Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

in some places. In other places, not so much.

No. Socialism brings misery and poverty, not to mention government power over individual rights.

It has not done that in Norway.

How does Trump get to be an expert on what is “faithful” socialism? How would you like a Muslim telling you what it means to be a “faithful” Catholic?

The idea that someone has to believe in something or have experienced it to understand or observe it is nonsense.
I think a Muslim could read and study what it means to be a faithful Catholic.

I was not talking about whether Trump could judge that the Venezuelan system is a failure. I was talking about whether Trump could opine on whether Venezuela is the socialist ideal. That is what he claimed, and that is what he does not have the authority to claim.

claiming something “by definition” that is not in the definition.

Actually, it is. Government control or ownership of the means of production is not intended to bring prosperity, but equity.

It is intended to bring both. Whether it succeeds is another question, but not a question of definition.

Prove it. The general tendancy, that is, and not by citing examples, because we can cite examples pro and con until the cows come home.

I think you want to exclude examples because there are no examples of socialist states that aren’t violent.

Norway.

Economic security? It is a toss-up.

Not even close. The most secure individuals in the world live in free market economies.

So do the most insecure ones.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Oh, I quite agree that Venezuela is socialist. And so is Norway. Venezuela has a failing economy. Norway does not.

Norway is not a socialist state. Oh sure, it has a welfare state, but that doesn’t make it socialist. Norway, Denmark, they will tell you they have a free market economy.
…

You and your references make a good point. It shows that there are various degrees of things that people call socialism. On one hand you want to be strict in your interpretation when discussing other countries, like Norway, Denmark, etc., distinguishing between a welfare state and a classical socialist state as envisioned by Marx. On the other hand you want to be quite liberal in tagging people like Gillum as socialists, when all they are promoting is essentially more government services. To be fair, they (Gillum, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez) do call themselves socialists. But when you look at their policies, they are more like the Nordic model than Venezuela. Yet Venezuela is the first thing their opponents point to. Why is that, I wonder?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Best to stop trying to dig your way out of this hole and admit the inaccuracy of thinking DeSantis meant anything to disparage black people.

If there is inaccuracy, it is not inaccuracy by CNN. As I said before, your complaint is not with CNN, but with the people whose words they were reporting about (the Democrats). CNN took no position on those words.

 

[JonNC]

You and your references make a good point. It shows that there are various degrees of things that people call socialism. On one hand you want to be strict in your interpretation when discussing other countries, like Norway, Denmark, etc., distinguishing between a welfare state and a classical socialist state as envisioned by Marx.

There is a specific definition: strict government control or ownership of the means of production.
It requires authoritarian imposition, places the power of the collective/state over the rights of the individual.
AFAIK, the Nordic countries are not socialist. Communist and fascist states practice it in one degree or another.

On the other hand you want to be quite liberal in tagging people like Gillum as socialists, when all they are promoting is essentially more government services. To be fair, they (Gillum, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez) do call themselves socialists

Yes they do, so don’t accuse me of accusing them. They claim to be socialist. They are smart enough to know the definition of it. I therefore assume they believe in it.

But when you look at their policies, they are more like the Nordic model than Venezuela. Yet Venezuela is the first thing their opponents point to. Why is that, I wonder?

Because if they revealed themselves and what they really believe (see the definition above) they would not win an election, except in areas where socialism is favored.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But when you look at their policies, they are more like the Nordic model than Venezuela. Yet Venezuela is the first thing their opponents point to. Why is that, I wonder?

Because if they revealed themselves and what they really believe (see the definition above) they would not win an election, except in areas where socialism is favored.

So your entire criticism of them as socialists is based on their choice of label, regardless of any supporting data that contradicts your interpretation of that label. That sounds like cherry-picking to me. What is more likely, it seems, and consistent with their actions, is that they do not subscribe to the notion of government ownership of the means of production.

 

[JonNC]

I was not talking about whether Trump could judge that the Venezuelan system is a failure. I was talking about whether Trump could opine on whether Venezuela is the socialist ideal. That is what he claimed, and that is what he does not have the authority to claim.

They claim to be socialist. Chavez and Madura proclaim it. They practice a strict government control or ownership of the means of production. It is a socialist state. He doesn’t need some authority to claim it. He has the right to state it, he is accurate about it.

It is intended to bring both. Whether it succeeds is another question, but not a question of definition.

It has never succeeded in doing so, because it is a completely flawed economic model. It cannot succeed.

So do the most insecure ones.

The most insecure ones are always socialist

 

[LeafByNiggle]

"JonNC:

It is intended to bring both. Whether it succeeds is another question, but not a question of definition.

It has never succeeded in doing so, because it is a completely flawed economic model. It cannot succeed.

which of course is an empirical observation, and even if true, is not part of the definition.

So do the most insecure ones.

The most insecure ones are always socialist

More insecure than the paupers in Dickensian-era England? I don’t think so. Equally insecure maybe.

 

[dvdjs]

No, I read they have a very general problem, and the article describes exactly how the labor market is supposed to operate.

The Colorado paraox, however, has a troubling component n which there is little public support for education stemming, possibly, from the fact that so many of the great beneficiaries of education are from away.

 

[JonNC]

which of course is an empirical observation, and even if true, is not part of the definition.

It is empirical and true, which makes it part of it’s actuality.

More insecure than the paupers in Dickensian-era England? I don’t think so. Equally insecure maybe.

You can make excuses for this horrible system all you want, but it is overtly and clearly far worse than capitalism.

