Quantcast
View Post
o_O.Q said:

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c

"These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform."

if the company no longer "owns" their own platform, then who does?


Another company. Breaking up a company into multiple smaller companies ≠ nationalizing them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html

"Unlike Obamacare, emerging plans would sweep away theprivate health insurance system. What would that mean for the companies’ workers, the stock market and the cost of care?"

nationalised healthcare

Every other advanced nation has a single-payer or some other publicly-funded universal health insurance system. They haven't abolished private health insurance altogether. It will be no different here. And a service provided by the government does not socialism make, unless you want to argue public roads, emergency services, police & national defense, etc., are "socialism."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/05/17/bernie-sanders-ban-forprofit-charter-schools/3709607002/

"Sen. Bernie Sanders will call for a federal ban on building for-profit charter schools in a major education policy address to be delivered Saturday in South Carolina, a senior campaign official for the 2020 presidential contender tells USA TODAY."

there are also suggestions for banning private education

Charter schools (which are a very new thing in the U.S.) operate privately and independently of the public school system and in some cases operate on a for-profit basis, but unlike traditional private schools they are largely publicly funded. If they are receiving taxpayer dollars, then it is a legitimate thing to ask if for-profit charter schools (the specific target of Sanders' objections) or even the charter school system itself should be abolished.

Abolition of all private education is an idea that is not mainstream within the Democratic Party, though it is an idea that dates back well over a century and has been a topic of discussion in some circles. Public schools have existed in America since the Colonial Era, though private schools as we know them were a product of the 19th century and were largely a response by Catholics to perceived Protestant domination of public school systems.

And it's worth pointing out: public schools are not socialism.

and there's a lot more that I've probably forgotten or overlooked, many of the major things they are campaigning on are rooted in socialism... I'm getting flashbacks of the denials that nazi germany was socialist right now

Nazi Germany operated on a war economy during WW2, but their overall economic system was the same mixed economy practiced by essentially every non-Communist nation contemporaneous to them. Private for-profit industries were not only allowed, but they thrived under Hitler's regime. The Nazis violently persecuted socialists, communists, and other leftists, and Hitler and his cronies thought "Bolshevism" was a Jewish plot.

obviously if everything must be made equal(the core ideology driving the left) then there must be centralised control to achieve that

Nobody outside of a small fringe thinks everybody ought to have exactly equal economic outcomes. It's certainly not something advocated by the Democrats. Saying "we ought to reduce income inequality" and "level the playing" field doesn't mean "everybody's income should be 100% the same."

Responses in bold.

It seems like you're operating on the common right-wing assumption that socialism is defined as "anything the government does." Conservative talking heads have been feeding this steady stream of garbage to the American public for decades now. But it was hogwash then and it's hogwash now. It is defined by public ownership of the means of production. Not regulation, not taxes, not government services. Public ownership through nationalizing private industry or direct ownership by the workers and/or consumers (e.g., cooperatives, worker-owned factories). Last I checked, the likes of Sanders and AOC weren't arguing that Walmart, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon Mobil, Ford Motors, etc., etc., ought to be nationalized or forcibly converted into some kind of worker-owned co-op. The idea that they are "socialists," much less "Marxists" or "communists," cannot be taken seriously. And most of the rest of the Democrats arguably don't even qualify as center-left, much less far-left.

I especially find it funny when even major multi-billion dollar corporations get slapped with cliche Red Scare slanders. CNN has often been referred to as the "Communist News Network," as though we're expected to believe that Time Warner is actually some sort of Leninist front. I guess the ghosts of Leon Trotsky and Enver Hoxha sit on the board of directors at Comcast (MSNBC's parent company).

The red-baiting from the right long ago reached the point of self-parody.