Calling It a New Name Won't Make Socialism Work

[OODA_Loop]

Just for the record, are the Nordic countries socialist in your opinion, or no?

What difference in the Nordic countries from the US makes it more conducive to collective governing ?

 

[forkup]

Why not be honest and call it what it is, or don't call it what it's not? Higher taxes and social programs is not socialism.

"Socialism" is just a concept of socializing resources. It can be applied to anything where there's more than one person involved. If you go out to lunch with 9 colleagues and just say "split the check evenly 10 ways" regardless of what was ordered by each person, then that's socialism of the cost of the lunch. To that end, i would agree that people on the right use the term like a boogeyman when it's convenient for them to. They're referring to economic socialism but calling it just "socialism."

At that point, i'd just refer you to the above. I don't trust people who call themselves "democratic socialists" when they say they don't want to socialize America's economy. They rarely have seen regulations they don't like and tend to think that every problem can be solved by taxing people more and creating a government program for it. As said above, that's further government control of the economy. The more powerful and intrusive government gets, the more powerful and intrusive the government will want to get.

The Nordic countries have no homelessness and they are the happiest nations on Earth. Their people are healthy, educated and have a very long average life span. It seems to be working great for them.

Good for them. However, that's all due to culture, not socialism. Their average lifespan has moreso stagnated than lengthened since they embraced a welfare state compared to other countries. And i don't think their food marketplace has become as saturated with sugary processed foods like ours has, but that could possible be attributed to their education as well. Healthier lifestyle = less burden on the healthcare system.

Of course, all that ignores how small and homogeneous their populations are. The advent of such systems to a much larger, diverse and distributed population is a different animal entirely.

We've had a welfare state since pre-World War 1. I'm pretty sure our life expectancy has increased since then. I don't see how a homogeneous population gives a longer life expectancy? Food you do have a point. I've found that fresh fruit and vetch are prohibitively expensive in the US, at least for the lower incomes.Although I imagine it varies from state to state. We also have a very much cheaper healthcare system. The healthcare cost difference can be directly be connected by the for profit health care system you guys have. Not exactly a pro unrestricted Capitalism argument.

Anyone who would defend the U.S. healthcare system at this point is a moron. It's frankenstein's monster when it comes to the fusion of private enterprise and government weaving together to make a complete shit storm. On top of that, America pays for like, 60% of the world's healthcare innovation which helps a lot of other countries afford what they otherwise couldn't. We'd be better off either completely privatizing or completely socializing the system compared to what we have now.

Healthcare is very tricky because it starts off with a unique set of conditions not true in any other market, and that's the fact that people are rendered services before they can consent to them and/or prove they can pay for said services. Add into that how no one would really advocate for letting someone die in the waiting room cause they don't have some cash on them and your starting point is inherently some form of socialized system where some will be paying for others no matter what. That's why when it comes to healthcare, i'm not vehemently opposed to the government being a payor of expenses but i am vehemently opposed to the government being a provider of services.

A point of agreement, go figure. For the record. The government doesn't directly provide health care, what they do do, is strictly regulate prices, health insurance is mandatory, the amount of services, and directly negotiates with pharmaceutical companies for pricing. As for the amount of innovation coming out of the US. The rest of the world doesn't get the fruit of those innovations for free. We pay for our medicine. The difference is that our government takes a direct role in negotiating those prices.

 

[Confounding]

I said "socialism", not "Democratic socialism".

It's right there on the screen. It couldn't be more clear.
.

Lordy. You actually think adding a word redefines it

Yes. You can choose to ignore that, but words do mean things.

Stay as binary as you want. Meanwhile, the word "socialism" is scaring fewer and fewer people, and you're helping.
.

That’s the Lefts wonderful f’d up education system that’s dumbed down an entire generation, not I. Get your facts straight before you start accusing.

My facts are quite straight. Socialism is the government-owned control of production and distribution, and the elimination of private property.

So show us the planks of the Democratic platform that advocate for socialism. I'll start you with one: Single Payer.
.

