I haven’t read the entire thread, but I’d like to throw in my 2-cents about democratic socialism.
Yes, it’s a completely mysterious and undefined term, but the Democratic Socialists of America are NOT undefined. They make it absolutely clear what they are on their webpage.
They are NOT promoting a Scandinavian model of socialist welfare nets with a regulated capitalist economic system. NO. They state quite clearly on their website that they are socialists in the classical Marxist sense of the term.
They want to overthrow the capitalist system while Sweden and the other Scandinavian states openly admit that their economic system is fundamentally capitalist. This is a direct quote from the DSA site:
“We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.”
That is openly admitting that they want to eliminate private ownership of the means of production and embrace a strictly top-down planned economy. That is NOT Scandinavia. That is Marxism.
On their “What is Democratic Socialism?” page they state “In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.” Which clearly implies that their long-term goal is to eliminate private corporations.
So I’m pretty sick of these DSA stooges (like AOC) pretending like “Oh no, we aren’t nuts. We just want to do what Sweden is doing.” Nope. That is NOT what their end goal is. They are shooting for a Marxist state.
Yep, the DSA are special, all right.
However, like all democratic socialists they refuse to say whether - once they’ve achieved their goal of eliminating American capitalism and private ownership of capital - they would allow their laws to be overturned, whether they are willing to disenfranchise American citizens in order to achieve their ends, and whether DSA lawmakers would leave office peacefully if citizens could still vote and if DSA lawmakers were voted out.
I realize these questions may sound completely insane to people who are willing to assume that of course the DSA would play nice.
That’s why I think the Democrats should be alarmed at the rise of the DSA and Democrats should definitely feel imperiled by their support of DSA lawmakers masquerading as Democrats (e.g., AOC).
The DSA are a profoundly radical political organization.
I can’t stand Feinstein. When I saw that, I was thinking she could have responded differently to the kids who were being used by the adults to push an agenda. It reminds me of when there was a vote to increase taxes for the schools to use. I love kids but I don’t trust the politicians to do what they say they will do. People stood outside the required distance to the polling places to tell us that if we didn’t vote for the tax increase, we hated kids…
At the risk of getting a bit Judean Peoples Front there is a difference between Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists.
Of course, but AOC is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). @Taiwanguy (above) points out that the DSA are neither democratic socialists nor social democrats. They are straight up Marxists.
As you note, there is a difference.
I think she WAS a card-carrying member. I don’t think she is currently a member. I may be wrong on that though.
EDIT: I’m wrong. She IS a member. And so is Rashida Tlaib.
And lol at this “journalism” by NBC. Only pointing out the “reasonable” things that the DSA promotes and avoiding an actual analysis of their blatantly Marxist goals.
Apart from the anti-capitalism nonsense the DSA is pretty much the same as Taiwan. Universal healthcare and free education - not totally tax payer subsidised of course.
And apart from the whole Aryan master race nonsense, the Nazi party was pretty much post-New Deal America.
Promoting a Marxist planned economy and the abolishing of private business is a pretty big difference.
I’m not aware of the identity politics bit - although it wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve already mentioned the anti-capitalism.
Yeah, don’t get me started on the US media these days.
That AOC is a member of the DSA - and that the DSA were behind her campaign for Congress and the sabotage of Joe Crowley’s Congressional record, behind the GND, behind the abandonment by Amazon of its decision to locate an HQ in NYC, and behind the gotcha of Feinstein by kids - all ignored by the mainstream press (outside FOX).
Democrats are free to soft-shoe the wins so far by the DSA, but I think the DNC is going to have to fight the DSA for control of the party soon.
“There’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult, and it does lead, I think, young people, to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“Not just financially because people are graduating with 20, 30, $100,000 worth of student loan debt, and so they can’t even afford to have kids and a house, but also just this basic moral question, like, ‘what do we do?’” she continued. “And even if you don’t have kids, there are still children here in the world and we have a moral obligation to leave a better world for them.”
