People are arguing about what socialism means. Depending on definitions we either already live in a very socialist country or we would have a long ways to go to get anywhere near. That’s part of the issue. “That’s socialist” has become such a buzzword that it means different things to different people.
2 Likes
If you knew what socialism is, you wouldn’t have that problem. You would still have problems, just one fewer.
Interestingly, liberal is another word that has changed meaning thanks to republicans.
I think it’s why the forum exists.
Again to quote Bill Clinton/James Carvell?:
“If you let your opponent define who your are…then you have already lost”
Agreed.
If you look at the economic freedom index, the US and Nordic countries are basically the same.
They emphasis certain social programs more so than we do, but they aren’t socialist or anymore “like” socialist than we already are.
As far as Trump goes, my feelings remain the same; however, I do not see anyone beating him unless something significant happens.
Let me ask you guys a question:
Aren’t these Political Ideologies (if that is the correct term) often on a spectrum?
As someone brought up; the U.S. has “Socialist Tendencies”…but we are not, say, Venezuela? (which someone correctly pointed out has always been poor; saw some advances because of oil; and seems to now be resetting to it’s poor past).
1 Like
That’s what happened. Liberal became a such a dirty word that actual liberals were afraid to use it. An unfortunate side effect is that real liberalism was lost, hence the rise of illiberalism on the left (and yet they are still called liberals).
The so-called liberals are not liberals any more than the so-called conservatives are conservatives.
Venezuela is like the person living in the trailer park who wins the lottery.
It is because you and loppar are getting very hung up on terms. In the USA, it would be almost universal that people would say that the USSR and China’s former policies would qualify as communism. Then you said no they are socialist, which is just as incorrect as saying they are communist. Neither fit the definition of socialist or communist perfectly. Policy can fit on a scale, not just one or the other. I am still correct in saying that Nordic countries have “socialist like” policies, but we have beaten a dead horse back to life going over this.
1 Like
I don’t know at this point how many times I have said different versions of this, but still no progress?
No, what I said is correct.
And, again, how am I the “internet police”?
Just because you say something doesn’t make it true.
I have given you ample info. You can easily go peruse real marxist socialist literature. If you want to go with “but that’s not how we define it here”, then of course I have nothing to say.
Also, I’m not the one who has gone back to debating about the definition of terms.
So, one more time, how am I the “internet police”?
Yes, I have been trying to get this point across. Hasn’t worked.
You are acting like the internet police by enforcing strict definitions of words, when in reality policy falls on a spectrum. If you want to discuss ideas I am all for it. I don’t care to talk anymore about if we classify one country as communist, socialist, social democrat, or free market capitalist. No country fits any of them perfectly, it is a spectrum.
Marxist socialism is an entire political ideology altogether and isn’t seperate from communism. The goal is to set things up in order to achieve a communist society. If the end goal forms the basis of the ideology, then things aren’t “existing on a spectrum” when there’s a “little bit” of socialism here and there. They are simply “in the process” of acquiring the end goal.
Seems like a slippery slope.
How have I “enforced” this? By debating you when I find their usage to be faulty? You didn’t reply with your own opinions telling me I’m wrong?
I would say it’s an impossible question at least in the current context of political discussion. I mean it’s a lot like almost all political terms. What is a fiscal conservative? Are you one if you spend less than a previous administration even if the debt grows? Do you have to slash the debt to qualify? A social conservative? What’s a liberal?
Note I’m not talking about the textbook definitions but more what they mean in terms of our political conversation.
I mean hell what is China? Sure they have a Communist party but they aren’t Communist in the established sense. They have a bunch of the world’s wealthiest people.
Yeah. And the govt should just balance the budget.
Because the GOP didn’t give them a choice? They repeated it enough times the options became owning the muddied moniker they had been tossed or lose even more ground everywhere.
And again, it still worked amazingly. That tactic got the GOP the strongest hold over this country in their history.
Agreed. Green new deal stinks.
I mean your advice isnt real advice. It’s captain hindsight advice.
There really isn’t though. Not in the real world. And on paper nobody has even met the reqs.
It’s everybody’s flavor of capitalism. Always has been. Some countries socialize more and some less, with ranges of control over the people.
Wait. Wot. In the global concerted effort we just talked about of commy=bad, you don’t see how damaging the socialist label is when all you need is the commy=socialist link?
And take a gander at actual election results at the state and local level. Even ignoring their hold over the federal level.
It’s not like I’m talking about something that wasn’t a well thought out plan, that inevitably won them huge areas of control through fear of regulation (because this is America, all regs are socialist and authoritarian and lead to anarchy)
They are? At population manipulation? I’d favor whoever is better at voter manipulation and buracracy control