Democratic-Socialism is still socialism.

[initforme]

why are some so obsessed with socialism or capitalism in the first place? we have no socialist policies here. Our corporations who line the pocketbooks of our elected officials have never had it so good. So as long as they are running the country you can relax.

 

[Mac1958]

This is for the economic illiterates on here who think Democratic-Socialism is not the same thing as socialism.

Hopefully we all realize that economic systems exist on a continuum, and that pure socialism exists clearly to the Left of Democratic Socialism.

So, for example, Venezuela is to the Left of Germany, we are to the Right.

We have "socialistic" elements in our own country.

The question is, where we choose to exist on that continuum.
.

This continuum is stupid.

The only continuum that is relevant to thoughtful people is how voluntary the society is. The only question is how much rape, pillaging and coercion do we want to allow. I think all the evidence shows, less the better.

You really don't think economic systems are on a continuum?

We have Medicare and Social Security. Are we a pure socialist country?
.

No, I said your continuum is stupid and thus leads to errors in logic.

For example, you made it sound like government programs or socialism are automatically associated with the left. So Hitler was a leftist?

Different economic systems (such as fascism, if we call it an economic system) have their own scales, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

Fascism isn't just one thing - it's a distortion of both socialism and capitalism.

So that's a different continuum. But if you're comparing free market capitalism and socialism, which I believe is the point of the thread, then capitalism would be to the Right, Socialism to the Left.
.

 

[Mac1958]

why are some so obsessed with socialism or capitalism in the first place? we have no socialist policies here. Our corporations who line the pocketbooks of our elected officials have never had it so good. So as long as they are running the country you can relax.

Medicare and Social Security are socialist, the very definition of it.
.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

I am sure that sarcasm flies right over your head,

My mistake, it's not easy to be sure if something is sarcasm or not in this place with all these Ayn Rand fantics, neocons and deplorables running wild and posting their sarcasm free delusions convinced it's the absolute truth

 

[2aguy]

Except it works everywhere it is tried and it is the standard for all developed countries on this planet.

What do you have against civilization? Oh'yess, you think the rich should have it all and we all should live like the blacks of africa.

No...it doesn't...not even close. The European socialists you morons drool over.......can only afford their socialism because they don't have to actually provide for their own national defense. We do that for them. if they actually had to provide a valid national defense, an army, navy and airforce, with enough actual power to keep them secure from the other socialists...they couldn't afford to pay for all of their socialism...........

And even now, all of their social welfare systems are collapsing.....their health care systems are collapsing....they can't afford them....

As Dennis Prager says.......Socialism spends the money Capitalism creates.....

 

[initforme]

ok...then SIMPLY take social security away....go ahead. see what happens. Without Medicare only the top 2 percent could truly afford their healthcare bills and are one catastrophic sickness away from bankruptcy. How would you fix this?

 

[initforme]

I would assume you are not a proponent of people with pre existing conditions getting healthcare at the same rates as non pre correct?

 

[Norman]

This is for the economic illiterates on here who think Democratic-Socialism is not the same thing as socialism.

Hopefully we all realize that economic systems exist on a continuum, and that pure socialism exists clearly to the Left of Democratic Socialism.

So, for example, Venezuela is to the Left of Germany, we are to the Right.

We have "socialistic" elements in our own country.

The question is, where we choose to exist on that continuum.
.

This continuum is stupid.

The only continuum that is relevant to thoughtful people is how voluntary the society is. The only question is how much rape, pillaging and coercion do we want to allow. I think all the evidence shows, less the better.

You really don't think economic systems are on a continuum?

We have Medicare and Social Security. Are we a pure socialist country?
.

No, I said your continuum is stupid and thus leads to errors in logic.

For example, you made it sound like government programs or socialism are automatically associated with the left. So Hitler was a leftist?

Different economic systems (such as fascism, if we call it an economic system) have their own scales, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

Fascism isn't just one thing - it's a distortion of both socialism and capitalism.

