have seen their misery up close and personal, they make my blood boil. I see not one real iota of difference between a socialist and a democratic socialist both aim to take control.

How did Marx and Engels put it, that society has 5 stages?

Primitive Communism

Slave Society




My Point being Socialism is the equivalent of Advanced Communism.

Marx also said, Capitalism builds the infrastructure and Communism takes it over due to concentration of wealth.

Capitalism is seen as just one stage in the evolution of the economic system. Normative Marxism advocates for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism that would lead to socialism, before eventually transforming into communism after class antagonisms and the state cease to exist.

I do not subscribe to this above view, it is for illustrative purpose only.

Interesting times we live in, eh?


In reply to by Looney

two hoots Free This Wed, 08/08/2018 - 15:11 Permalink

Unusual times for humans, most evident by the citizens being divided, leaning in every direction for direction but finding none and no one with an ability to take us collectively to a better tomorrow given all the barriers, human and systemic.  None of the models work, worked, but given there are no other choices we continue to attempt to force shit to shine for we know no different or cannot reason another way.  We are unable to accept there are no collective answers only individual determination and reliance.   Even the layout of government organization in our constitution is worn out, corrupt and ineffective except to themselves, but it is all we have.    We are too big, too complicated, to diverse  to redo.  It’s nobody’s fault and everyone’s fault.  Humans obviously trend this way, if we trended another way that is where we would be.  We are good with stuff, not so good with the all inclusive social animal thing, but selectively social and that may be our true nature.  Education, propaganda and legislation will not trump our innateness no matter how hard they try.  

In reply to by Free This

J S Bach chrsn Wed, 08/08/2018 - 15:33 Permalink

The term "Socialism" implies that those who pay into that system will somehow benefit.  That's not what the Deathocrats propound.  Their "base" are ne'er-do-wells who leech off of the largess of mostly white taxpayers.  Thus, we need a new term to describe their ideas.  Perhaps "Lactism" or "Nipplism" or "Vampirism"? Anything that denotes parasitism or milking will suffice.

In reply to by chrsn

macholatte J S Bach Wed, 08/08/2018 - 15:34 Permalink


Let’s cut to the chase and keep it simple.  There’s nothing new here.
                        FACTS DON’T MATTER

Democratic Socialism -
Two words that mean different things that are stuck together for the purpose of ADVERTISING.

The free shit army will always run to the plantation promising the most free shit.

The Big Lie - The Foundation of today’s Democratic Party
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
- Joseph Goebbels



All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 1925

In reply to by J S Bach

J S Bach macholatte Wed, 08/08/2018 - 16:29 Permalink

Thank you for the Hitler quote, macholatte.  Say what you will about him, but Hitler was a wise and very well-read man.  He also predicted exactly what would become of Palestine if the jews ever got their fangs fully ensconced into its peoples' veins.

In reply to by macholatte

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 J S Bach Wed, 08/08/2018 - 15:52 Permalink

Nothing less than seeing whites enslaved or dead will make them happy. They want to see white people suffer. As if that will make them happy, feed them, and give them access to the good life they dream about but have no clue as to how achieve, other than by death and destruction.

I read the description of how people were treated during the Red Terror. Pouring water over a naked person until they were encased in ice? Using methods that caused rats to eat through someone's body? Beyond disgusting and barbaric.

Look at what happens when inner city mobs run amok. They loot, pillage, and burn down their own neighborhoods. Do I want those idiots in charge of me? No fucking way.

There are some crazy fucking people out there, these days. I have encountered some on NextDoor. If they could have found my house I am certain that some of them would have no problem setting it on fire.

In reply to by J S Bach

Count Cherep HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Wed, 08/08/2018 - 21:07 Permalink

It is important to know which socio-ethnic group was and is Behind Communism, and what their ultimate goal is:

Behind Communism

By Frank L. Britton (Probably published in 1952)

The Ultimate World Order—As Pictured in "The Jewish Utopia" by Robert H. Williams:

"The Jewish machine has men in the most powerful positions; protected by the cowardice of leaders who fear to be called "anti-Semitic". We are paralyzed by that atom-powered little scare word; we are children afraid of the dark."

Robert Williams was the son of a Baptist minister, an Army Counter-Intelligence Officer, a lecturer, news analyst and authority on subversive movements. I highly recommend the book.

