Isbjørn

Democratic socialism is collective ownership of the means of production attained through democratic means. Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, but he's a social democrat, wanting to expand govermental welfare programs, raise the minimum wage, etc. while leaving capitalism intact.

Was there any way that it could've gone right?

I found it on Verso a while ago, they had an e-book giveaway. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but I will as soon as I have time. Automation is an important subject that people don't talk about - it can go horribly wrong if left to the logic of the market, but benefit humanity greatly if done in the framework of socialism.

__________________

Paul Smeenus

__________________
Gentle Giant Catalog Review

The entire Ditty Bops catalog reviewed

OccultHawk

"Was there any way it could have gone right?"

Maybe not. But if the CEO or Wall Street bankers or whatever they should be called lived by ethical economic standards instead of using usury as their economic gold standard it may have been more sustainable and easier to for both sides to transition out of. On the other hand, they could be worse. Checks and balances can't stop an oligarchy forever. Considering the concentration of wealth, like around sixty people with more wealth than the bottom three billion, things could be a lot worse. OK not if your starving in Ethiopia or getting raped in a privatized prison but for a lot of us, considering what people are capable of, we're lucky it's not a lot worse.

RoxyRollah

i concur. I just rather tweak our capitalist system then get rid of it.

__________________

Paul Smeenus

Bernie is pro-capitalism

__________________
Gentle Giant Catalog Review

The entire Ditty Bops catalog reviewed

RoxyRollah

Will not succeed I told you that all ready....packing to move to middle earth.

__________________

Isbjørn

^ This.

The capitalist system can be glossed over, but in the end, it's unsustainable. Private ownership of the means of production means that society is largely divided into two classes - those who work, and those who buy labor. The vast majority belongs to the former group - they cook our meals, they make our shoes, they clean our floors, they flip our burgers, they drive our buses etc. The goods and services (commodities) they create have value because they require labor, but under capitalism, the workers constantly receive wages worth less than the value of their labor. The rest goes to the owners as profit - and this is why Stefan Persson is the 17th richest person in the world while H&M employees in Southeast Asia barely receive half of what they need to meet their basic needs. The harder the exploitation, the bigger the profit.

Under capitalism, commodities are produced to generate profits, and not to meet needs. This is why, annually, 3 times as much money is spent on researching Viagra than what's spent on researching HIV/AIDS medicines - it's obvious that the latter is more necessary, but most AIDS victims can't afford to pay for medicines. And capitalism requires constant growth. In the free market, a business must always produce more and generate more profits than its competitors - the status quo means you lose in the competition. Constant economic growth, on micro- and macro-level, may sound nice, but in a world with limited resources, it's an impossibility. Nature sets the limits.

I should be mentioning many other things, like imperialism, crises of overproduction, the deliberately low quality of commodities like iPhones, unemployment, but I need to eat now, and there are others who can explain this much better than I can. The point is that capitalism is inherently at odds with nature and the interests and needs of the vast majority of people, and trying to make it ethical is futile.

__________________

Xurtio

I think this essentually a different terminology based on our respective political atmospheres. Similarily? In the US, the "liberal" democratic party is quite moderate compared to European liberals overall because they are very conservative with respect to some things particular to the US (not the least of which is leading military power and free market philosophy.)

__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

Isbjørn

The political spectrum in the US is far-off. You can choose between a right-wing party with a liberal view on social issues, and a right-wing party with a conservative view on social issues, yet somehow the Democratic Party is considered left-wing by many. The left-right axis is supposed to be an economic axis, but if you want to abolish capitalism, you're out of luck. Bernie Sanders is considered a radical, when all he wants to introduce stuff us Scandinavians have taken for granted for decades.

__________________

RoxyRollah

Which is why he isn't going to win.They will steal it from him or Trump.Because the establishment always gets in kids.Time the people state get active.Its a very interesting time to be alive in the Us.

__________________