New York Wakes Up Under Socialism after Mamdani Sworn In

The proper term is "democratic socialism." That's a free, not a command economy, and a democratic rather than an authoritarian government. BUT, resources are pooled for the common good and taxation supports social welfare programs.

The reason why that definition is fuzzy is because it's a matter of degree. If you want to visualize a sliding scale between an absolute laissez-faire capitalist and a true socialist socioeconomic system, social democracy is somewhere along that scale, and how close it is to one side or the other depends on the policies of the nation practicing it. If you assign "0" to laissez-faire capitalism and "100" to command-economy socialism, we're at about 40. Western Europe is in the 50 (France) to 70 (Sweden) range. Cuba is about 75. Soviet Russia was never on the scale at all. China was about 90 but is now more like 50.

It does devolve into semantics after a while and is made murkier by the fact that Ronny Raygun's "Evil Empire" called itself socialist when it was never anything of the kind. MAGA/Republican fanatics lack the intellect to understand that and thus bleat like stupid Tom: Socialism! SOCIALISM! SOOOOOOCIALISM!!!!

Often, not always, when people talk about Democratic Socialism what they describe is not something I would label socialism. It sounds more to me like what I would call "well regulated capitalism."

If it lacks a demand economy and has property rights I have a real hard time labeling it socialist. 

Could I asked you to elaborate a bit on "resources are pulled for the good of the people"? How are those resources pulled? Who decides what is the good of the people? 

When you say "democratic government" do you refer to democratically elected legislatures (ie a republic) or do you refer to direct democracy as in the people are voting for or against all legislation? 

Resources are POOLED. That's basically a redistributive economy but also refers to government ownership of land that contains said resources, such as national forests, BLM land, and facilities such as Hoover Dam/Lake Mead and Army Corps of Engineers former projects. In a capitalist economy, those lands and resources would be privatized (and to a virtual certainty, exploited, polluted, and irrevocably fucked up). 

The people decide democratically, either through elected representatives or by direct vote, what resources are used, to whose benefit they are allocated, and how taxation is structured. In a purely socialist society, the government decides such things and the people are rarely even consulted.

Taxation under democratic socialism is progressive, meaning that the level of taxation increases according to personal wealth and income. The resultant revenues support publicly owned infrastructure and social welfare programs. It's not as high or as thorough as taxation under socialism. Under capitalism, the government taxes only enough to keep itself running and owns few assets.

I refer to "democratic" in both senses of the term: direct and representative democracy. Parenthetically, we have a republic rather than a "pure" democracy due to the difficulty of polling the public 250 years ago. That difficulty does not exist any longer and thus, we should have MUCH more direct polling and participation in everything the federal government does. For instance, we don't declare war unless a majority of the public, via direct internet polling, approves it. Any policy that affects all the people, such as tariffs, is likewise dependent on public approval.

In fact, my ideal government would be where representatives provide clerical and administrative functions only and every important issue is decided by direct public vote. It would be very easy, using today's technology.

Example of Socialism.....Mamdani giving money to single moms to pay for daycare

Example of Not-Socialism.....Trump giving money to soybean farmers to pay for nobody buying their crops.

I've never gotten an answer from our MAGA fucktards when I've asked them to tell us what's wrong with SOOOOOOCIALISM.

I expect that some people might be butt-hurt that their tax dollars are going to pay for someone else's daycare expenses. They lack the insight to perceive that such policies help them as well. Lower unemployment, for instance.

Kevin, if I understand you correctly you are saying that resources such as lumber, minerals, and oil as well as infrastructure such as power plants belong to the people and are held in trust by the government with the people deciding how those resources are allocated? What about land? Is there any private ownership of land? Private ownership of housing? Private ownership of vehicles? 

May I still open a widget factory? Does that widget factory belong to me or the people? Do I decide how many widgets to produce or does the people? Do I need to get approval of the people before I open the widget factory?

On another note would you be open to capitalist style private ownership of land and some resources with proper regulation and a strong system of checks and balances to avoid many of the negative consequences that can often be associated therewith? 

Yes, resources belong to the people, collectively, and are held in trust by the government. That does NOT preclude private ownership...of anything. But the government does have the power of eminent domain, in instances where public ownership of erstwhile private land/resources would be highly beneficial. That power is rarely used, though. Usually to clear a path for transportation infrastructure.

In a social democracy, you may purchase and own land and build a widget factory on it or whatever your heart desires, subject to regulations such as environmental laws. You're allowed to produce and sell whatever you want and charge whatever price you deem appropriate--again, subject to regulations.

There certainly should still be such a thing as private ownership of land and resources. A social democracy in no way prohibits that. What it DOES do is make sure that such ownership and the way the land of resources are used is not detrimental to the people. If eminent domain is employed, the owner must be fairly compensated.

All this varies by degree according to where a society is on the sliding scale I mentioned earlier. Rarely have we ever seen a completely laissez-faire or a completely authoritarian society, whatever the underlying ideology. For example, the Soviet government allowed people to privately own one acre of land, even if they lived on a collective farm. The American government, a rip-roaring laissez-faire capitalist framework in the 19th century, still created the National Park and National Forest systems. Yanking private ownership of proposed park lands right out from under owners' feet, by the way. 

Yeah I think that generally sounds pretty reasonable. I think you and I are probably pretty close on a lot of things there. I suspect we would have a few disagreements on some of the regulations and some of the roles of government but could probably reach a pretty reasonable agreement. 

The term "social democracy" for what you describe makes more sense to me than the term "Democratic Socialism". Also it's much more palatable. 

This admittedly may stem from my personal bias and worldview but it's hard to think of "socialism" without thinking of a command economy and  near abolishment of private property ownership.

As far as I'm aware, the terms are interchangeable. I think that people find the word/term "socialism" unpalatable because they mistakenly associate it with THEM COMMIES, who were basically the Devil up until the reign of Ronny Raygun. Certainly, the term twists the panties of our resident MAGAs.

Socialism doesn't necessarily connote a command economy or an abolition of private ownership. It primarily connotes collectivism, which can be employed in varying degrees. The determining factor would refer to utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham: is it better for the collective good for this or that resource to be primarily owned collectively or individually? A true social democracy considers each question about each resource in turn, via the input and desires of the people.

A lot of folks fear that this leads to an abolition of individual rights. While I despise slippery slope arguments, that concern is legitimate. There can be policies such as "grandfathering in" private ownership of land that becomes public. There should also be an accessible court mechanism for individuals to challenge the validity and fairness of collectivist government actions.

It's all kind of messy and definitely a work in progress, but so has every government been since Thog ruled his cave by bashing anyone who got out of line over the head with his club.

Socialism at work.  The special people get all the benefits, while everyone else suffers.

At the 14:56 mark of this video you can see the porta pottys that were available for mamis special invited guests such as Sanders.  Mamis wife had a $1,000 outfit

Meanwhile his other supporters were kept in pens without any food or bathrooms

https://nypost.com/2026/01/01/us-news/mamdani-fans-disappointed-by-disastrous-block-party-inauguration-with-no-food-bathrooms/

While you guys are discussing the theoreticals we will see in real time socialism's failures