Highlight the new buzz word of the progleft: moral.
“Having children = bad. Importing people from the 3rd world = good”
Isn’t it strange? I mean, overpopulation is considered one of the main causes of climate change. Yet the fact that in many 3rd world countries they drop 5/6 children on average is ok, and importing people from poor (and therefore low co2 emitting) countries into rich and high co2 producing countries is a moral duty.
Doesn’t it sound weird to put moral duties ahead of exctintion level events?
Almonds’ status: activating
Well, the UN stats on children say we’re about about 2 billion now, and at the end of the century we’ll be at about 2 billion. Middle class people, everywhere, have fewer children.
Her comment sounds similar to the “the world is in such a terrible state, how could anyone bring a child into this?” AOC is just replacing the last part with “bring a child into the future.”
Maybe this is new thought. In the very least, it’s an interesting peek inside the mind. Millennials apparently got the best education ever offered. If they’re standing on the shoulders of Gen X and the Boomers before them, wouldn’t the best and brightest of them be able to see farther into the future, or as they see it, some possible string theory type of futures?
And, hey, don’t get me wrong. Her kind of sharp elbow rhetoric puts me off. She’s obviously tech and media savvy ; I don’t know if she is politically savvy. She strikes me as sneaky, conniving, in a HRC kind of way. When she said, “Isn’t 10 million enough?” when talking about an earnings cap I guess, I was kind of like, well yeah, but some really rich people have more than one home. I will guess that she’s going to be a pain in the a88. Period. She’ll up the ante and keep mouthing off to god, the press and everyone. It doesn’t matter if the country at large disagrees with her. Only her constituents matter. NY City pols can go decades in a properly gerrymandered district.
Bubbette married well. That’s the entire basis of her success, such as it was.
AOC has risen to whatever it is she is now by her own Alinskyite game.
“Low pay is also a big reason for lack of socioeconomic diversity in DC, aka why many spaces in government can feel like a silver spoon club: only people who work 80+hr weeks w/ multiple jobs without an outside life, or whose parents can supplement their pay can have the opportunity to work in the nation’s capital,” Ms Ocasio-Cortez said. “That has real consequences for government being out of touch w/ the people we serve on all levels."
She’s not wrong. Richer parents do supplement their unpaid intern children. I’d feel better though if she introduced legislation to end the whole practice. Again, my feeling is she’s doing it all for job security, her own.
Reminds me of Trump slamming Obama for golfing too much. Shame that voters fall for the “he’s a hypocrite” schtick.
AOC defeated Joe Crowley in the Dem primary, in part, by claiming that his having a home in DC (his way of resolving his housing predicament) put him out of touch with voters. So she wins the election, kicks off a GoFundMe for her apartment rent, then reflects in public on the choices to be made if you want to live in NY but serve in DC.
Dollars to donuts she buys a condo in Georgetown by the end of this year.
People forget how really truly amazing that was as well.
DC is like that because everyone rich there already bought a house 30-40 years ago and grew economically with the city. It’s poorly planned being built on a swamp and all. Roads are awful and confusing. I hated going there. Always got lost and the roads are miserable to drive around. There’s just no way you can go in there and build enough wealth to own anything there.
Traffic sucks so bad. I think still have PTSD from I-95.
Used to metro into DC and walk over into Georgetown. There are some most excellent bars in Georgetown, I have to say. Used to be a great place called the Beerskellar in Dupont Circle, over by Georgetown University. This was back in the day, before craft beer became big. Used to have hundreds of beer brands, from around the world, in a huge beer cellar. Several large rooms filled with big wooden tables that each seated like 8 people. Staff would fill up a table before they’d sit anybody at a new one. Your group would end up drinking beer at a table with strangers. Lots of academics from Georgetown would go there. Great conversations there, learned a LOT. From there you’d head out into the more colorful parts of Georgetown.
Very expensive, though, you’re right.