S
Sarcelle
Guest
That is true.
However what I don’t understand is why some describe the Scandinavian countries as socialist. The government does not own the means of production.
Whitewashing US history with 'patriotic education' -Trump
- Thread starter Motherwit
- Start date
- Status
However what I don’t understand is why some describe the Scandinavian countries as socialist. The government does not own the means of production.
U
umamibella
Guest
I know voting is not compulsory in USA. How much of the population will be voting?
Last edited:
My personal opinion? I think modern socialists want to soften the view of it to make it more palatable. Scandinavian countries don’t consider themselves socialist.
Last edited:
I don’t use the flag process, but if I did, this would be perhaps the best example of what deserves it.
This is a despicable accusation.
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
You made up this rule? Or someone with jurisdiction over political thought set the definition?
We’ve been down this road before – you define the concept to fit all you think is bad. Wishing doesn’t make it so.
The US economic framework is a mixture of capitalism and democratic socialism. Sorry to break it to you.
Last edited:
If government wants to take over the means of production, how else will they take it from the rightful owners?
We’ve been down this road before – you define the concept to fit the new narrative. The fact is the US is not Democratic socialist. In fact, it is not a democracy.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Your statement proves nothing. I could cite all the laws which are examples of democratic socialism which are part of the American economic framework but I just don’t want to bother.
" It was an older man at a town hall meeting in South Carolina in 2009 who apparently kicked off one of the intractable phrases of modern politics. Concerned about the health-care reform push that accompanied Barack Obama’s first few months as president, the man stood up to challenge then-Rep. Robert Inglis (R).
“Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” the man said, launching a thousand ironic riffs. Medicare, of course, is a government program. Asking the government not to deal with Medicare is like asking Disney not to intervene at Epcot.
The phrase is eternal in part because it so neatly captures one particular view of government services: The government can’t be trusted to do things except the things it does that I like. It’s trivial to extend that outward to capture a debate that’s potent at the moment: Government-run programs are unacceptable socialism, except the good ones.
Earlier this week, two news stories overlapped in a seemingly contradictory way. In one, the Trump administration floated plans to save $15 billion by dumping more than 3 million people off food stamps. In the other, President Trump himself celebrated spending $16 billion to bail out some of the more than 3 million farmers, after his trade war with China crippled some agricultural sales.
The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell pointed out on Friday that this is sort of a feature of the Trump administration. The power of the government can and should be deployed for programs and people Republicans like, but everything else is an unacceptable expense or, worse, socialism . (That word should be read with the same intonation you’d use to say “the boogeyman” to a 4-year-old you were trying to scare.)
To bolster her point, Rampell cited an Economist-YouGov poll released this week that surveyed Americans on socialism. It’s a fascinating poll, with some revealing results.
First, the pollsters asked people their views of socialism. Republicans were much more likely to have an opinion of the term — and way more likely to say that they hated it.
But, interestingly, they were also less likely to see various government programs or proposals as embodying socialism.
It’s not clear which way the arrow points here. Are Republicans more reticent to label things as socialism because they like them? Or are they more hostile to socialism because they see fewer things as socialistic? The result, though, is that, with the exception of the first two proposals, Republicans are less likely to see the included policies as embodying socialism."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...sm-less-likely-see-social-programs-socialism/
The arrow might point in a number of directions, but the fact is Social Security and medicare are government Programs, sold to the American people as being more like insurance s supplemental retirement funds. You pay in a “contribution” for your working life and get a pension. What do they call it? FICA. Federal Insurance Contribution Act.
With the level of dishonesty at the founding of these programs, it isn’t surprising that people might be confused. With the fact that they’ve had roughly 15% of the income taken from them, it isn’t surprising that people expect/ demand the promised benefit.
One can oppose the program on various grounds and still expect / demand what was promised. I’d be perfectly happy to be opted out of SS. Just return my money plus what it would have earned on a typical annuity.
What one can’t go is call it socialism because it does not involve confiscation of the means of production.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Maybe that’s not socialism. Worker’s comp, unemployment insurance and social security are all socialism. You just like to ascribe the worst you can think to socialism and presume that without such a bugaboo, socialism is not present. I’m no political scientist but you are wrong.
No, they are not. Identify the means of production being confiscated.
One can make a firm constitutional argument against the federal government being involved in these, and I would, but they are not socialism.
You just like to misrepresent what socialism is to make it palatable. Government safety net programs are not socialism. One could even make the case that they serve the authoritarian goals of progressive socialists by increasing dependency on government and breaking down the nuclear family, but they are not in and of themselves socialism.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Please stop using that issue as a hallmark of socialism. You’re just wrong on this point and will not engage in reasoned discussion.
Sorry. I have no intention of accepting a choice between silence or dishonesty.
The historic definition of socialism is government ownership or strict control of the means of production.
Your decision, but I’ve been willing to engage with your arbitration are not accurate.
A
Avdima
Guest
The Republicans whos polices make it clear they do not care about the life of a fetus after it’s born, is a pro-life party?
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Please explain how republicans do not care about children after they are born.
A
Avdima
Guest
There no Socialism without democracy within the accepted theories/schools of Marxism or Anarchism, to state such would be an oxymoron.Nepperhan:
Democratic socialism is a contradiction, unless one means majority rule with protection of individual rights. Socialism requires authoritarian rule, either by a despot, or by majoritarian tyranny.
The concept of socialism isn’t hard. It is government strict control or ownership of the means of production.
A
Avdima
Guest
Do you mean back in days of President Lincoln when Republicans were allied and friends with Communists? When Lincoln himself and the Republicans appointed a few European Communists as US Army Generals during the Civil War because of their anti-slavery and anti-racist views and morals? The same Republican party that paid Communists like Karl Marx to write for Republican leaning newspapers and magazines?Boomster1:
I’m okay with that distinction as long as the left doesn’t throw out the “great switch” lie.
If an ideological switch never happened between the two parties never happened would today’s Republicans support Communists like they during the founding early years of the party?
I guess it is not a surprise then that today’s Republicans reject their heritage and embrace the Confederacy.
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
That same false narrative ,seriously?
A
Annie
Guest
Somehow it seems like (true) socialism always ends up as a tyrannical dictatorship. Being able to vote for only one party is not democracy but simply a simulacrum of democracy.
The type of democracy involved in Marxism/ fascism is single party, but that said, for socialism to work, the democracy has to be majoritarianism. It must eliminate individual rights. It must provide for government power enough to confiscate the means of production.
No matter how you slice it, it is authoritarian.
I would never embrace the Democrat’s attempt at secession.
If you’re under the impression that Ike and the Republicans of that era were in favor of communism, that’s delusional.
- Status