Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 13, 2020

Laurence Arnold: Who is keeping socialism alive as an issue? Mostly, Trump and his fellow Republicans.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Here's insight on Trump's false narrative and how it's wrong.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Insofar as his running against "socialism" he is running against an idea which serves as a boogeyman to right wingers, not a reality here in the USA.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-10-13 01:38 PM | Reply

Typical repuiblicl0wn... telling ghost stories to whip the base into a frenzy.

#2 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-10-13 01:59 PM | Reply

"In a dictionary sense, it's an economic and political system under which the government controls major industries and decides how products and proceeds are distributed."

Was this article written by a kindergartener?

That's a decent definition of corporatism, describes more than more than a few former fascist nations...but nothing in there about ending capitalism. Not even anything about the workers controlling the means of production, which is really the key tenet of socialism.

#3 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 02:09 PM | Reply

And actually, that's just about a perfect definition of Soviet Communism.

#4 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 02:12 PM | Reply

Trump has the benefit of socialist healthcare.

#5 | Posted by Pirate at 2020-10-13 02:20 PM | Reply

Trump is throwing poo at others and saying they crapped themselves.

#6 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-13 02:21 PM | Reply

He just yells and tweets "Socialism!" and his cult automatically believes anybody who doesn't vote for Trump is a socialist, Marxist, radical... reality need not apply.

#7 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2020-10-13 02:28 PM | Reply

Back when Biden first clinched the primary Democrats were telling Sanders supporters, in an effort to bring them into the fold, that Biden would likely be the most progressive president since FDR. People were saying it right here on this forum. It was as ridiculous then as it is now to anybody with eyes to see. Now that Republicans are using it as a negative suddenly the claim is outrageous to those same people. Got it.

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-10-13 02:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If the Supreme Court throws out Obamacare Biden may be forced to be a very liberal President.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2020-10-13 02:33 PM | Reply

Biden will be Obama light. I think he will be better on issues of domestic spying and workers rights than Obama. But he will be equally pro-Wall Street and pro-International business. And he will be ---- amazing on expanding access to healthcare.

#10 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-10-13 02:52 PM | Reply

@#7 ... He just yells and tweets "Socialism!" ...

The problem that the Trump campaign is facing is that little of what they try to throw against Mr Biden sticks. They've tried a few things so far during the campaign, and this socialism thing, while they have been doing it all along, seems to be their current main focus.

The question in my mind is whether or not this socialism thing will do little more than just hype up his base.

And that is the huge problem with the Trump campaign, they are having difficulty appealing to voters outside of his base. So the Trump campaign has pretty much admitted that when they continue to appeal to his base, the main purpose for doing so is to hype them up so that they definitely go out and vote.

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-13 03:29 PM | Reply

At least half of the crap Trump is running against he made up to trigger liberals.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-13 03:40 PM | Reply

There is the old saying that if the Devil did not exist, powerful people would need to invent him.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-10-13 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Russian workers don't control the means of production, so Russian is not socialist then I guess.

Solo business proprietors do control the means of production, they they must be communists I guess.

How about using definitions that make sense. Authoritarian governments allow those in charge to have a lot of economic and social control over the populace with no peaceful means of changing those in power. CCP, Russia, Saudi, NK etc are authoritarian.

Countries that have free and fair elections are democracies. All democracies make use of a mix of capitalism and socialistic policies. Collective services like welfare and the military are socialistic.

#14 | Posted by bored at 2020-10-13 04:49 PM | Reply

"How Does Trump Run Against Socialism Without a Socialist Opponent?"

Same way you have to shoot the basement of the pizza parlor with no basement.

#15 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2020-10-13 04:50 PM | Reply

There is the old saying that if the Devil did not exist, powerful people would need to invent him.

#13 | POSTED BY MODER8

The powerful don't need to invent the Devil because they already invented the active and omnipotent god.

#16 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2020-10-13 04:52 PM | Reply

Soviet Communism.

Aka. Totalitarianism.

Aka. Trump's hopes for America.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-13 06:06 PM | Reply

Re 13

Yup yup!! And thats a good one too!!

Is that the old saying from Tennessee?"I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee" I hear they gots a few of em there.