 

[abucs]

If you had a point to make by asking the questions you should have made that point instead of implying the point through questions. If you had no point at all to make in asking those questions, then why ask them? I took my best guess as to what the point was behind your questions. If I guessed wrong, then don’t make me guess in the future.

It’s called trying to find a consensus and rationally discussing history so that we can find where there is agreement. You could have just answered where you stood on the historical questions without the need to guess anything.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

which of course is an empirical observation, and even if true, is not part of the definition.

It is empirical and true, which makes it part of it’s actuality.

Part of it’s “actuality” is not the same thing as part of the “definition.” I know I’m being picky, but I don’t like words being misused. As a teacher, you should know better. If you want to say that socialism, when followed according to Marx, tends to fail, then say that, and I won’t dispute it. But please don’t say it’s part of the definition.

More insecure than the paupers in Dickensian-era England? I don’t think so. Equally insecure maybe.

You can make excuses for this horrible system all you want, but it is overtly and clearly far worse than capitalism.

I don’t dispute that either. I only dispute false narratives being used to support your point. One such false narrative is that under all forms of capitalism, no one is insecure. Insecure people can be found in both systems. I think you can find more solid arguments against socialism than that. And when you do, I won’t dispute them.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Somewhere in my home I have a picture of me in Cuba, standing in front of a giant wall mural of Fidel and Che, with that slogan ( Socialismo o Muerte ) painted on the wall.

I put it on my brother’s Facebook page once in a while. He’s an ardent Trump supporter. It drives him insane with rage. Which I think is really funny.

I’m going to have to find it and start posting it here.

Worth repeating.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Public schools are free and people do value them.

Not free.

Very expensive, in fact.

 

[JonNC]

Part of it’s “actuality” is not the same thing as part of the “definition.” I know I’m being picky, but I don’t like words being misused.

Then you agree with me that calling Norway socialist is an incorrect usage of the term.

As a teacher, you should know better. If you want to say that socialism, when followed according to Marx, tends to fail, then say that, and I won’t dispute it. But please don’t say it’s part of the definition.

No. I will say that socialism, whether followed in the way of Marx or Hitler, Madura or Castro, Pol Pot or Mao, Sanders or Gillum, always fails.

 

[tuscany]

Socialismo o Muerte!

I think the more honest phrase is-
"Socialismo ES Muerte ! "

 

[Inisfallen]

No. I will say that socialism, whether followed in the way of Marx or Hitler, Madura or Castro, Pol Pot or Mao, Sanders or Gillum, always fails

Right, 'cause Bernie Sanders belongs in the same category as Pol Pot and Hitler.

Parenthetically, you seem to have picked up the habit from abucs of insisting that Naziism is the same as Communism, which is, of course, factually untrue.

It’s just a rhetorical trick, enabling those who use it to say “Naziism is the same as Socialism. And you know what’s socialist? Single-payer health insurance! So if you want Medicare for all, you’re really a Nazi! QED!”

That’s a bit of a reductio ad absurdam, but I think my point stands.

 

[JonNC]

Right, 'cause Bernie Sanders belongs in the same category as Pol Pot and Hitler.

Economically, he claims the same philosophy. Talk to him about that. He says he’s a socialist.

Parenthetically, you seem to have picked up the habit from abucs of insisting that Naziism is the same as Communism, which is, of course, factually untrue.

It’s not, but they are both still socialist. Fascism tends toward the model of strict government control while Marxism government ownership of the means of production.

It’s just a rhetorical trick, enabling those who use it to say “Naziism is the same as Socialism.

Except I didn’t say that. It is true, however, that the economic model fascism uses is socialism. Fascism is an authoritarian system of government, and it stands to reason they would employ a socialist economic model.

And you know what’s socialist? Single-payer health insurance! So if you want Medicare for all, you’re really a Nazi! QED!”

And I oppose Medicare for all because it will fail. Government dictated healthcare systems always do because they eliminate the free market. And, government stinks st healthcare.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Public schools are free and people do value them.

Not free.

Very expensive, in fact.

Don’t play games. You know I mean free in the sense that government taxes pay for it. That is the same sense in which HarryStotle said,

You know what happens when most people have things just handed to them? They tend to view those things as worthless.

And that is what I was responding to.

 

[Inisfallen]

Economically, he claims the same philosophy. Talk to him about that. He says he’s a socialist.

When you can point me to where Sanders advocated the violent overthrow of the capitalist class and the nationalization of the means of production and the sending of the bourgeoisie to re-education camps, we can talk about it.

Until then, it’s just overheated rhetoric.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Part of it’s “actuality” is not the same thing as part of the “definition.” I know I’m being picky, but I don’t like words being misused.

Then you agree with me that calling Norway socialist is an incorrect usage of the term.

It is incorrect to call Norway a totally socialist nation, since their economy is mostly a free-market economy. But the sense in which we are talking about “socialism” in this thread relates to the platform of Andrew Gillum. Go take your pick. Either (1) stop calling Gillum a socialist, or (2) stop comparing Gillum’s platform to Venezuela by saying they are both socialist.

As a teacher, you should know better. If you want to say that socialism, when followed according to Marx, tends to fail, then say that, and I won’t dispute it. But please don’t say it’s part of the definition.

No. I will say that socialism, whether followed in the way of Marx or Hitler, Madura or Castro, Pol Pot or Mao, Sanders or Gillum, always fails.

Well, you have good grounds to cite the first six names, but no good grounds to include Sanders and Gillum unless you can show that their brand of “socialism” has the relevant characterists of the other six. They are quite different. As different as Venezuela and Norway.