Here are some excerpts:

"THE JEWISH UTOPIA", discovered by the author in an unlisted Jewish collection in the library of the University of Texas, is the authentic and complete plan of the Zionists for world domination. It pictures the ultimate "new social order" which the Zionists hope to establish after they have used Communism, democracy and a third world war to gain their ends. THE ULTIMATE WORLD ORDER is an analysis of "The Jewish Utopia", with photographs and excerpts from the original text."
If the Communists think they are going to conquer all the nations and set up a world government under a dictator of their own choosing they may be in for a surprise. For their parent, the sect which originally launched the Communist movement as an offshoot to accomplish a specific and temporary purpose, has plans for an ultimate world order of its own; and this sect, commonly called Zionist, now vastly overshadows the much cruder Communist machine in skill, finance, organization and influence.

The Communist plan for rubbing out all national, religious, cultural and racial lines and submerging the world in formless, characterless chaos for easy domination is grandiose enough. To say that there is still another, more grandiose plan beyond that for which the Communist machine was set up is indeed to challenge the credulity of most of us, especially of us Anglo-Saxons who are too busy with our humdrum routines to pull the propaganda curtain aside and see the giant hiding there.

Read the rest:…


In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

Count Cherep Count Cherep Wed, 08/08/2018 - 21:43 Permalink

Further reading:


The Jew of the World

By Patrick Grimm

Jewry is the international albatross now hung around the neck of the world. What glorious destiny might have been ours without it. What we might have earned, what we might have discovered, what we might have accomplished without its enervating and meddling weight. But the weight remains; the expeditors of decline are running the store. Like a woman who spurns her man because he has no self-respect, we too have been spurned. The lives of our youth have been declared second-rate by those whose instruction books guide them in the ways of an alchemy-like supremacy. This supremacy turns civilizations not into the comely sparkle of gold, but to a termite-riddled rubble, a decaying mass of flotsam and jetsam.

The Jew of the World has made it clear, at least to his own brethren, that his allegiances to his host country have long since been frayed. His belief in nothing other than his own egotism now animates his breezily insouciant pursuit of a worldly kingdom of limitless treasure and corporate dominion. He now operates openly and unapologetically, yet still cobbles together a template of pseudo-intellectual respectability to cover his tracks.

My friends, it is time to rip the falsely pious front off of Jewry’s activities and expose their deeds to the light of day. The international Jews’ “light unto the nations” balderdash does not equal, in any shape or form, a candle of humble illumination. It is instead equivalent to the bare and ugly bulb that lights an interrogation room populated by Jewish “hate crime” bureaucrats and thought-control apparatchiks. This “light” is not a pleasant glow feeding the intellectual health of a jejune populace, but a raging and unquenchable fire burning our institutions to the ground. Was it not the Jew of the World who encouraged youthful rabble to “bring it all down, man”? Was it not this albatross, these very internationalists who cheered Communist ideologue Antonio Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions”? If our institutions are now not literally turned to cinders, then they are remodeled, restructured and realigned ideologically, so that they provide comfort, ease, accolades and succor to the Jew of the World. After all, he is fond of crowing about all those Jewish Nobel Prize winners, isn’t he?

The Jew of the World is quintessentially an internationalist. To this caliber of Jew, the health of his home country or its citizens is not of paramount concern. However, the health of the other Jews of the World is his be-all and end-all, his raison d’etre, the warm reassuring tribalism that has become his trademark. Their comfort is the end game. How does this type of Jew ensure the comfort of his fellow tribesmen?



Boy, Were You Ever Wrong

By Patrick Grimm

So you thought the Jews were just another clannish and ethnocentric group interested in preserving their religious and cultural traditions. You believed the Jews when they told you that they only wanted to live and let live. You took them at their word when they said they were only desirous of a country where they could reside free of persecution. You didn’t think twice when they larded up their pronouncements with lots of inclusiveness and out-group words of good will. You believed the scholars who pinned all the blame for anti-Jewish persecution, pogroms, expulsions and genocide on those people who were not Jewish. You thought it not unseemly that these same Jews were a bit touchy when it came to their history and their preoccupation with Holocaust dramatizations.  Boy, were you ever wrong.