Every aspect of the Left is a push towards Socialism. Be easier to name one platform that is not pushing in that direction, but I can’t think of even one.

You're conflating socialism with social programs again. Programs that use taxes to help people are not socialism. You're the one abusing these labels, either out of ignorance or a lack of integrity. I think you know damn well that the arguments being made here are true. You'll just refuse to acknowledge them.

 

[Mac1958]

You mention "most socialist nations".

Would you name a few?
.

I thought you which ones they were? Try Google.

I'd like to know what you think socialism is.

You said "most". Just name a few. Four or five. Easy peasy.
.

I already gave you a definition yesterday. A very good one. Try to keep up otherwise I feel no obligation to post replies to the deliberately uninformed.

Okay, I tried.

My point gets proven over and over.
.

What, that you are a repeating parrot? That you ignore posters who give you solid replies? Quite the point you prove over and over.

I asked you to explain your own words. You said "most socialist countries" but won't specify.

I have no idea why you refuse to do that. I guess it's a big secret. Okay.
.

 

[Weatherman2020]

But it’s never been implemented properly before – this time around. I’m sure top people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will succeed where Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, etc. have failed.


SORRY, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS — YOU’RE STILL PUSHING POISON.

I happen to know a little something about the transfer of private industry to government control. My grandmother’s father had his bakery seized in the Soviet city of Gomel. He was sent to a gulag, where he then died.

Oh, that’s crazy, Democratic Socialists would respond. No one is planning to seize bakeries. And no one will be sent to prison for owning a business.

No? What if those who own companies in industries that “necessitate some form of state ownership” don’t want to give them up willingly? What happens when the state runs out of money from the industries seized and needs more?

It’s baffling how we can still be considering centralized control of industries when that has never worked anywhere. And how socialism lovers so easily dismiss the underlying foundation in countries that have veered toward some form of that system: capitalism. Countries such as Norway, for example, are helped by a large abundance of natural resources and an essentially capitalist system supporting the welfare state.

On the other hand, nations where socialism continues to wreak havoc and spur poverty, disease and crime, like Venezuela, don’t have much support from capitalism. Fact is, “socialism” only works when it’s paid for by capitalism.

* * * * * * * *

In the fall of 1959, Nikita Khrushchev gave a series of speeches here. In one, he said, “We are catching up with you in economic progress, and the time is not far distant when we will move into the lead.” In Russia, that prompted folks to joke: “When we finally catch up to America, can I get off?”

The Dems stole "Democrat Socialist" from the Europeans

That figures. I remember the last socialist party that was Democraticly elected in Germany.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What I'm seeing currently is the Right absolutely refusing to see the difference between true socialism and the democratic socialism of many countries, such as Norway, Canada, Australia and Germany.

Or maybe they're incapable of seeing it, I'm not quite sure on that yet.

It's irrelevant, really. We should be explaining the distinction between our Republic verses this newly popularized 'our Democracy' spew.

Matter of fact, let's do that now.

Here we go...


"A Democracy"

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice) for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic.

It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949, indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government.

He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.



Now, then....


A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government.

One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:


"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:


"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39.

But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.


Now, that's just a snip from a great book on the topic, which I happen to have in my files for casual reading once in a while. The American Ideal of 1776 - The Twelve Basic American Principles, by Hamilton A. Long ,1976. It's a good read and per the Author's openin gnotes, ''Intelligent choice--between 1776 Americanism and conflicting Isms (chiefly Socialism in the USA today)--requires primarily thorough knowledge of these Principles.''

 

[saveliberty]

I have no idea why you refuse to do that. I guess it's a big secret. Okay.
.

I did not refuse, I answered in another one of your inane threads yesterday. Getting tired of your repetitive childish threads is what most intelligent adults will do.

 

[Mac1958]

I have no idea why you refuse to do that. I guess it's a big secret. Okay.

I did not refuse, I answered in another one of your inane threads yesterday. Getting tired of your repetitive childish threads is what most intelligent adults will do.

Sure, okay.
.

 

[forkup]

I've seen Obamacare called "socialism".

