"Progressives" Win Big Over Establishment Democrats

[theprestige]

[I“Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist in the world,” she continued.[/I]

I don't know how that statement is controversial. The first proto-capitalist systems came into being in the 16th century. Only a tiny tiny fraction of human history has been since then. There is no doubt that it will be gone one day either. Humans won't exist forever after all. But beyond that, I believe there will be time when capitalism just doesn't make sense anymore.

The essence of capitalism is ownership of the means of production. As long as there's private property, there will be capitalism in one form or another. I suspect that as long as humanity is recognizeable as such, any human system that abolishes capitalism will find that a capitalist black market springs up to fill the void.

I think there will always be people who say, "this is mine, but I will let you use it, provided you share the benefits of its use with me, its owner"; or who say, "this is mine, and as long as you use it to my benefit I will share that benefit with you".

 

[Brainster]

Dude, that wasn't even Obama's job as President.

And if it had been his job, he would be recognized as a miserable failure by the Democrats.

Every president sees his party lose hundreds of positions — it's the price a party holding the White House pays — but no president has come close to Obama. During Obama's eight years in office, the Democrats have lost more House, Senate, state legislative and governors seats than under any other president.

When Obama took office, there were 60 Democratic senators; now there are 46. The number of House seats held by Democrats has shrunk from 257 to 188.

There are now nine fewer Democratic governors than in 2009. Democrats currently hold fewer elected offices nationwide than at any time since the 1920s.

(Article is from 2016, so stats presented are not current).

 

[Dr. Keith]

The essence of capitalism is ownership of the means of production. As long as there's private property, there will be capitalism in one form or another. I suspect that as long as humanity is recognizeable as such, any human system that abolishes capitalism will find that a capitalist black market springs up to fill the void.

I think there will always be people who say, "this is mine, but I will let you use it, provided you share the benefits of its use with me, its owner"; or who say, "this is mine, and as long as you use it to my benefit I will share that benefit with you".

I agree with you and your definitions, but I can imagine systems that would fall under your broad definition of capitalism and yet be called socialism by our current commentariat. Most of Western Europe springs to mind.

 

[acbytesla]

Ocasio-Ortez's main campaign bullet item is an end to capitalism. The future of the Democrat Party, so they say...

This is nonsense.

 

[lobosrul5]

The essence of capitalism is ownership of the means of production. As long as there's private property, there will be capitalism in one form or another. I suspect that as long as humanity is recognizeable as such, any human system that abolishes capitalism will find that a capitalist black market springs up to fill the void.

I think there will always be people who say, "this is mine, but I will let you use it, provided you share the benefits of its use with me, its owner"; or who say, "this is mine, and as long as you use it to my benefit I will share that benefit with you".

Your definition of capitalism is only partial. There needs to be well, capital, and capitalists for capitalism to be truly present. There was certainly private ownership before capitalism, ie the feudal manorial system. There was, apparently, a thriving black market in Soviet Russia, but they were not a capitalist system.

 

[acbytesla]

Dude, that wasn't even Obama's job as President.

The DNC has a whole executive team whose entire job is literally "get the most Democrats elected". Barack Obama is not on that team, and never has been.

Obama's current job, as I understand it, is to create content for Netflix. Getting Democrats elected is no more his job than it is yours... Speaking of which, you should probably up your game and not keep expecting Obama to carry you.

Then you don't know what you're talking about. Obama as President is the leader of the Democratic party. As President, he appoints the head of the DNC and they in turn work to get the most Democrats elected.

When I say that his job is to help the Democrats win the House and or Senate, I'm merely repeating what his publicly stated goals are.

Here, read this article.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/30/obamas-disappearance-is-a-myth/

 

[lobosrul5]

Then you don't know what you're talking about. Obama as President is the leader of the Democratic party. As President, he appoints the head of the DNC and they in turn work to get the most Democrats elected.

When I say that his job is to help the Democrats win the House and or Senate, I'm merely repeating what his publicly stated goals are.

Here, read this article.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/30/obamas-disappearance-is-a-myth/

Well, hes now an ex-president. Its not his job per se, it might be his mission in life, or his profoundly held duty though. He was a popular president and I can't see him not helping. If nothing else he might get more young people to vote.

 

[theprestige]

Then you don't know what you're talking about. Obama as President is the leader of the Democratic party. As President, he appoints the head of the DNC and they in turn work to get the most Democrats elected.

When I say that his job is to help the Democrats win the House and or Senate, I'm merely repeating what his publicly stated goals are.

Here, read this article.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/30/obamas-disappearance-is-a-myth/

Wrong. The head of the DNC is elected by the committee members themselves.

If anyone is the leader of the party, it's Tom Perez.

Obama states the same goal you have stated. Getting the most Democrats elected is just as much your job as his.