In Response to @elleceee: She blocked me, by the way...
First, she agreed that Capitalism has worked. Then she conflicted her agreement by saying that it only worked for a few. So which is it?
As for why we stopped going to the moon, she said that the rich were taxed appropriately at the time to just go to the moon. Taxes were high across the board from the Eisenhower administration post World War II and the Korean Conflict, with Vietnam kicking off along with the Cuban Missile Crisis. She was singling out taxation when in fact it was a disinterest by the American public focused on more Terrestrial matters such as the Cold War and Civil Rights. More importantly, the near catastrophic loss of Apollo 13 was the final nail in the effort to keep space exploration relevant while the Soviet Union (Socialism) was creating weapons of war and threatening the United States.
I, however, am not her friend. I don’t know her. Taxation is good to a point, but wasting tax dollars and frivolous spending without any requirement of personal responsibility of the recipients is not. Democratic Socialism is absolutely NOT good for the majority of people. Well over 65 million people have died from Socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22
Democratic Socialism, again by very name, definition, and philosophy, is in fact SOCIALISM! Have any of you never read Karl Marx or Fredrich Nietzsche? I have.
Here’s the latest from Maxists in their draft of employing Democratic Socialism in the world:
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/rcp-gay.htm
Under socialism people will not be stigmatized because they are homosexuals or because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination will not be tolerated, and the repression and violence against homosexuals that has been so prevalent in capitalist society will be firmly opposed and dealt with.
This sounds nice, doesn’t it? Democratic Socialists believe that discrimination will not be tolerated. Then why are you attacking my identity?
At the same time, it is important to grasp that same sex relations do not escape and do not exist outside of the prevailing family and sexual relations and the corresponding ideology of male supremacy that oppress women in this society. In many ways the outlook that characterizes male gay culture in bourgeois society is not a departure from–and in fact there are elements in which it is a concentration of–male right. Lesbianism is in many ways a response to the oppression of women in class society, but in and of itself it is not a fundamental solution to this oppression.
According to Democratic Socialism, gay males are not actually gay and their gayness is an expression of their supreme masculinity to oppress women in society. That gay culture is not a departure from male oppression of women, forcing women to be lesbian. By removing (read: purging) gays and lesbians, one provides a fundamental solution to this oppression.
Wow. They said, very clearly, that Socialism intends to eliminate gays and lesbians in order to eliminate oppression of women. That’s Socialism, in the Socialist’s own words. The only difference between a Communist and a Democratic Socialist is that the Communist uses a gun and a Democratic Socialist uses a pen. Since a pen is mightier than a sword, that puts it smack between a gun and a sword that they clearly intend to use as a weapon.
The outlook that one partner in an intimate relationship must be devalued, dominated, abused, or owned is a reflection of the oppression of women in society; and forms of male right, in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, will be targets of criticism and transformation. (From the appendix “The Proletarian Revolution and the Emancipation of Women,” p. 106)
This position in our new Draft Programme is a departure from our past position. While our party has always been firmly opposed to the discrimination and attacks leveled against homosexuals and we welcomed and encouraged the participation of homosexuals in the revolutionary struggle, we did hold the position that both male and female homosexuality amounted to a conscious ideological statement and that male homosexuality in particular, in and of itself, represented a concentrated expression of misogyny and was something which therefore stood as an obstacle to the emancipation of women and in general to the socialist transformation of society. And our view was that lesbianism, while an understandable response to the oppression and subjugation of women, was, at best, an expression of political reformism and ultimately ideological accommodation to the prevailing oppressive relations. Accordingly, while we were clear that in socialist society there should not be discrimination against homosexuals nor should there be attempts to use legal means and in general the power of the state to coerce people to no longer be involved in homosexual relationships, we did see it as a political and ideological objective of the socialist revolution to transform people’s outlook and practice such that homosexuality would ultimately cease to exist (in effect, would “wither away”) in socialist society, though we did not preclude its reemergence under communism.
Let’s unpack this little nugget of Socialism, m’kay?
The Socialists are saying here that “The Program” defines:
Homosexuality is a conscious choice and abnormal.
Homosexuality is caused by men’s misogynist intent to oppress women.
Lesbianism is only a conscious choice in rebelling against male oppression.
Lesbianism is an ideological accommodation that must be ended to fully emancipate women.
By supporting and embracing Homosexuals in the cause, they fully ultimately intend to eliminate the practice of Homosexuality once Socialism has succeeded.
Resolving future reemergence of Homosexuality under Communism is planned for -- Which I think means this...
As a result of our further investigating this question, and as part of that taking a new look at criticisms that have been raised of our past position, we have come to a different understanding. Not only do we continue to be staunchly opposed to discrimination, persecution, and physical assaults on homosexuals, but we also do not see a homosexual orientation or the practice of homosexuality per se as something that constitutes an impediment to the emancipation of women and the abolition of all oppressive and exploitative relations.[3]
This last sentence defines that Socialists don’t see homosexuality as a blocker to emancipating women, because they consider homosexuality an oppressive and exploitative relation, and as such, homosexuality must be abolished.
I’m not making this up. That’s exactly what they’re saying, and it’s in the very words written by Democratic Socialists. Go read the “New Manifesto” [AKA “The New Draft Programme”] all for yourself.