Clearly the word means nothing at this point.

The Left has trivialized the term "racism", the Right has trivialized the term "socialism".

Great job, folks. Opposite sides of the same goofy coin.
.

You need to brush up on current events.

What I'm seeing currently is the Right absolutely refusing to see the difference between true socialism and the democratic socialism of many countries, such as Norway, Canada, Australia and Germany.

Or maybe they're incapable of seeing it, I'm not quite sure on that yet.
.

No, the problem is that they like the straw man argument better then the actual argument. An argument of the role government can play in the improvement of peoples lives.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

A system that is doomed to failure can have many names, but only one end. Most socialist nations have elections, some even on regular schedule. So what?

You mention "most socialist nations".

Would you name a few?
.

Let’s pick the Lefts favorite, whether it is or not.
Sweden
What do they produce? Don’t say IKEA they escaped.
What is their contribution to the world in the past century?
Why is their suicide rate the highest in the world?

10 world-shaping Swedish companies

None of them impact civilization and the owners do not live in Sweden. Why? Socialism does not let them create.

Obviously proportions don't ring a bell?

Sweden is #2 in the World, and #1 in Europe in the Bloomberg Innovation index for both 2017 & 2018.

 

[ptbw forever]

But it’s never been implemented properly before – this time around. I’m sure top people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will succeed where Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, etc. have failed.


SORRY, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS — YOU’RE STILL PUSHING POISON.

I happen to know a little something about the transfer of private industry to government control. My grandmother’s father had his bakery seized in the Soviet city of Gomel. He was sent to a gulag, where he then died.

Oh, that’s crazy, Democratic Socialists would respond. No one is planning to seize bakeries. And no one will be sent to prison for owning a business.

No? What if those who own companies in industries that “necessitate some form of state ownership” don’t want to give them up willingly? What happens when the state runs out of money from the industries seized and needs more?

It’s baffling how we can still be considering centralized control of industries when that has never worked anywhere. And how socialism lovers so easily dismiss the underlying foundation in countries that have veered toward some form of that system: capitalism. Countries such as Norway, for example, are helped by a large abundance of natural resources and an essentially capitalist system supporting the welfare state.

On the other hand, nations where socialism continues to wreak havoc and spur poverty, disease and crime, like Venezuela, don’t have much support from capitalism. Fact is, “socialism” only works when it’s paid for by capitalism.

* * * * * * * *

In the fall of 1959, Nikita Khrushchev gave a series of speeches here. In one, he said, “We are catching up with you in economic progress, and the time is not far distant when we will move into the lead.” In Russia, that prompted folks to joke: “When we finally catch up to America, can I get off?”

Do you understand the difference between democratic socialism and socialism or do you think they are the same thing?

They are the same thing.

 

[Flash]

Democratic Socialism - voting away your liberty and prosperity.

 

[forkup]

Just for the record, are the Nordic countries socialist in your opinion, or no?

What difference in the Nordic countries from the US makes it more conducive to collective governing ?

A clear understanding that you can have a strong social safety net without becoming Communist. In my experience if you mention social or socialist, most Americans don't see a difference. The entire premise of the OP.

 

[Confounding]

Democratic Socialism - voting away your liberty and prosperity.

Oh look, another bumper sticker conservative.

 

[Mac1958]

I've seen Obamacare called "socialism".

Clearly the word means nothing at this point.

The Left has trivialized the term "racism", the Right has trivialized the term "socialism".

Great job, folks. Opposite sides of the same goofy coin.
.

You need to brush up on current events.

What I'm seeing currently is the Right absolutely refusing to see the difference between true socialism and the democratic socialism of many countries, such as Norway, Canada, Australia and Germany.

Or maybe they're incapable of seeing it, I'm not quite sure on that yet.
.

No, the problem is that they like the straw man argument better then the actual argument. An argument of the role government can play in the improvement of peoples lives.

I dunno. Look at post 151. I think they don't see a difference between Canada and Cuba.
.

 

[ptbw forever]

Lordy. You actually think adding a word redefines it

Yes. You can choose to ignore that, but words do mean things.