Re 16

Seems to me they are two sides of the same coin. A coin invented by the powerful leaders of the realm. Whatever realm you happen to be born in has their own version.

But that coin only serves one purpose.

To control you.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-13 09:28 PM | Reply

"In a dictionary sense, it's an economic and political system under which the government controls major industries and decides how products and proceeds are distributed."

It's the "... decides how products and proceeds are distributed." that has republicans concerned. They are concerned that all of their efforts to "game the economic system" to favor white males and marginalize minorities and women will be undone.

"Socialism" is just another way of talking about "makers vs takers" which was another way of talking about "Income Redistribution", etc. All of these terms are rooted in the greed, selfishness and bigotry of the republican party.

#19 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2020-10-14 09:06 AM | Reply

"They are concerned that all of their efforts to "game the economic system" to favor white males and marginalize minorities and women will be undone."

If the Soviet Union is any example, most of it would just cease to exist. Although white males would likely be standing in bread lines alongside minorities and women.

Unless they were party members of course...then you could do what you wanted.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 12:56 PM | Reply

- If the Soviet Union is any example

Which it isn't. Scandinavian social democracy countries with the happiest people in the world are.

www.juancole.com

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-14 01:06 PM | Reply

...it's called his followers are
"Dumber than a can of paint!"

#22 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-10-14 01:36 PM | Reply

"Which it isn't. Scandinavian social democracy countries with the happiest people in the world are."

You mean the country that decided to take a hands-off approach with COVID?

Anyway...you're wrong. As usual. First, Sweden is not a socialist country. The government does not own major industries, and does not determine how proceeds are distributed.

Like the US (and most others), it is a capitalist country.

And Sweden isn't the happiest country. That honor goes to Finland, followed by Switzerland.

Sweden did come in 7th though...not terrible.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 01:50 PM | Reply

www.forbes.com

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 01:50 PM | Reply

Countries with more socialist policies are happier. Countries with rampant crony capitalism are not.

#25 | Posted by bored at 2020-10-14 02:47 PM | Reply

"Countries with more socialist policies are happier."

China?

North Korea?

Cuba?

Here's the full top 20 list, as of March 2020:

Finland
Denmark
Switzerland
Iceland
Norway
Netherlands
Sweden
New Zealand
Austria
Luxembourg
Canada
Australia
United Kingdom
Israel
Costa Rica
Ireland
Germany
United States
Czech Republic
Belgium

As you can see...nary a socialist country to be found...

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 03:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

China and North Korea are not socialist, they are authoritarian, and in the case of China, very capitalist.
All the top 20 countries are more socialist than the USA.

Democracy and socialist policies are best for the vast majority of people.

#27 | Posted by bored at 2020-10-14 04:12 PM | Reply

- First, Sweden is not a socialist country.

Sweden is a social democracy, like I said, as are the other northern Nordic countries.

"Social democracy is a government system that has similar values to socialism, but within a capitalist framework. The ideology, named from democracy where people have a say in government actions, supports a competitive economy with money while also helping people whose jobs don't pay a lot. This makes it easier for people to support themselves in society by having more protection if they lose their jobs.

Socialism places an emphasis on equal rights for everyone, and there is plenty of government ownership or regulation of various industries that make companies play by the government's rules. This way of governing is appreciated by people living in countries who have to battle the cold more than others, like the northern Nordic countries of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Iceland.

The ideology's movement has seen some interest in other countries whose systems do not work this way, because it has worked well for those who have it.

Despite a common belief that social democracy is socialist by principle, its policies keep capitalism in place and socialists often dislike social democrats. Social democrats support Keynesian economics, where the government should step in and help people without jobs. In social democracy entrepreneurs own the industries just like they would in a standard capitalist economy. In socialism the workers own them instead which is very different."

simple.wikipedia.org

Your moronic bellowing of, "Sosh'lists!" to describe social democracies might werk somewhere else, but not here.

You just sound too much like Trump.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-14 05:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Social democrats support Keynesian economics, where the government should step in and help people without jobs"

Republicans support Supply Side Economics, where the government should help rich people, but a little bit of the money will inefficiently Trickle Down to be squandered by poor people.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-14 07:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"China and North Korea are not socialist, they are authoritarian."