So that's a different continuum. But if you're comparing free market capitalism and socialism, which I believe is the point of the thread, then capitalism would be to the Right, Socialism to the Left.
.

"Distortion" of socialism and capitalism?

Seems like you are capable of inventing infinite undefined categories at a whim, to sweep the incoherence of your worldview under the rug.

Hitler's policies were very much SOCIALIST. But he was a right winger. Big government "socialist" policies are neither left or right wing by categorization. They are primarily authoritarian. And leftists today, have become very authoritarian. That's why you are making the connection...

 

[Mac1958]

Hopefully we all realize that economic systems exist on a continuum, and that pure socialism exists clearly to the Left of Democratic Socialism.

So, for example, Venezuela is to the Left of Germany, we are to the Right.

We have "socialistic" elements in our own country.

The question is, where we choose to exist on that continuum.
.

This continuum is stupid.

The only continuum that is relevant to thoughtful people is how voluntary the society is. The only question is how much rape, pillaging and coercion do we want to allow. I think all the evidence shows, less the better.

You really don't think economic systems are on a continuum?

We have Medicare and Social Security. Are we a pure socialist country?
.

No, I said your continuum is stupid and thus leads to errors in logic.

For example, you made it sound like government programs or socialism are automatically associated with the left. So Hitler was a leftist?

Different economic systems (such as fascism, if we call it an economic system) have their own scales, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

Fascism isn't just one thing - it's a distortion of both socialism and capitalism.

So that's a different continuum. But if you're comparing free market capitalism and socialism, which I believe is the point of the thread, then capitalism would be to the Right, Socialism to the Left.
.

"Distortion" of socialism and capitalism?

Seems like you are capable of inventing infinite categories at a whim, to fit your worldview. Logical, this is far from.

Hitler's policies were very much SOCIALIST. But he was a right winger.

I don't know what this has to do with my original post. Once Hitler is crammed into any conversation, what follows is usually worthless.

Do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I would have thought the answer was obvious.
.

 

[Norman]

This continuum is stupid.

The only continuum that is relevant to thoughtful people is how voluntary the society is. The only question is how much rape, pillaging and coercion do we want to allow. I think all the evidence shows, less the better.

You really don't think economic systems are on a continuum?

We have Medicare and Social Security. Are we a pure socialist country?
.

No, I said your continuum is stupid and thus leads to errors in logic.

For example, you made it sound like government programs or socialism are automatically associated with the left. So Hitler was a leftist?

Different economic systems (such as fascism, if we call it an economic system) have their own scales, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

Fascism isn't just one thing - it's a distortion of both socialism and capitalism.

So that's a different continuum. But if you're comparing free market capitalism and socialism, which I believe is the point of the thread, then capitalism would be to the Right, Socialism to the Left.
.

"Distortion" of socialism and capitalism?

Seems like you are capable of inventing infinite categories at a whim, to fit your worldview. Logical, this is far from.

Hitler's policies were very much SOCIALIST. But he was a right winger.

I don't know what this has to do with my original post. Once Hitler is crammed into any conversation, what follows is usually worthless.

Do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I would have thought the answer was obvious.
.

Regarding Hitler, that's not an argument.

Different countries have different sized governments, but the ones with bigger government aren't more left wing by necessity. Hitler was a big government right winger with plenty of "socialist" policies.

To get back to your original post, it seems like you are conflating the authoritarianism continuum with the left right continuum. This is important distinction, because when it comes to left and right, one could argue that we should be in the "golden middle" and have a sound argument. However, when it comes to authoritarianism, one could easily argue that we should not be authoritarian at all, coercion is usually a bad thing.

 

[Mac1958]

You really don't think economic systems are on a continuum?

We have Medicare and Social Security. Are we a pure socialist country?
.

No, I said your continuum is stupid and thus leads to errors in logic.

For example, you made it sound like government programs or socialism are automatically associated with the left. So Hitler was a leftist?