Stay as binary as you want. Meanwhile, the word "socialism" is scaring fewer and fewer people, and you're helping.
.

That’s the Lefts wonderful f’d up education system that’s dumbed down an entire generation, not I. Get your facts straight before you start accusing.

My facts are quite straight. Socialism is the government-owned control of production and distribution, and the elimination of private property.

So show us the planks of the Democratic platform that advocate for socialism. I'll start you with one: Single Payer.
.

Every aspect of the Left is a push towards Socialism. Be easier to name one platform that is not pushing in that direction, but I can’t think of even one.

The right is pushing hard, see Foxconn.

You don’t understand the political spectrum.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I've seen Obamacare called "socialism".

Clearly the word means nothing at this point.

The Left has trivialized the term "racism", the Right has trivialized the term "socialism".

Great job, folks. Opposite sides of the same goofy coin.
.

It was the Left who coined this laughable “Democratic” Socialism title that’s a cure all economic model for paradise BS, get your facts straight.

I said "socialism", not "Democratic socialism".

It's right there on the screen. It couldn't be more clear.
.

Lordy. You actually think adding a word redefines it

Yes. You can choose to ignore that, but words do mean things.

Stay as binary as you want. Meanwhile, the word "socialism" is scaring fewer and fewer people, and you're helping.
.

That’s the Lefts wonderful f’d up education system that’s dumbed down an entire generation, not I. Get your facts straight before you start accusing.

Millennials are more likely to graduate, but have lower PISA scores.

Personally I blame too many idiots having too many kids.

But, the idiots of the World in "Capitalist Utopias" like Mexico tend to have more kids too.

So, what's the solution?

I'd personally call for not just immigration controls which test for IQ, and only allow in perhaps a small trickle of immigrants.

But, I'd personally use IQ tests to give those with high IQ's rewards for having kids, and those with low IQ's fines for having kids.

Explain why we should do different?

Something about it's mean say Democrats, or something about it's Big Government says Republicans.

So, it seems idiots are here to stay, unfortunately.

 

[forkup]

I've seen Obamacare called "socialism".

Clearly the word means nothing at this point.

The Left has trivialized the term "racism", the Right has trivialized the term "socialism".

Great job, folks. Opposite sides of the same goofy coin.
.

You need to brush up on current events.

What I'm seeing currently is the Right absolutely refusing to see the difference between true socialism and the democratic socialism of many countries, such as Norway, Canada, Australia and Germany.

Or maybe they're incapable of seeing it, I'm not quite sure on that yet.
.

No, the problem is that they like the straw man argument better then the actual argument. An argument of the role government can play in the improvement of peoples lives.

I dunno. Look at post 151. I think they don't see a difference between Canada and Cuba.
.

If they refuse to see the difference they can maintain the straw man. At this point we are just arguing if they are willfully ignorant or dishonest.

 

[OODA_Loop]

A clear understanding that you can have a strong social safety net without becoming Communist. In my experience if you mention social or socialist, most Americans don't see a difference. The entire premise of the OP.

Nordic societies (and Japan) are ethnically homogeneous (until recently) and generations are raised with the importance of the individual contribution to the collective from birth. Their social safety net is not a hammock.

 

[Brain357]

Yes. You can choose to ignore that, but words do mean things.

Stay as binary as you want. Meanwhile, the word "socialism" is scaring fewer and fewer people, and you're helping.
.

That’s the Lefts wonderful f’d up education system that’s dumbed down an entire generation, not I. Get your facts straight before you start accusing.

My facts are quite straight. Socialism is the government-owned control of production and distribution, and the elimination of private property.

So show us the planks of the Democratic platform that advocate for socialism. I'll start you with one: Single Payer.
.

Every aspect of the Left is a push towards Socialism. Be easier to name one platform that is not pushing in that direction, but I can’t think of even one.

The right is pushing hard, see Foxconn.

You don’t understand the political spectrum.

I know the repubs and trump love Foxconn. And I know it’s closer to socialism than anything Dems have done.