You knew your country was sick, didn’t you? Yes, you did. You can feel this sick degeneration down deep in your bones. It was a sixth sense you had. It spoke to you like a still small voice and it whispered ever so softly. It told you that the foundations were crumbling and the buffering institutions were being eroded. But you wanted to call it something else. You ranted about “liberalism”, “big government”, “high taxes”, “overregulation” and how bad those Democrats were. Perhaps you attended a few Tea Parties and whined to your friends about the dangers and wickedness of an Obama administration. You might have even dropped a few dollars in the coffers of yet another “conservative” group, thinking you were doing your due diligence. Sarah Palin is probably your girl in 2012. Her shallow rhetoric and inane sound bites did not dissuade you one bit. You, a solid red state flag-waving “patriot” probably cheered the war in Iraq even as the pseudo-mission became more and more opaque and fuzzy. This didn’t stop you from sending your precious son or daughter to “fight for democracy and freedom” and kill more Muslim people all for the nebulous pronouncements of War Party bureaucrats who knew nothing about Sherman tanks, but spent most of their time in think tanks.

When your child came home from college or university mocking the religious beliefs you taught them since their birth and began spouting rehearsed bromides against the evils of white European culture, you blamed “liberal professors.” When your offspring waxed pretty about alternative lifestyles, the merits of homosexuality and the open-minded beauty of bi-curious pursuits, you blamed those damn liberals and Communists. You were half right, which still means that you were also half wrong too. You didn’t look any deeper, did you? You asked shallow questions and you got shallow answers. What did you expect?


No More Myths


In reply to by Count Cherep

Endgame Napoleon J S Bach Wed, 08/08/2018 - 19:43 Permalink

That first sentence is correct. What do you think of wombism? None of the social programs set up by the old-school Dems were non-contributory. It is the feminist Dems of the Sixties onward who embraced wombism. 

Tax the refundable child tax credits of citizens and noncitizens at 75%. No, that would hurt tattoo shops, Ashley Furniture and the Florida beach motels where moms, with welfare-financed rent and EBT groceries, spend their $6,431 in refundable-child-tax-credit money, entertaining their boyfriends.

In reply to by J S Bach

earleflorida macholatte Wed, 08/08/2018 - 16:01 Permalink

Socialism is a lethargic crippled ideology. Period!

Without Capitalism all social/political/economic ism's will inevitably wither and die.

capitalism is dynamic and must move about freely, whereas socialism is a dreamers worst nightmare--- a creeping trojan horse of dystopia  

In reply to by macholatte

Creative_Destruct earleflorida Wed, 08/08/2018 - 17:58 Permalink

Socialism and central planning in general are inherently unworkable in the longer run because they try to pick winners and ignore the pricing signals that allocate resources. Not to mention disincentivizing all the productive in society. Even the European "Socialist Democracies" are living off redistributed wealth created by their capitalist past and what remains of it.

Socialism is an insidious lure that traps the naive and idealistic (particularly the young) into believing that cheap and free are easy and that it's just some evil bastards behind the scenes who are simply holding out on them.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

Friedrich August von Hayek

In reply to by earleflorida

Endgame Napoleon El Oregonian Wed, 08/08/2018 - 18:55 Permalink

100% Non-Contributory Socialism With the Uniparty Seal of Approval 

  1. Free EBT food at $450 per month on average for single moms and legal / illegal immigrants with US-born instant-citizen kids, when they work part time for wages that keep them under the income limits for welfare; 
  2. Monthly cash assistance, which is the same amount as food stamps, increasing with each birth within the .gov time restrictions, when each child’s father is identified to Department to Human Services employees; 
  3. Subsidized rent, either nearly free rent in Section 8 housing or reduced-cost rent that decreases more with each additional birth in mixed-income complexes, which are in nicer, safer areas of cities than most single, childless college grads can afford;
  4. Free electricity;
  5. Nearly free Headstart daycare or childcare assistance so that moms can work part time, staying under the income limits for welfare and driving wages down for all of the single, childless women and the single moms with kids over 18 who must live on earned-ONLY income, with rent consuming more than HALF of their earned-only income; 
  6. Refundable child tax credits, with the tax-cash infusion for maximum womb productivity topping out at $6,431, and with no restrictions on how the extra pay for sex and reproduction for non-income-tax-paying womb producers is spent.