Different economic systems (such as fascism, if we call it an economic system) have their own scales, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

Fascism isn't just one thing - it's a distortion of both socialism and capitalism.

So that's a different continuum. But if you're comparing free market capitalism and socialism, which I believe is the point of the thread, then capitalism would be to the Right, Socialism to the Left.
.

"Distortion" of socialism and capitalism?

Seems like you are capable of inventing infinite categories at a whim, to fit your worldview. Logical, this is far from.

Hitler's policies were very much SOCIALIST. But he was a right winger.

I don't know what this has to do with my original post. Once Hitler is crammed into any conversation, what follows is usually worthless.

Do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I would have thought the answer was obvious.
.

Regarding Hitler, that's not an argument.

Different countries have different sized governments, but the ones with bigger government aren't more left wing by necessity. Hitler was a big government right winger with plenty of "socialist" policies.

To get back to your original post, it seems like you are conflating the authoritarianism continuum with the left right continuum. This is important distinction, because when it comes to left and right, one could argue that we should be in the "golden middle" and have a sound argument. However, when it comes to authoritarianism, one could easily argue that we should not be authoritarian at all, coercion is usually a bad thing.

I think that's a "yes", right?
.

 

[Norman]

No, I said your continuum is stupid and thus leads to errors in logic.

For example, you made it sound like government programs or socialism are automatically associated with the left. So Hitler was a leftist?

Different economic systems (such as fascism, if we call it an economic system) have their own scales, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

Fascism isn't just one thing - it's a distortion of both socialism and capitalism.

So that's a different continuum. But if you're comparing free market capitalism and socialism, which I believe is the point of the thread, then capitalism would be to the Right, Socialism to the Left.
.

"Distortion" of socialism and capitalism?

Seems like you are capable of inventing infinite categories at a whim, to fit your worldview. Logical, this is far from.

Hitler's policies were very much SOCIALIST. But he was a right winger.

I don't know what this has to do with my original post. Once Hitler is crammed into any conversation, what follows is usually worthless.

Do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I would have thought the answer was obvious.
.

Regarding Hitler, that's not an argument.

Different countries have different sized governments, but the ones with bigger government aren't more left wing by necessity. Hitler was a big government right winger with plenty of "socialist" policies.

To get back to your original post, it seems like you are conflating the authoritarianism continuum with the left right continuum. This is important distinction, because when it comes to left and right, one could argue that we should be in the "golden middle" and have a sound argument. However, when it comes to authoritarianism, one could easily argue that we should not be authoritarian at all, coercion is usually a bad thing.

I think that's a "yes", right?
.

That's a galactic strawman that I never argued.

 

[Mac1958]

Different economic systems (such as fascism, if we call it an economic system) have their own scales, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

Fascism isn't just one thing - it's a distortion of both socialism and capitalism.

So that's a different continuum. But if you're comparing free market capitalism and socialism, which I believe is the point of the thread, then capitalism would be to the Right, Socialism to the Left.
.

"Distortion" of socialism and capitalism?

Seems like you are capable of inventing infinite categories at a whim, to fit your worldview. Logical, this is far from.

Hitler's policies were very much SOCIALIST. But he was a right winger.

I don't know what this has to do with my original post. Once Hitler is crammed into any conversation, what follows is usually worthless.

Do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I would have thought the answer was obvious.
.

Regarding Hitler, that's not an argument.

Different countries have different sized governments, but the ones with bigger government aren't more left wing by necessity. Hitler was a big government right winger with plenty of "socialist" policies.

To get back to your original post, it seems like you are conflating the authoritarianism continuum with the left right continuum. This is important distinction, because when it comes to left and right, one could argue that we should be in the "golden middle" and have a sound argument. However, when it comes to authoritarianism, one could easily argue that we should not be authoritarian at all, coercion is usually a bad thing.

I think that's a "yes", right?
.

That's a galactic strawman that I never argued.

.

 

[Norman]

"Distortion" of socialism and capitalism?

