Democrats need to fight for the individual and fight claims of socialism.

Democrats have been labialed to often as socialist and anti cpitalist when most of them are people who favor the indvidual person with a soul not big corporation with no soul and that must be something they need to stress and snatch the republicans false claim they stnad for the liberties of the indvidual something their stance on abortion,tort reform,perscrption drug polices along with pot laws, and fighting for big corporations and bigger government clearly points out their hypocrasy. Democrats should be focused on promoting the indvidual with a soul.

We are all to dependent on corporations as well as government for food medicen and other needs. My Uncle and Aunt have a vetigatble garden,a herb garden and flower garden they also do almost all of their repairs as is the case with my neighboors next door they put in their own hardwood floor useing wood they collected I think from some of their land their owned not bought. Something I think everyone should be doing or having done my mother does the repairs in our house.

Use to people was self serficent they grew their food,medicen did their repairs and saved tons of money. I don't think we should abolish corporation we do need them but I think people could be alot more self dependable and not rely on government or corporations for their basic needs. And besides we should give more people the oppertunity to franchise own stock and have a piece of the pie.

The larger the population gets the more we depend on technology to sustain us. The most complicated technology gets, the more it requires specialisation. There is no such thing as a renissance man like Thomas Jefferson who is able to absorb and catalog most of the science available today. There is simply too much. Society requires this specialisation and makes self sufficiency more and more impossible. There is a finite amount of water. There is a finite amount of land. Systems theory tells us there is no such thing as a "self-suffcient" being. Dependency is the nature of the universe. A butterfly flaps its wings in Hong Kong and your organic crop suffers through a drought in northern California.

Every religion in the world also demands that we take care of those who can't take care of themselves. The disabled, the veterns, the mentally ill, the psychologically damaged, over 80% of the people on this planet are "self-sufficient" living as subsistance farmers - only by the grace of God are we not living in the same conditions.

The cult of the individual is one of the causes of our problems not a solution. It is the cult of the individual which directs our society's ideology and it is destroying freedom. This awe of the individual is deeply connected to the level of greed and lack of ethics in our society.

We are not dependant on corporations or governments they are dependant on us. Rather, they are dependant on our acquiesance.

I agree that people should be more self sufficient. People should be skilled in a variety of fields and not be constrained to the idiocy (in the sense of having a narrow perspective; not seeing the forest for the trees) of modern life that is enforced by specialization. But the cult of the individual will not bring this about. Only a full changing of social relations will bring this about and that is a task which requires collective action.

most individuals are not the problem after all individuals make up the democratic party and other well meaning organizations. I think peole can value individual liberty and respect the rights of others Iam not making the claim that people should be allowed to do what they want when they want with out regard to other people propertiy or life. We can root for the individual while making sure everyone had the basic needs of life shelter,food,water,clothing, medical and dental care, I mean we don't need to take everything and divide it among us. Just make sure people have what they need and aa chance to have what they want.

You are dependent on corporations or government if you

1.Have no other source for food and water meaning if you don't have a garden and well to draw water from or lake,river,or pond.

2.You are not independatly wealthy or self employed and depend upon a corporate or government pay check to pay the house payment or rent.

3. You collect a welfare check or food stamps. (nothing wrong or bad about it)


I agree Corporations and Government needs us to work for them in order to function but most people are more dependent on corporations and government than the other way around. I would like to seemore people bartering and trading something we do a lot of in my neighboorhood. and selling and buying at flea markets like they did one and two thousands years ago and more options for people to own stock and franchice.

And don't we all would like to say I do not depend apon any business or governmet agency or person exepct me and me alone to survive.

The native american did it the caveman also did the austrialian natives did it and the pioners did it or pretty much did it on their own with little help from companies or governmet.

Based on strawman assertions ....

