DEMOCRAT Socialism?

These nations include explicit references to socialism in their constitutions without adhering to strict Marxism-Leninism. These constitutional socialist states include Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Nicaragua, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Algeria, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Eritrea, and North Korea.  For example, India's preamble defines it as a "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic," while Tanzania describes itself as a socialist state adhering to multi-party demo.

I guess you are preferring a country run by rich stupid people.

Conservatives always say there's no successful socialist states. Actually, there's no successful purely capitalist states. Its not like every other country than the usa is unsuccessful... there's lots of them that are. Every major country has varying degrees of social safety nit's, not so much either or socialist or not socialist. In fact, most other countries have more socialism than we do but there's plenty who are successful. The usa is an outlier in how prosperous we are but that just as much to do with our resources and our laws and fortune during wwii. In fact, looking at tax burden the usa spends about the same as other countries if you count our defense and private Healthcare spending that every other country spends through taxes. And moreso if you count things like childcare and other social welfare that our private sector spends that elsewhere is taxes, we spend way more than others overall. Thats why its so expensive here in the usa. The bottomline is that we might have a biggest military but we still spend way more and there's other countries who are successful and there's no capitalist laissez faire who are successful. We also have a huge debt meaning we borrowed hugely from the future to create much of what we have

Yep, people are as people do as people have always done.

So call a pie a tart and serve them up with either a blue or red serviette.

Conservatives often argue that there are no successful socialist countries. But by the same logic, there are also no successful purely capitalist countries. Virtually every prosperous nation operates with some mix of markets and government programs rather than adhering to either extreme.

It's not as though every country outside the United States has failed. There are many successful countries, and most of them have stronger social safety nets than the U.S. The debate is rarely about capitalism versus socialism in a pure sense; it's about where to draw the line between the two.

The United States is exceptionally prosperous, but that isn't solely because we have less government involvement. Our wealth is also the result of abundant natural resources, strong institutions and laws, favorable geography, and historical advantages, including emerging from World War II in a uniquely strong economic position while many competitors were devastated.

It's also worth noting that comparisons based only on taxes can be misleading. Once you include what Americans spend privately on healthcare, along with defense spending and other costs that many countries fund through taxes, the overall burden looks much closer to that of other developed nations. If you also include private spending on things like childcare and other services that are publicly funded elsewhere, Americans may actually spend more overall. That's one reason living in the U.S. is so expensive.

The bottom line is that while the United States has the world's largest military, we also spend substantially more overall than many other successful countries. At the same time, there are no modern examples of highly successful laissez-faire capitalist economies. Finally, it's important to remember that much of America's prosperity has also been financed through enormous government borrowing. Our national debt means we have, in many respects, borrowed from the future to help create the standard of living we enjoy today

What makes you think the way we designed our economic system is better than every other developed country? Please read my last post to educate yourself before responding

Run by rich, strupid Democreats, yeah. The curreent president is not a socialist, just rich. Can't stand it, can you? Gotr a problem againstg personal wealth? Something socialism doesn't know how to make fr itself?

Perhaps you could tell is what policies or proposals you are actually against? Cause you’re jumbling like 3 different conceptions of socialism here, making absolutely no sense.

Faux is an old style ex-European white supremacist who thinks that women belong in the kitchen...Rather similar values to DT...Which is fair enough, for they are men of a similar age, raised at a similar time in an ex-European white supremacist America...They share the same conditioned values and expectancies...And both see personal financial and social success as a life priority...And both see the less successful or unsuccessful as architects of their own fate, rather than victims of circumstance and certainly not the responsibility of prosperous America....As for foreigners and especially foreigners of swarthy and swarthier appearance, such are never to be trusted or encouraged...As such, Faux makes perfect sense.

I suppose every baby on the planet is a white supremacist for wanting a mother at the home.

Hi Shoresy.

Hmmmm, well, that I suppose was allegorical.

But yes, mother and child and hunter gatherer instincts still persist but have long since been conceptually modified, almost out of recognition.

Supremacism is perhaps the necessity of survival and the dominant gene.

Maybe the one-drop rule can save the kids of the world.

Maybe homogenisation will be the saviour of mankind.

Though one wonders how much time is left to do so before a total AI takeover.

I'm thinking not enough.

Perhaps it's too late, and doesn't matter anyway.

I'm guessing it was a similar scenario in previous universes.

That's assuming multi-ethic primates were dominant of course.

And asteroid hits were not as catastrophic.

women belong in the kitchen

Just shows you know little about me. As it happens, I think kitchens ought to be occupied by both men and women. Whast makes men so afraid of that room. Freanly, I think most men have issues with bedrooms, too.

I oppose Socialism/Communism in two respects: I recognize they are separate philosophies with respect to government ownership of busness enterprises, and with respect to religion. Socialism does not oinsist all business enterprise be owned by government, but a slippery on the distinctioon. Commuinism insists all buisness enterprise be owned and operated by government. No current, significant nation in the world aligns with this communist issue, not even the PRC.

Vis-a-vis religion, thought both believe "religion is the opiate of the people," socialismm is generally, for now, williong to allow reeligion to have a place in society. Communism is bending to that allowance, but neither are really happy about it, because the concerpty of God takes power from both philosophies.

I'm very much a cook and kitchen man, much to my wife's approval.

And perhaps we need to distinguish the multi-functionality of the other place, and refer to it as the sleep or sex room...Wherein the bed is simply a piece of furniture that comfortably facilitates such multitasking.

I oppose Socialism/Communism in two respects: I recognize they are separate philosophies with respect to government ownership of busness enterprises, and with respect to religion. Socialism does not oinsist all business enterprise be owned by government, but a slippery on the distinctioon. Commuinism insists all buisness enterprise be owned and operated by government.

Ok great, now what does this have to do with what the Democratic Party is selling?

Yeah, I suspect that's why beds grew larger as time and experience proceeded

The Democratic Party is selling social and economic equality to all.