Seems like you are capable of inventing infinite categories at a whim, to fit your worldview. Logical, this is far from.

Hitler's policies were very much SOCIALIST. But he was a right winger.

I don't know what this has to do with my original post. Once Hitler is crammed into any conversation, what follows is usually worthless.

Do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I would have thought the answer was obvious.
.

Regarding Hitler, that's not an argument.

Different countries have different sized governments, but the ones with bigger government aren't more left wing by necessity. Hitler was a big government right winger with plenty of "socialist" policies.

To get back to your original post, it seems like you are conflating the authoritarianism continuum with the left right continuum. This is important distinction, because when it comes to left and right, one could argue that we should be in the "golden middle" and have a sound argument. However, when it comes to authoritarianism, one could easily argue that we should not be authoritarian at all, coercion is usually a bad thing.

I think that's a "yes", right?
.

That's a galactic strawman that I never argued.

.

Yes, I know you are confooosed. I merely noted that your way of looking at it is pretty stupid. Clearly Hitler is to the right of USA even though he had plenty more socialist policies.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't know what this has to do with my original post. Once Hitler is crammed into any conversation, what follows is usually worthless.

Do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I would have thought the answer was obvious.
.

Regarding Hitler, that's not an argument.

Different countries have different sized governments, but the ones with bigger government aren't more left wing by necessity. Hitler was a big government right winger with plenty of "socialist" policies.

To get back to your original post, it seems like you are conflating the authoritarianism continuum with the left right continuum. This is important distinction, because when it comes to left and right, one could argue that we should be in the "golden middle" and have a sound argument. However, when it comes to authoritarianism, one could easily argue that we should not be authoritarian at all, coercion is usually a bad thing.

I think that's a "yes", right?
.

That's a galactic strawman that I never argued.

.

Yes, I know you are confooosed. I merely noted that your way of looking at it is pretty stupid. Clearly Hitler is to the right of USA even though he had plenty more socialist policies.

Great. I'm glad we have Hitler nailed down.

Now, do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I thought I'd try one more time.
.

 

[Norman]

Regarding Hitler, that's not an argument.

Different countries have different sized governments, but the ones with bigger government aren't more left wing by necessity. Hitler was a big government right winger with plenty of "socialist" policies.

To get back to your original post, it seems like you are conflating the authoritarianism continuum with the left right continuum. This is important distinction, because when it comes to left and right, one could argue that we should be in the "golden middle" and have a sound argument. However, when it comes to authoritarianism, one could easily argue that we should not be authoritarian at all, coercion is usually a bad thing.

I think that's a "yes", right?
.

That's a galactic strawman that I never argued.

.

Yes, I know you are confooosed. I merely noted that your way of looking at it is pretty stupid. Clearly Hitler is to the right of USA even though he had plenty more socialist policies.

Great. I'm glad we have Hitler nailed down.

Now, do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I thought I'd try one more time.
.

Well I suppose I will have to weight in on that as well, even though again, my argument wasn't about that.

One could easily argue that democratic socialism is a binary subset of socialism. So if one adopts that view, a continuum clearly doesn't exist, and merely having some socialist policies would not make something one bit socialist by that standard. It certainly is a valid view. I have no interest in participating in this sort of definition wars, generally it only adds to people's confusion and contributes nothing of value.

 

[Mac1958]

I think that's a "yes", right?
.

That's a galactic strawman that I never argued.

.

Yes, I know you are confooosed. I merely noted that your way of looking at it is pretty stupid. Clearly Hitler is to the right of USA even though he had plenty more socialist policies.

Great. I'm glad we have Hitler nailed down.

Now, do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I thought I'd try one more time.
.

Well I suppose I will have to weight in on that as well.

One could easily argue that democratic socialism is a binary subset of socialism. So if one adopts that view, a continuum clearly doesn't exist, and merely having some socialist policies would not make something one bit socialist by that standard. It certainly is a valid view. I have no interest in participating in this sort of definition wars, generally it only adds to people's confusion and contributes nothing of value.