In reply to by El Oregonian

Kayman FireBrander Wed, 08/08/2018 - 15:26 Permalink

Most of this political jabbering just doesn't want to come out and name the culprit.

It is CORRUPTION of the left and of the right. Greedy criminals at the ready to sell your children, all while their P.R. departments in the Media provide cover.

We need some government to provide and enforce reasonable rules, and we need private enterprise, corporate and individual to create value. Too much power on either side leads to disgusting behavior we see in Federal government agencies today and the likes of Gooble and FaceFart.

In reply to by FireBrander

bunkers FireBrander Wed, 08/08/2018 - 16:08 Permalink

Corrupt politicians who care nothing of the people who elected them and care, only, for the money they receive as bribes as they betray their people. Corrupt politicians failed Venezuela, Brazil and many more. Pity they are not capable of taking their countries back from the traitors.

In reply to by FireBrander

Prehuman Insight Stan522 Wed, 08/08/2018 - 15:06 Permalink

Dear Sad Americans

1. you are in a class war that you lost decades ago

2. late in life medical expenses will burn up every dollar you have

3. American military expenditures and foreign escapades destroy your future

4. your inability to self-educate consumes you - no one can slay the demon of American ignorance

In reply to by Stan522

Free This earleflorida Wed, 08/08/2018 - 16:19 Permalink

No sir. Over regulation, repressive laws, and the Fed have seen to that. Social Security was the beginning of socialism, under FDR. We went bankrupt fiscally in the 30's, and WE THE PEOPLE were put up as collateral. Just look at flags in courtrooms and your own birth certificate.

Then in the 60's The Great Society under LBJ = the welfare system.

I am not saying we don't have a form of Capitalism, we just don't have truly free markets.

In reply to by earleflorida

Endgame Napoleon HilteryTrumpkin Wed, 08/08/2018 - 19:03 Permalink

Actually, the biggest betrayal of the contributory SS-retirement program came when 6 million breadwinner jobs, and the SS contributions that would have been made by employers & employees if those jobs had been kept here, were sent to cheap-labor havens in China and Latin America. What did you get in return? A $5 discount on a crappy-made shirt.…

In reply to by HilteryTrumpkin

earleflorida Free This Wed, 08/08/2018 - 16:34 Permalink

FDR was a bigtime socialist,

but it was the war machine and free stuff that put us on this crash course.

correct that regulation (the entrepreneur bear trap) forced capital offshore.

but it was congress and both Bush's Wars that destroyed our check book, with a hybrid muslim named Obozo that really addicted the 'have nots' to confuse the rest of us why this asylum we call America is officially run by the lunatics...


Note:   Pay close attention to second column on right (total return % increase) and how uniform they become

In reply to by Free This

Endgame Napoleon earleflorida Wed, 08/08/2018 - 19:09 Permalink

The non-contributory socialism-for-some system that rigs the labor market in favor of womb-productive citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants has gone too far. If you get pregnant out of wedlock, you need to either marry your baby’s father or live under your momma’s roof, seeing how far you can get by producing multiple children that you can’t afford to feed in that manner. In past eras, moms had to get an independent household by marrying, rather than leaving their baby’s father to vegetate in his momma’s basement. Otherwise, humane orphanages were set up. 

Social Security was designed to be a contributory social insurance product to be used when people became far less employable in old age. 

In reply to by earleflorida

Kayman Prehuman Insight Wed, 08/08/2018 - 15:30 Permalink

Dear 2 week mini-Troll

1. you are classless, so you don't have a problem

2. late in life you will die, whether you have pennies or lots of electronic digits

3. Lack of U.S. Military expenses will also destroy our future.

4. Your Re-education camp, just made you dumber. Ignorance knows no national boundaries.

p.s. Fuck off, and tell your handlers to Fuck off too.

In reply to by Prehuman Insight

Eeyores Enigma hedgeless_horseman Wed, 08/08/2018 - 15:06 Permalink

Its not  matter of dependent or independent, its all about people. What do we even have an economy for...people. What is government even there for ...people. What are tax dollars supposed to be used for ...infrastructure for a thriving economy for the PEOPLE.

Instead it is all for the rich...the people be damned.

But hey you can keep your pretense of rugged individualism going as long as you like but for me ...its all about people ...and the planet.

In reply to by hedgeless_horseman