"Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/
By how many buzzwords is DSA going to define "democracy?" What's wrong with the following descriptive definitions of the United States of America?
“A Republic”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary [OED], “is a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.”
“A Democracy,” according to the same source, “is a political system that allows the citizens to participate in political decision-making, or to elect representatives to government bodies.”
These definitions fly in the face of whatever DSA believes is the definition of "Democracy." We do not pick and choose definitions of words on the whim of political divide. And since we are a "republic" by the definition of the word, that means we have a President, elected by the people, not by Congress, just as the definition demands. That DSA disagrees with this definition is entirely their choice of belief. We should not redefine a "Republic," nor a "Democracy," at the whim of political disagreement. That is called something else: chaos; the very word used by DSA in Part 5's first sentence. Do they now like this word, or is it a conundrum to them by lacking a choice? Choice is maintained as a touchstone of communism. Is it? If you believe it, I have a tropical island to sell you. Does that have relevance as a singular ±1.5º C fluctuating climate demanded by the DSA communists?
Please share how an economic drain, a.k.a. DSA Green New Deal, is a service to the public "to spend on public goods and infrastructure." The G.N.D. is a transfer of wealth, not a dedicated creation of wealth, such as our current free market economy is. The DSA platform is not a creator of wealth, but is a wealth drain. This is what GND - not always known as that, particularly in the realm of climate crisis names, let alone the "science." We've had "climate change," [1956] "global warming," [1988] back to "climate change" [2002], not to mention "Green New Deal" [2007]. The science and names have been chameleonic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change Consider, for example, that in 200 years of "climate science" [yes, it is that old, but compared to physics, or astronomy, it is a child] no one, as yet, has resolved lower Mississippi flooding, Midwest tornadoes, or fires in the San Gabriel Mountains of Los Angeles, such as Brentwood in 1961, when my family lost our home in a wildfire, and Pacific Palisades, next door to the West - last summer, and several others in between. So, yes, I am a personal victim of the failure of GND, and its previous names. My father took not one dime of government hand-out. It wasn't offered. FEMA did not exist for another 19 years. He was insured, however, but that payout was a pulling-teeth venture, even though "fire insurance" was one of the policy riders.
But let's reduce "Economic Democracy" to its basic terms. I have already offered my own economic basics: Ambition, Planning, Execution. Economy is a process. We perform processes with excellence and with ignorance.
Ambition must start the process, and no one can embrace that attribute but by their own initiative. That's what ambition is: a personal attribute. It cannot succeed by groupthink. We think a team succeeds as a team. Yes, but behind that team are its individual players, each of whom, for personal success, must have sufficient personal ambition to succeed personally. Ambition cannot be an entitlement; it must be driven from within each heart and mind with individual effort.
Planning is simply goal-setting and critical path definition, with periodic review of where we each are currently, and what must be done, individually, to participate in the plan's success.
Execution is simply working the plan, achieving the individual interim goals each has committed to achieving on time and within budget. All interim goals achieved, the plan succeeds, and the result is economic personal growth, contributing to the corporation's total success. Every contributor knows what their individual contribution meant to themselves and the corporation.
That is ownership at an individual level.
Ownership of most of the current public corporations is already "established public ownership." When we have individually applied "ambition, planning, execution," we have educated ourselves sufficiently to participate in the stock market, in bonds, in precious metals, in a variety of investments that allow us personal ownership that communism does not know how to initiate, operate, or ameliorate a less-profitable condition. This is why communism must use other people's money; they do not know how to generate it for themselves.
This explains precisely why communism has never succeeded for even a continuous century anywhere in the world, any time in the world. Ever. A major problem has always been its failures in nomenclature, alone, regardless of what is meant, with and without dictionaries.
One has to ask: Why is DSA so shy to be ambitious, plan, and execute their own personal wealth, in favor of excessively taxing only the wealthy at aggressive rates compared to less performing members of society? DSA wants equity, but shies from equality. There is a difference.