Pelosi: "We're capitalists, and that's just the way it is."

[Chief Justice Keef]

https://twitter.com/cnn/status/826630451125174273

A college student named Trevor Hill asked Nancy Pelosi if the Democratic Party was willing to move to the left on economic issues to provide more of a contrast to right-wing economics, considering how many young people dislike the system of capitalism. Pelosi responded that "we're capitalists, and that's just the way it is", before addressing the issues behind income inequality. I think she even mentioned Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations as "more compassionate".

Does anyone else have a reaction to this, because i don't think the Democrats are attracting any young voters with this kind of rhetoric.

[Seneca]

This should not be a surprise to anyone. This is why leftists are organizing outside of the electoral system.

[Intell]

lol.

[Santander]

This is the best thing Pelosi has said in a long time.

[Phony Moderate]

I remember the days when people talked about Pelosi in the same breath as Kucinich, Sanders etc.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Um, she's right. The Democratic Party is not Marxist-Leninist. She's also completely right about Adam Smith who did not propose some social Darwinist Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan style system and openly called for things like universal health care and labor unions.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Um, she's right. The Democratic Party is not Marxist-Leninist. She's also completely right about Adam Smith who did not propose some social Darwinist Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan style system and openly called for things like universal health care and labor unions.

But she doesn't even make a gesture towards democratic socialism. And the fact she uses Adam Smith, who was a laissez-faire economist that are every Republican's wet dream, to justify her defense of neoliberalism is a slap in the face to any leftist in the Democratic Party.

She needs to retire, or else I want a primary challenge.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The Democratic Party needs to be a social-democratic party if it wants to succeed.  That's the point he's trying to make.  It's not at all helpful for the Democrats when the ninth wealthiest member of Congress goes out and says, "We're capitalists.  Period."  In many ways the party still hasn't learned anything from the last election and that's why I'm afraid they'll keep trying to appeal to rich suburban "moderates" who have no interest in voting for them anyway.

Not that I have any sway in these things, but I regret backing her for reelection as Leader.  It really should've gone to Ryan.  At least he's genuinely interested in reaching out to people the party's long abandoned.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well in regards to a social democratic party do you seriously think people like Francois Hollande, Tony Blair and Gerard Schroeder were fervent fighters to abolish capitalism?

[IceAgeComing]

Well none of them are really social democrats though; on economic policy there's little to no difference between a Pelosi and a Blair.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Um, she's right. The Democratic Party is not Marxist-Leninist. She's also completely right about Adam Smith who did not propose some social Darwinist Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan style system and openly called for things like universal health care and labor unions.

But she doesn't even make a gesture towards democratic socialism. And the fact she uses Adam Smith, who was a laissez-faire economist that are every Republican's wet dream, to justify her defense of neoliberalism is a slap in the face to any leftist in the Democratic Party.

She needs to retire, or else I want a primary challenge.

LOL. You realize her seat is effectively feudal, right?

[Intell]

Well in regards to a social democratic party do you seriously think people like Francois Hollande, Tony Blair and Gerard Schroeder were fervent fighters to abolish capitalism?

The speaker did not want to abolish capitalism, it is about realising the inherently flaws of capitalism, and using the society, to combat such problems, through a world of socialist or social democratic values, which can include markets, and enterprise.

People like Tony Blair, Francios Hollande, and Gerard Schroder aren't social democratic in any sense of the word though.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Well in regards to a social democratic party do you seriously think people like Francois Hollande, Tony Blair and Gerard Schroeder were fervent fighters to abolish capitalism?

Regardless of their personal faults, at least they headed parties whose members are unanimously in support of things like universal healthcare and the like.  The Democratic Party is just a walking embarrassment.

[RINO Tom]

She didn't defend neoliberalism at all (and has regularly voted against it while in the House, including rallying her caucus to bltchslap Obama in the face RE: TAA/TPA/TPP), she took the absolutely no-brainer position of saying that the Democratic Party didn't endorse socialism.

[Santander]

And can we also acknowledge how stupid the question was? America is failing not because of its income inequality but because it has raised an entire generation of young adults who have no idea how anything works, and are running into the open embrace of tyranny as a result. If you cannot rely on God and you cannot rely on yourself, the only thing left to turn to is government. Socialism requires that government becomes your god.

[Devout Centrist]

Good. Hopefully the Dems never embrace socialism.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Broken clock is broken.

[justfollowingtheelections]

If that's the case, why do they blame the left for Clinton's loss?  Screw them.

[136or142]

Um, she's right. The Democratic Party is not Marxist-Leninist. She's also completely right about Adam Smith who did not propose some social Darwinist Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan style system and openly called for things like universal health care and labor unions.

But she doesn't even make a gesture towards democratic socialism. And the fact she uses Adam Smith, who was a laissez-faire economist that are every Republican's wet dream, to justify her defense of neoliberalism is a slap in the face to any leftist in the Democratic Party.

