Can America Swallow Socialism?

When is it just "socialism", and when is it "democratic socialism"? According to this site, which was the first one found by Google, the "democratic socialism" brand advocates a government based on "democratic processes" (e.g. not necessarily authoritarian, nor even a republic as the United States is currently constituted), and is willing to stop short of government (or, if you prefer, society) owning and controlling all the means of production. The following quote comes from the referenced site:

"Democratic Socialism is the blend of socialist and democratic principles to construct a suitable political [sic] and an economy which favors equality in both aspects."

The DemZis commit to equality, not prosperity, and their references to Norway and Sweden don't consider the effect of the culture in those white European societies with their strong work ethic:

"That the Nordic countries are so successful is due to an exceptional culture that emphasizes social cohesion, hard work, and individual responsibility."

Social cohesion and work ethic aren't limited to white societies, nor guaranteed to exist in a homogeneous society of any race. Contrast the previous quote with this description of the socialist work ethic, also apparently from a white (Eastern) European society (Romania):

"I was contrasting it with the socialist workers' paradise work ethic I saw in my twenty years of life under the communist party regime – 'we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.' "

Which way would the United States end up? It's a massive experiment with the fates of 330 million people at stake. Even if we did move towards DemZi utopia, would we stay there? With the animus encouraged between all the groups the Democrats consider their base, I think it likely that people who believe there is still enormous prejudice would decide that they shouldn't have to work, that the rest of society "owes" them a free ride because of all the alleged bigotry.

A government that can give you everything can also take everything away, including any pride you might have in your work. You can't expect raises, and you might find people who allege that your hard work is causing them low self-esteem. You'll be told to stop working hard. Quality is likely to suffer.

Even worse, if society controls and regulates the business, then the management is comprised of everyone who votes. The ideas of anyone who could actually manage a successful business will be unimportant. And worse yet, what would lead anyone to attempt innovations regarding goods manufactured by government-controlled businesses? If someone tries, they can be easily silenced, to avoid rocking the boat.

Before we risk the entire country, let's see California institute Nordic-style Democratic Socialism. Think of the virtue-signaling opportunities! If they can pull it off, they'll deserve the bragging rights and can show the rest of us how to do the conversion. If they don't, well, at least the rest of the country will be spared.

It needn't be California, of course. All things considered, maybe we should really hedge our bets and encourage Rhode Island to take the plunge. Or New Jersey!

Parting thought: which part(s) of the economy are DemZis willing to let be in private hands?

When is it just "socialism", and when is it "democratic socialism"? According to this site, which was the first one found by Google, the "democratic socialism" brand advocates a government based on "democratic processes" (e.g. not necessarily authoritarian, nor even a republic as the United States is currently constituted), and is willing to stop short of government (or, if you prefer, society) owning and controlling all the means of production. The following quote comes from the referenced site:

"Democratic Socialism is the blend of socialist and democratic principles to construct a suitable political [sic] and an economy which favors equality in both aspects."

The DemZis commit to equality, not prosperity, and their references to Norway and Sweden don't consider the effect of the culture in those white European societies with their strong work ethic:

"That the Nordic countries are so successful is due to an exceptional culture that emphasizes social cohesion, hard work, and individual responsibility."

Social cohesion and work ethic aren't limited to white societies, nor guaranteed to exist in a homogeneous society of any race. Contrast the previous quote with this description of the socialist work ethic, also apparently from a white (Eastern) European society (Romania):

"I was contrasting it with the socialist workers' paradise work ethic I saw in my twenty years of life under the communist party regime – 'we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.' "

Which way would the United States end up? It's a massive experiment with the fates of 330 million people at stake. Even if we did move towards DemZi utopia, would we stay there? With the animus encouraged between all the groups the Democrats consider their base, I think it likely that people who believe there is still enormous prejudice would decide that they shouldn't have to work, that the rest of society "owes" them a free ride because of all the alleged bigotry.

A government that can give you everything can also take everything away, including any pride you might have in your work. You can't expect raises, and you might find people who allege that your hard work is causing them low self-esteem. You'll be told to stop working hard. Quality is likely to suffer.

Even worse, if society controls and regulates the business, then the management is comprised of everyone who votes. The ideas of anyone who could actually manage a successful business will be unimportant. And worse yet, what would lead anyone to attempt innovations regarding goods manufactured by government-controlled businesses? If someone tries, they can be easily silenced, to avoid rocking the boat.

Before we risk the entire country, let's see California institute Nordic-style Democratic Socialism. Think of the virtue-signaling opportunities! If they can pull it off, they'll deserve the bragging rights and can show the rest of us how to do the conversion. If they don't, well, at least the rest of the country will be spared.

It needn't be California, of course. All things considered, maybe we should really hedge our bets and encourage Rhode Island to take the plunge. Or New Jersey!

Parting thought: which part(s) of the economy are DemZis willing to let be in private hands?