Authoritarianism is a necessary aspect of socialism, because the high-value workers will always need to be compelled to not only keep working, but transfer the fruits of their efforts to lower-value workers. And initially to compel owners to give up the rights of their firms and businesses, either to the government or directly to the workers.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-15 01:07 AM | Reply

"Sweden is a social democracy, like I said, as are the other northern Nordic countries."

No, stupid, you said it was a "socialist" country. A Social Democracy is funded 100% by capitalism. The one thing that's consistent across all strains of socialism is the end result of replacing capitalism.

Had you stated that Sweden was a Social Democracy in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-15 01:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

There are no countries funded 100% by capitalism. Norway, UK, US, Canada, Australia all receive income from government owned assets.

#32 | Posted by bored at 2020-10-15 02:33 AM | Reply

Tax breaks for big oil. Most big companies pay no tax. How much money did Trump dump into the stock market to keep things up? The fed is made up from a bunch of banks and is not a government agency. Tell me how socialism is worse? When does inflation help the little guy. The current system is broke and R's yell "don't change a thing". I wonder why?

#33 | Posted by Brennnn at 2020-10-15 04:21 AM | Reply

Hey! I got a good one for Trump, if Socialism" didn't work, try

"Sharia Law," and revive "Benghazi" or even accuse Obama of

sleeping with his dog!! Or even bring up "Hillary's e-mails" again,

...that was a winner last time........

REMEMBER: "If at first you don't succeed, QUIT!!!"

#34 | Posted by saginawmi at 2020-10-15 09:05 AM | Reply

Liberals are still completely blind to who they are. I don't know if it's on purpose or they just are so smug and entitled that they refuse to acknowledge the reality of who they are...either way, it's terrible for the country. Be who you are. Stop trying to throw a facade on the whole country. You aren't fooling the masses, just the sheep. Hence why the votes are as close as they are. Start being strong and leading issues by who you are and you will see the votes will eventually become much more slanted in your favor instead of mostly down the middle.

#35 | Posted by humtake at 2020-10-15 09:34 AM | Reply

-Norway, UK, US, Canada, Australia all receive income from government owned assets.

what govt owned assets in the US?

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-15 09:52 AM | Reply

Norway, UK, US, Canada, Australia all receive income from government owned assets.

what govt owned assets in the US?

#36 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Post office to name 1
Toll roads to name a second

#37 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-10-15 10:08 AM | Reply

37

aahh...my mind was elsewhere when I asked. I see. Thanks.

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-15 10:09 AM | Reply

The same way Rethuglicans have been doing that for my entire life. Lying.

I'd love to have a socialist running against him. That's why I voted for Bernie in the primary.

And think how sweet it would have been when there was a socialist landslide against the orange fascist.

#39 | Posted by DarkVader at 2020-10-15 12:10 PM | Reply

"There are no countries funded 100% by capitalism. Norway, UK, US, Canada, Australia all receive income from government owned assets."

Really?

You'll have to explain to me how any country generates revenues outside of the context of a capitalist market.

The government of France owns a little less than 16% of Air France-KLM, but their role is no different that of other stakeholders. The French government doesn't get to say who works for the company, what they get paid, or how the company's profits are divided. At least no more so than other shareholders.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-15 02:17 PM | Reply

You'll have to explain to me how any country generates revenues outside of the context of a capitalist market.

Well, how did the USSR do it?

Oh I get it.

You're saying "markets" are the same thing as "Capitalism."

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 02:19 PM | Reply

"Post office to name 1 Toll roads to name a second"

Yeah?

How much of the USPS's revenues go to fund the federal government. Last I heard, the government was spending money on them, not making money.

And toll roads are not used to cover the cost of government operations. They're there to cover the cost of building and maintaining them.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-15 02:20 PM | Reply

#41

I'm not really sure what you're asking. Internally, there was no (maybe miniscule) private investments. Resources generally went to whatever the Soviets could sell to someone else. Military hardware, nuclear energy, whatever. I didn't know it until I went there, but the GDR actually had a relative high tech manufacturing sector, but it was all intended to be exported to western buyers.

