Not exactly the same the same but close enough that most Americans want nothing to do with it. That's why one party works so hard to suppress it's own socialist wing... while extremists in the base love it, it will lose most national elections.

Varies by degree, and mechanism of establishment.

Communism requires violent revolution, so you typically need a lot of the population to be severely oppressed so they have nothing to lose.

But socialism ultimately requires the government to take from some and give to others. Net effect is to dampen enthusiasm for work and innovation. Nobody falls through the cracks, and almost nobody really thrives either.

Side effect is of course when a government gets more power, it's a slippery slope. The UK government is currently arresting people for saying things on SM that go against official government position. They don't have a 1st amnd., but they did have similar traditions for a long time. Fun while it lasted I suppose.

Maybe worth noting that the euro brand of socialism does still allow the *very* old aristocratic dynasties to thrive as they always have... the effect of all the government regulations is to set high barriers of entry to random people who want to create and grow businesses.

I tend to think that both "democratic" socialism and communism (where it survives) will tend to evolve into a middle ground between the two. Example: China. More autocratic than the ideal of "democratic" socialism, less so than doctrinal Marxism.

Communism that doesn't evolve will fail (USSR). Not counting a few extreme autocratic enclaves like Cuba and DPRK.

 

Very nice summary Rick. I would only add that both socialism and communism are different shades of envy by the have-nots. The trend over the last few decades (globalization, automation) and going forward (AI) will lead to a lot more have-nots in the US (the underdeveloped world will thrive due to their cheap labor.) They will not learn from history (a large amount don't even know much history.) If Mandami is able to sweep NYC, which is looking like a fait accompli, this should send chills down the back of every productive member of society. And those who know history.

This is what keeps me up at night.

 

what keeps me up at night is the extreme income disparity in this country and how the rich have convinced the middle class that the poors are the problem

 

It's only "extreme" if people are in actual poverty, where shelter/food/basic needs aren't met. Can't afford the latest iphone =/= poverty.

Plenty of people who consider themselves economically disadvantaged have much nicer and newer cars and phones than I do. Priorities.

Income disparity is just fine, it's often merely choices people make, lifestyle vs. time dedicated to making money. You have a wide array of options to balance work (which includes education/training) vs. money. If people choose to not make the effort, and *then* want what other people have it's called envy (maybe entitlement these days).

But in a democracy it is the interest of middle/upper class to vote for policies which make it easier for lower class to improve. Example I'm all for helping economically disadvantaged youth (regardless of location or ethnicity), society has an obvious and very long standing duty to develop youth. But not to enable them for their entire adult lives.

 

Mandami is interesting, an immigrant who wants to tear up our societal structures and traditions. But I doubt he can actually do much, since the state and national laws and constitutions don't allow him to start seizing property and nationalizing the means of production.

His largest impact will likely be generating campaign ads for the opposition's future national campaigns

The Party knows all this, which is why they've been having an allergic reaction to the guy.

 

Yep. The concept of 'socialism' in the States gets an overly bad rap I believe. I'll take a system that balances the needs of the many vs the needs of the few. The ultra rich have set themselves up nicely to control the narrative, reap all the benefits and now easily pit us against each other. All the while distracting us from the fact that most folks share the same struggles, stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, and a system designed to keep wealth flowing upward.

The vast majority of us here discussing this are easily in the top 5% of earners, so it's easy to forget and not see the struggles of others. Moving more toward a semblance of social democracy vs corporate feudalism wouldn't be the worst thing in my book.

 

dude is just trying to be a mayor. He cant even raise taxes. The city council moderates everything. He moved to NYC when he was 7… people gotta relax. I live in NYC and most people worth under $10 million are going to vote for him. The other options are a corrupt nepobaby creep and a crackpot in a beret

the corrupt DNC is just trying to protect their gravy train machinery

 

lol


filler filler

 

It’s all very interesting.

I think us 5-2% in one earners kind of live in a bubble. Good jobs, good lives, own a house etc. we have an extremely niche job. This type of lifestyle (I sit SC by the pool on captain pay and haven’t left my house for 3 weeks while making what a doctor makes) just doesn’t exist for 99% of people.

Those people work extremely hard to get the kind of life their parents and grandparents had. Instead they just get squeezed. Squeezed out of groceries, squeezed out of owning a house, squeezed out of taking their kids to Disneyland.

America doesn’t really work for them. It works for Jeff Bezos. Spending 100x their life’s income on an obnoxious Venice wedding. This is the stuff they see on TV while wondering if they’re going to be able to buy a starter house or if they can afford their rising healthcare premiums.

Mamdani and Trump are the two lifelines being thrown to them on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Can you really blame them for wanting a radically different type of society?

Again, America as WE enjoy it has not been working for an ever increasing percentage of Americans. It’s just not sustainable.

 

I'd rather regulate free markets, to the degree necessary, as opposed to create legions of people who think they're entitled to a bunch of stuff which other people will have to provide for them. Problem there is that the "other" people will get tired of doing $300K worth of work for $30K worth of benefit, and will just go on the dole like everybody else.

Or more likely it just devolves into a government-sponsored ponzi scheme that's bound to collapse eventually. Maybe let's see how Europe is doing in ten years before we get too crazy here.