She needs to retire, or else I want a primary challenge.

Adam Smith was not a laissez-faire economist: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/03/adam-smith-was-not-a-laissezfaire-ideologue.html

[JA]

She's a rich, California yuppie representing a rich, yuppie California district - what do you really expect? Does anyone seriously think those super rich people would embrace Socialism in any form? I mean, Democrats have a higher net worth than Republicans in Congress; the Democratic Party (and Republican) is the 1%.

Co-opting some Socialist rhetoric helps them win elections, but their ideology - to the extent they actually have one - doesn't remotely resemble anything Socialistic. Just look at who heads the Obama Foundation (hint: almost all are rich, corporate types) and who leads the party in Congress (a California millionaire and a New York millionaire with close ties to Wall Street). There's a good reason that, despite running within the party, Sanders has remained an Independent Senator; he may represent a large percentage, perhaps even the majority, of the party's base's views, but he doesn't represent the party itself, nor does he fit into it.

The Democratic Party is and will continue to be a a very capitalistic, neoliberal party. Any resemblance to Socialism will be for practical, political purposes that'll quickly be shed once they step behind closed doors in Congress. It's possible to change this, but it'd require a total cleaning out of the party. So while I wish it'd be more Social Democratic, at least Pelosi was honest with her answer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Um, she's right. The Democratic Party is not Marxist-Leninist. She's also completely right about Adam Smith who did not propose some social Darwinist Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan style system and openly called for things like universal health care and labor unions.

But she doesn't even make a gesture towards democratic socialism. And the fact she uses Adam Smith, who was a laissez-faire economist that are every Republican's wet dream, to justify her defense of neoliberalism is a slap in the face to any leftist in the Democratic Party.

She needs to retire, or else I want a primary challenge.

Adam Smith was not a laissez-faire economist: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/03/adam-smith-was-not-a-laissezfaire-ideologue.html

As someone who has had either the fortune of misfortune (if so it was entirely self-inflicted since it was of my own volition) of having read Wealth of Nations cover to cover, I can say I agree with this point. Adam Smith left the door open at several points for policies and organizations that would be considered in opposition to laissez-faire economics generally. Remember that a good bit of what became known as the Classical School of economics was largely driven by people to latched onto aspects of Smith's proposals and lines like the invisible hand, which was interpreted a certain way to benefit their points, were likewise applied. This was passed along through neoclassical and ultimately neoliberal economics. However, it is a mistake to pigeonhole Smith as defined in this fashion as opposed to closely reading and studying his work and trying to ascertain what he actually advocated for.

[Devout Centrist]

This is the best thing Pelosi has said in a long time.

So lying is a good thing?

Lol

[136or142]

Um, she's right. The Democratic Party is not Marxist-Leninist. She's also completely right about Adam Smith who did not propose some social Darwinist Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan style system and openly called for things like universal health care and labor unions.

But she doesn't even make a gesture towards democratic socialism. And the fact she uses Adam Smith, who was a laissez-faire economist that are every Republican's wet dream, to justify her defense of neoliberalism is a slap in the face to any leftist in the Democratic Party.

She needs to retire, or else I want a primary challenge.

Adam Smith was not a laissez-faire economist: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/03/adam-smith-was-not-a-laissezfaire-ideologue.html

As someone who has had either the fortune of misfortune (if so it was entirely self-inflicted since it was of my own volition) of having read Wealth of Nations cover to cover, I can say I agree with this point. Adam Smith left the door open at several points for policies and organizations that would be considered in opposition to laissez-faire economics generally. Remember that a good bit of what became known as the Classical School of economics was largely driven by people to latched onto aspects of Smith's proposals and lines like the invisible hand, which was interpreted a certain way to benefit their points, were likewise applied. This was passed along through neoclassical and ultimately neoliberal economics. However, it is a mistake to pigeonhole Smith as defined in this fashion as opposed to closely reading and studying his work and trying to ascertain what he actually advocated for.

I had volumes one to five of the Wealth of Nations in two books but I couldn't understand the old English.  I gave them to a waiter acquaintance of mine who is a fourth year economics student.

I think all Adam Smith meant by the 'invisible hand' is that producers make investing decisions off of pricing signals and don't need to be told what to invest in by some central bureaucrat.

I recently read Keith Dawson's book on the Industrial Revolution in which he stated that at least as far as that went often times that was the case, but other times, as with James Watt needing more precise parts in order to build his steam engine to his required specifications, he had to prod parts manufacturers.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I love the responses to this just as a reflection of who we are as a political system. The left is distressed if she's telling the truth, the right is distressed that she isn't telling the truth in the first place.

[RogueBeaver]

This is the best thing Pelosi has said in a long time.