Domestically, bureaucrats determined what would be produced and at what levels. This is best illustrated by a great joke:

A guy in a Soviet country is told he has a 10 year wait for a car.

This man laid down the money, and the fellow in charge said to him: Come back in 10 years and get your car.

The man answered: Morning or afternoon?

And the fellow behind the counter said: Ten years from now, what difference does it make?

And he said: Well, the plumber is coming in the morning.

I'll let you read the rest here. Anyone who has ever called themselves a "socialist" should read this.

jalopnik.com

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-15 02:32 PM | Reply

"How much of the USPS's revenues go to fund the federal government."

Where else would the funds go?

You're suggesting they get siphoned off to the Postmaster General's personal account???

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 02:38 PM | Reply

"I'm not really sure what you're asking."

Well then I'll ask again.

How did the USSR generates revenues outside of the context of a capitalist market?

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 02:39 PM | Reply

Maybe you can warm up with this question:

How did Henry VIII do it, 250 years before Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 02:45 PM | Reply

"How did Henry VIII do it, 250 years before Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations."

I don't remember. I feel like I did learn something about it along the way...old age just seems to be catching up with me.

Can you refresh my memory?

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-15 02:59 PM | Reply

"How did the USSR generates revenues outside of the context of a capitalist market?"

I think I did answer that.

The sold stuff to foreign buyers for hard currency.

Didn't I say that? I thought I did. Oh yeah, I did. Hi #43.

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-15 03:01 PM | Reply

"The sold stuff to foreign buyers for hard currency."

So their only source of revenue was foreign trade?

I mean, this is really your answer, and you have a Masters in Business Administration with a focus in International Finance?

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 03:07 PM | Reply

"So their only source of revenue was foreign trade?"

Yes, Snoofy.

I mean, there was definitely some black market revenue generation going on, but it was insignificant...and illegal. And it wouldn't have registered as a function of economic growth because it would been unsanctioned.

You really have no clue about economics, do you?

I feel like I should be charging you by credit hour. Maybe I can deduct my time here lecturing you as charity.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-15 03:25 PM | Reply

"You really have no clue about economics, do you?"

I'm not the one who said the Soviet Union had no internal sources of revenue...

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 03:28 PM | Reply

- Which it isn't. Scandinavian social democracy countries with the happiest people in the world are.

#21 | POSTED BY CORKY

- Had you stated that Sweden was a Social Democracy in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

proffered by Mythbomber

Seriously, one would think that after all this time you would be more proficient at this "thinking" thing.

When the conversation is about US economic inequity, you Deflect to "Somalia!".

When it's about social policy, you Deflect to the socialist Russia of 40 years ago and ignore vibrant, fair, happy modern social democracies.

It's getting kinda pathetic, and worse, boring as hell.

#52 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-15 03:52 PM | Reply

You know the saying Corky.

When all you have is a hammer and sickle, everything looks like socialism and communism.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#53

And when all you have is dated rwing memes, you want people without boots to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

The idea that this country can't have a more equitable economic and social support system because that isn't fair to the 26 billionaires that control as much wealth as 3.8 billion people worldwide is hardly an idea at all.

www.cnn.com

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-15 04:20 PM | Reply

"I'm not the one who said the Soviet Union had no internal sources of revenue..."

They didn't.

If I'm wrong, correct me.

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-16 12:59 AM | Reply

With substantiation, of course.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-16 12:59 AM | Reply

"When it's about social policy, you Deflect to the socialist Russia of 40 years ago and ignore vibrant, fair, happy modern social democracies."

Please,

You're the one who was touting Sweden as an example of socialism.

Like I said, had you stated that Sweden was a Social Democracy in the first place, I would not have been obligated to correct you.

I think you may be another of those stupids who conflates Socialism with Social Democracy, not understanding that they are two very different things.

Not like one of our far left friends who, several years back, stated that the US needed National Socialism...not realizing someone had already invented it.

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-16 12:37 PM | Reply

"The idea that this country can't have a more equitable economic and social support system because that isn't fair to the 26 billionaires that control as much wealth as 3.8 billion people worldwide is hardly an idea at all."

Nonsense, Corky,

You're entitled to whatever ideas might be rolling around inside that tiny little brain.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-16 12:38 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort