A bunch of people whose jobs exist because of the socialist practice of combining taxes to pay for government services, have condemned socialism.
Morons.
The capitalist state isn’t socialist in any capacity. Public ownership and publicly run industry under capitalism supports the extension and expansion of capital alone. Taxation isn’t socialism either. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution at a societal level, where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes dominate the state.
I bet, among all democrats, those 8 are a lot richer now than they were when they first entered the lucrative career of politics.
That just tells us who needs to go next.
I actually haven’t had the time to look this up. Are there any good examples of Dems that lose their seats over this kind of behavior? The party is pretty infamously anti-socialist even though it appropriates much of the social justice rhetoric that people associate with socialism
What this is actually about:
This is pure Republican PR. They included a poison pill in the resolution so that Democrats would vote against it, and then they can associate those Democrats with socialism. The reality is that far more than 8 Democrats would have voted in favor of the resolution of it hadn’t included that.
So democrats hate their left flank so much, they’re happy to assist their best buddy trump in killing democracy.
Complicit. All the time.
So the idiotic democratic politicians prefer to vote with republicans than be associated with socialism when dems will learn to stop getting preoccupied about what the republicans fascists think of them
They really have nothing better to do, that they are “allowed” to do by their parties do they?
Pathetic.
Now do fascism.
They’re already doing it
Is this as useless as a “strongly worded letter”? I think this is pandering more than anything else
Yep. And therefore at least in the current political climate of the US an excellent thing for Congress to spin their wheels on. With the current composition they certainly won’t even attempt to tackle any real issues.
So no more postal service, no more roads, no more trash collectors, right
Socialism is when the government does things. The more things it does, the socialister it is
-Carl Marks
Public sectors of capitalist economies are not socialist. Since they are owned by a capitalist state, the state is ultimately bought in to having the public sector facilitate the expansion of capital.
“it’s not socialism unless it comes from the Sociale region of France. Otherwise it’s just sparkling state capitalism”
My argument is that socialism requires workers to hold power over the state and the commanding heights of the economy. Public and private sectors are not independent of each other, and as a consequence the class that dominates society shapes and molds both sectors to serve their interests.
I actually agree with you - by definition of socialism, that’s true, and very often we label things “socialism” when it’s just “publicly funded services”. In Canada we have single-payer health care - it’s not true socialism because only some workers only hold power, but that’s if they have a union (nurses).
But there’s two points to be made:
- Nothing about postal service, road maintenance, or trash collection bars them from being actual socialist programs - they could all be owned and operated by the workers, so the OP comment kind of stands, kind of.
- I’m of the opinion that the meaning of words can change over time, especially as they get used more commonly in their derivation than their original definition. I think Socialism might be one of those things that is changing meaning. Even though we don’t have true socialism, does a tax based government ever achieve “socialism”? We as tax payers will never own or control the thing being funded - the government does. They’re just a middleman between us and services (private and public), and we’ll never really have true socialism.
So you have the right attacking social services as “socialism bad”, you have the left defending social services as “socialism good”, and then you have others saying “none of that is socialism” and pulling their hair out. We’re at this point where when someone says “socialism”, it’s actually talking about social services provided by the government, even if it’s, by definition, incorrect.
Edit: we, as tax payers, should object to funding social programs that are just funding private businesses. I’ve seen local governments end their self-run trash collectors and instead contract out private businesses that do a horrendous job - they cut every corner possible, and it’s pure corruption by politicians to funnel tax money to private companies.
The biggest problem is that you are removing the state from the class struggle. The state operates in the interests of the ruling class of a given society, be it capitalists or workers. Tax-funded programs in socialism aren’t not socialist because a worker government is still socialist. It isn’t about “true socialism,” it’s about understanding how the class struggle actually operates.
A useful comparison is the inverse of welfare under capitalism, which is private ownership under socialism. China is a good example, which has private ownership for non-critical secondary industries. It uses this marketization to help build up the productive forces to a level where planned economy can more effectively take over. This isn’t a “capitalist sector” in the truest sense, it exists explicitly to build up higher forms of socialism.
You cannot cut a part of a whole system out and individually judge it in a vacuum. The necessary context that it exists in must be understood.
Red Scare 4 folks.
that one stings. too soon.
My DEMOCRATIC Congressman is on that list, of course. His office gets a call from me tomorrow. He’s such a smarmy loser. I fucking HATE that guy.
Sure, but when the primaries end, most of the people bad-mouthing him will fall in line and vote for him anyways because of a letter next to his name.
Why call?
Show him who is the actual boss.
Well, now you clearly know who to vote out come the primaries.
Ha. One of them is Henry Cuellar. Party leadership supported him in the primary the last time he had a progressive challenger, and it was because of votes like this.
They claimed it was because he was the incumbent. But Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were both incumbents, only they weren’t singlemindedly genocidal like every last centrist at all times, so they got no protection.
And Ken Martin hasn’t fixed shit. He is currently presiding over the party’s push against the non-genocidal wing.
What a good use of time! This really goes a long way towards dispelling the notion that the government is corrupt and incompetent! /s
What a funny coincidence… Both of my middle fingers unanimously voted to condemn Congress in all its forms.
Didn’t they already do exactly this in Trump’s first presidency?
Guess those Democrats In Name Only faced or are facing primaries against Socialist Democrats?
I wish. My rep is on there and we had 2 progressive challengers, but near as I can tell, no real support and the result was him winning with like 70%+ of the vote.
This is the kind of place where people will shoot themselves in the foot before they vote for anyone who might raise taxes or stop bombing brown people.
