The Democrat Party 2017

He is the only Senate member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but there are 70 members in the House who belong to it. Add 30 more and the Democrats will become the party you're looking for.

Sounds like a good idea. Better than sitting duck.

The question, however, is how "progressive" can candidates be before they become unelectable. Sure, there will always be pockets of progressive voters in some districts but if we're looking for a national party with support throughout the country, the left has its work cut out for it. Basically people have been poisoned against the very idea of government leading social change; and vast numbers of people react negatively to the idea of increased taxation. As it is now, various taxes are being cut or eliminated and substantial portions of collected revenue are dumped into "defense" and entitlements leaving little money for new projects.

The left is also challenged by the incredible success the right wing has with its various fear campaigns. The old progressive nostrums about people choosing liberal democratic values as they achieve economic stability is questionable. Look at Turkey, for instance, among many others. Plus the right has painted the global economy as a zero sum game where we seem to have an adversarial aversion to international cooperation and trade.

Socialism's biggest enemy is nationalism and the country is awash with the"America First" mentality. As long as the flaggots chanting "USA!USA!" can continue to fill arenas by playing to peoples' economic fears, racial prejudice, and general sense of envy and betrayal progressive politicians are going to remain an ineffective minority, restricted to their caucus and sidelined in the national dialog. Far from getting a portion of the cake it's very likely the progressives, in a perpetual minority, will receive nothing.

Actually socialism in practice has shown itself to be extremely adaptable to both nationalism and authoritarian governments. Examples abound from the Soviet Empire, the "national socialism" practiced by the Fascist dictators of Germany and Italy in the 1930s & 1940s, to the Peronist dictators who ruined Argentina's once prosperous economy, to the first generation of failed post colonial governments in Africa, and to continuing examples in Cuba and Venezuela. The centralized authority required to enforce socialist systems only rarely sustains democratic rule. Indeed, in view of the very dominant central tendencies, so evident in the historical record, your assertion that nationalism is an enemy of socialism is quite laughable.

The real enemies of socialism are prosperity, economic growth, and the very human thirst for individual freedom

Sheer propaganda.

You are incorrect. . It's very clear in the historical record.

The degree to which power is concentrated in a centralized authority to "enforce" socialism and nationalism is used to unify the people is precisely the degree to which such a form of government departs from socialist ideals. What you're talking about are remnants of "sovietism" and "fascism", both of which were happy to adopt the name "socialism" and both of which fell very far short of the sort of socialism championed by people like Mr. Sanders.

And what you are writing about is some vague ideal of socialism that has never been observed in the real world.

My references were to the facts of human history, not the ideals postulated by abstract thinkers. Communism was conceived as an ideal solution to the imperfections od industrial economies. In practice it proved to be contrary to human nature, requiring ghastly tyranny to enforce its edicts. In the end it degenerated to a corrupt and ineffective bureaucracy that yielded only poverty and authoritarian rule. "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" was the cynical joke of the last decades of the Soviet Union.

The amount of authority enforcement required to keep the US capitalism together is approaching Stalinism. Part of enforcement is never ending demonizing of socialism.

Critics of nearly every political or economic system can be accused of "demonizing" whatever they oppose. Many critics of capitalism here appear to "demonize" it as well. Certainly the socialist regimes of history, from the Soviets to Cuba, Venezuela and even less strident systems in various third world nations have invested a great deal of effort in "demonizing" their capitalist alternatives and predecessors. There are many side effects of both systems, good and bad. However the central tendencies in their histories are very clear - socialism breeds economic stagnation and poverty; while capitalism breeds relative growth and prosperity. More importantly the adverse side effects of capitalism have proven to be far easier to moderate than those of socialism.

No I'm not talking about "some vague ideal of socialism that has never been observed in the real world". I'm talking about a system that has evolved in many of the European democracies.

OK, then you are talking about heavily regulated capitalism with extensive social welfare systems. Europe's GDP growth has typically lagged ours by about 1%/year, and they persist in chronic high unemployment, particularly among the young, even in a demographic situation in which they must import labor from populations they chronically don't assimilate very well. Germany alone does remarkably well, with high exports to other Europeans tried to their common currency, but other European countries, particularly in the South, face deteriorating economic conditions. In any event that's not socialism by any stretch of the imagination.

Stop demonizing social-democracy.

Maybe a distinction needs to be made between "Socialism with a capital S" and "social-ist" — which describes the systems you refer to, and probably began with Bismarck. I think we might need a new term for "heavily regulated capitalism" — which almost sounds oxymoronic.

Social-democracy is the word you're looking for.

Social Democracy is indeed a fairly apt term.

I believe most discussions of these issues involve the very questionable assumption of the existence of a supposedly ideal system of human governance equally adaptable everywhere. I believe a moment's reflection will reveal that to be absurd and contrary to all that we know about life on this planet. Life is competitive, and only the strong survive and reproduce. Cultures, civilizations and systems of governance rise up thrive for a while and then decay and are replaced by others, just as do we in our individual lives. Equilibrium does not occur, either in human history or the workings of nature. The second Law of Thermodynamics has general applicability, even to systems of human governance.

Norway is certainly an example of a very "successful" social democracy. It has a relatively small population; a very pervasive and deep rooted culture, distinct from those even of its Scandinavian neighbors; and huge offshore petroleum deposits which it exploits assiduously to, very prudently, finance its social welfare systems. How "exportable" is that system, and to what extent is it highly dependent on the specific facts present there? I believe this question is too often underestimated and unexamined.

Venezuela is similarly blessed with abundant petroleum resources; more accessible and in vastly greater per capita quantities than those of Norway. Despite this Venezuela is fast descending into poverty, public disorder and chaos under an avowedly Socialist regime.

Norway is not without it's own cultural challenges. I observed this myself during a very pleasant visit to Bergen a few months ago. The cultural tensions involving government efforts to subsidize immigrants are palpable, though most were reluctant to talk about it. How adaptable the Norwegian system proves to under the contemporary remains to be seen.

Life is also a matter of colaboration.

I agree, but, as history makes clear, collaboration works only under fairly narrow and usually transient conditions. Surely you are familiar with the history of Italy.

I do have a sense for Italy's history, by and large. They did succeed in forging their unity, albeit late and leaving a bad taste in Sicily about it (if you believe Lampedusa's Gattopardo).

In biology, colaboration is not transient. Rather it is a stable, permanent feature in life. That's why there are such things as "social species" for instance. There are even colaborations across different species, eg lichens.

Helping one another is part of human nature, just like fighting one another.