3 thoughts on “US POLITICS: “Caller: How do I Describe ‘Democratic Socialist’ to Skeptics?” / Thom Hartmann ☮”

1. Well, it’s not exactly a concise description of democratic socialism and I’m not sure one truly exists or that one model exists. Each society or nation state tends to negotiate its own brand of socialism based on its particulars. What I think is the central idea to be underscored in a socialistic political economy is that the focus is on a number of social goods or “goods” that must be addressed and satisfied firstly. This could include health care, equal access to education and jobs, and/or some level of fairness in compensation or wages. Only after these social necessities are met, do we look at rewarding certain individuals or corporations. Socialism, to me, is a mindset that first emphasizes equality and justice in society and only then considers rewards or special compensation for individuals or corporations. In a strictly capiatlistic economy and society injustice, scheming, and greed are rewarded first and social goods, if they are even considered, come a distant second or dead last.

   Reply ↓

   • Capitalism = profit over people
     Democratic Socialism = people over profit

     Reply ↓

     • Yes, what he just said, far more succinctly.

       To my previous point of there being different iterations of socialism, consider what is happening in Europe regarding Greece. Syriza, for the most part, represents a classic form of democratic socialism while some of the other center-left governments and parties in Europe, although nominally socialist-leaning, are still in thrall to capitalist kingpins and have joined in the attack of Syria. We see the same thing being played out here between Sanders and Clinton. Sanders wants to remake the economic so that it favors people and key social goods. Clinton generally wants the same thing ( I do believe that) but can’t shake off the fear that, if she drfits too far from centrist rhetoric, she will lose the election. Unfortunately, she would most like govern the same way.

       Our Hobson’s Choice, in the end, will most likely be between the imperfect, almost-but-no-cigar Clinton, and the catastrophe that awaits if any of the GOP stooges are allowed to appoint 2-3 SCOTUS justices.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.