The Democratic Party does NOT promote 'socialism', .... but ANY program that 'assists' an individual to become educated, to help feed his hungry kids, to offer him basic medical care, or to help provide for his later years, ALL organized in the public sphere through legitimate legislation executed per Constitutional mandate.. is LABELLED 'socialism' by the haughty right wingers of the world .....

WHY fight against the insinuations of these false labels when we should INSTEAD fight against the LIARS who perpetuate these red herrings ? ...

Like Don Quixote, jousting with windmills .....

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

The Repubs have labeled the dems as socialists since FDR. The fact is, the modern Republican Party favors reverse socialism, and the rule of corporatism at the behest of the government. By their design, the government will willingly grant control of its resources to corporations (corporate welfare, etc), and manipulate it. I am not anti-business. I think the problem is that when you place corporations higher than individuals, and treat corporations as persecuted victims for simply being forcing to play by the rules, we have things like Enron. Capitalism works, but it was never meant to be about the law of the jungle, but rather consumers and businesses play their part for the common economic and social good, with as little government intervention as neccessary (safety net, sound fiscal policy, reasonable trade regulations, safety rules, etc). In other words, instead of a sound fiscal policy in which businesses work in harmony with the public for public and private good, they want to surrender all to the corporate engines. State control of the means of production equals you know what. Now, who're the socialists?

The founding fathers were libertarian, IMO. Our political parties evolved from classic liberalism/libertarianism/individualism because it didn't work. We needed a central banking system, a stronger federal government, controls on business, public schools, social safety nets, etc, for the country to not fall apart. Both major political parties have different views on where libertarianism fails, and why and how to "plug the holes", and this is the difference in the parties. JMHO.

sure is an awful lot of spelling errors in this post...almost makes me think F******.

That's why we're the best. Fortunately for our country, we're not so hung up on labels or ideologies - well, except for the loud and self-described uber-capitalists and libertarians. They are a tiny minority.

I think most Americans and most Democrats support free enterprise, and universal health care, and public ownership of our infrastructure. Now if we can only take our airwaves back.

We are a socialistic country. Think: medicare, social security, regulation of industry, education, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, (once)progressive tax code that re-distributes wealth, and on and on and on. A pure free market economy would have NONE of these things.

The debate isn't whether or not the government is a social democratic government. The debate is in how the funds are spent and how the wealth is re-distributed.

Shying away from the "socialist" label is a Limbaugh/Hannity/Rove trick fork. They are the biggest socialists of ALL. vis: Largest federal budget and federal budget deficit in HISTORY. Think! Government spending is socialistic.

Transfer payments are. All of the examples in your post are not spending programs, they are transfer payments. They take wealth from certain groups and transfer the wealth to other groups. Wealth redistribution is socialistic.
Govt. spending is the puchase of goods and services by the govt. for govt. or public use. Examples include military expenditures, public safety, public education, parks, and other infrastructure.
There is no denying that there are alot of transfer payments in the U.S. We already have socialism. The question is how complete is it and who are the beneficiaries. Right now, the programs are really wacked. Social security for example is comprised of wealth transfer from a less wealthy group, working adults, to a more wealthy group, retired adults. Farm subsidies are transfer payments from those same working adults to farmers, a group that often includes corportations. The drug benefit that Bush is pushing for will be a transfer payment system on the order of social security in scope.
Both major parties have some socialistic tendencies. It is fair to say that Democrats are more socialist than Republicans. It is not fair to say that Democrats are socialist and Republicans are not.

all government spending is a form of "wealth distribution" or a "transfer payment" - I pay federal taxes, and own no real estate, so someone owning a lot of real estate, I have to pay to protect his land. Why? Isn't that a form of transfer payment?

I don't have kids, yet I have to pay for schools, I don't have a car, yet I have to pay for highways.

then I am a Socialist.

If Medicare and Medicaid are socialism, then I am a socialist.

If universal public education is socialism, then I am a socialist.

Etc., etc., &c...

Paul Wellstone had a great speech on Am I A Liberal, which I would recommend. I have a clipping at home but no link.