Quantcast
View Post
Shadow1980 said:
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.

"

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


Another company."

under what political system would you place the authoritarian redistribution of resources in this way? beyond that can you quote for me where she has mentioned another business?

"Every other advanced nation has a single-payer or some other publicly-funded universal health insurance system."

which is a completely irrelevant red herring

"And a service provided by the government does not socialism make"

When all of the private options are consolidated into a centrally controlled system then yes, yes it does

I'm curious btw if you're going to jump as far as claiming its only socialism when there is no state

"Abolition of all private education is an idea that is not mainstream within the Democratic Party"

but is gaining traction which was my point

"but their overall economic system was the same mixed economy"

the nazis controlled all of the businesses in germany, they decided how they would operate and only allowed businesses inline with their agenda to survive, that can hardly be considered a mixed economy and especially not a capitalist economy as many dishonest people have claimed

"The Nazis violently persecuted socialists, communists, and other leftists"

what does this say about their policies? I thought we were talking about policy?'

" 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."

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/05/workplace-democracy-policy-bernie-sanders

"Bernie Sanders’s embrace of worker ownership and control aims to extend democracy from the political sphere to the economy."

"As revealed Tuesday by the Washington Post, the Sanders presidential campaign is currently working on two proposals designed to win American workers a greater share of profits and give them a bigger say in company decisions.

While details are forthcoming, the first will involve requiring large businesses to put a portion of their stock into employee-controlled funds, which would in turn pay out dividends to workers — potentially turning them into owners."

what do you think the ultimate goal of the proposals made here is?

"It seems like you're operating on the common right-wing assumption that socialism is defined as "anything the government does.""

I understand your desire to caricature my argument in this way, but I've clarified how you are wrong

"It is defined by public ownership of the means of production."

which is what democrats are calling for in some areas as I've clarified

"much less "Marxists" or "communists"

who exactly are you arguing with? are you doing the thing where someone makes a point you disagree with and so therefore you just lump them in with everyone you disagree with and assume they are saying the exact same thing?

I think you even at one point suggested I'm right wing lol

" CNN has often been referred to as the "Communist News Network"

why do people say that?