It's better to just keep things simple and binary and scream SOCIALISM, then?

Indeed, nuance is hard.
.

 

[Norman]

That's a galactic strawman that I never argued.

.

Yes, I know you are confooosed. I merely noted that your way of looking at it is pretty stupid. Clearly Hitler is to the right of USA even though he had plenty more socialist policies.

Great. I'm glad we have Hitler nailed down.

Now, do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I thought I'd try one more time.
.

Well I suppose I will have to weight in on that as well.

One could easily argue that democratic socialism is a binary subset of socialism. So if one adopts that view, a continuum clearly doesn't exist, and merely having some socialist policies would not make something one bit socialist by that standard. It certainly is a valid view. I have no interest in participating in this sort of definition wars, generally it only adds to people's confusion and contributes nothing of value.

It's better to just keep things simple and binary and scream SOCIALISM, then?

Indeed, nuance is hard.
.

You are again, confused. You can't jump between the different definitions either way, so it's not like any of this is of any relevance when it comes to any arguments. However, when it comes to rhetoric and strawmanning, which is what you are employing right now with Uygur's nuance bullshit, then it is important.

Here is the definition of socialism the OP used:

"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are SOCIALLY AND COLLECTIVELY OWNED alongside a politically democratic system of government."

So medicare and medicaid are not one bit socialist by that definition either way (well, maybe the office buildings would contribute). Ah, seems like you skipped the "nuance".

 

[Mac1958]

.

Yes, I know you are confooosed. I merely noted that your way of looking at it is pretty stupid. Clearly Hitler is to the right of USA even though he had plenty more socialist policies.

Great. I'm glad we have Hitler nailed down.

Now, do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I thought I'd try one more time.
.

Well I suppose I will have to weight in on that as well.

One could easily argue that democratic socialism is a binary subset of socialism. So if one adopts that view, a continuum clearly doesn't exist, and merely having some socialist policies would not make something one bit socialist by that standard. It certainly is a valid view. I have no interest in participating in this sort of definition wars, generally it only adds to people's confusion and contributes nothing of value.

It's better to just keep things simple and binary and scream SOCIALISM, then?

Indeed, nuance is hard.
.

You are again, confused. You can't jump between the different definitions either way, so it's not like any of this is of any relevance when it comes to any arguments. However, when it comes to rhetoric and strawmanning, which is what you are employing right now with Uygur's nuance bullshit, then it is important.

Here is the definition of socialism the OP used:

"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are SOCIALLY AND COLLECTIVELY OWNED alongside a politically democratic system of government."

So medicare and medicaid are not one bit socialist by that definition either way (well, maybe the office buildings would contribute). Ah, seems like you skipped the "nuance".

Are France, Germany and Norway socialist countries?
.

 

[Norman]

Yes, I know you are confooosed. I merely noted that your way of looking at it is pretty stupid. Clearly Hitler is to the right of USA even though he had plenty more socialist policies.

Great. I'm glad we have Hitler nailed down.

Now, do economic systems exist on a continuum, or do they not? Do different countries incorporate varying degrees of "socialism" into their economic structure, or do they not?

I thought I'd try one more time.
.

Well I suppose I will have to weight in on that as well.

One could easily argue that democratic socialism is a binary subset of socialism. So if one adopts that view, a continuum clearly doesn't exist, and merely having some socialist policies would not make something one bit socialist by that standard. It certainly is a valid view. I have no interest in participating in this sort of definition wars, generally it only adds to people's confusion and contributes nothing of value.

It's better to just keep things simple and binary and scream SOCIALISM, then?

Indeed, nuance is hard.
.

You are again, confused. You can't jump between the different definitions either way, so it's not like any of this is of any relevance when it comes to any arguments. However, when it comes to rhetoric and strawmanning, which is what you are employing right now with Uygur's nuance bullshit, then it is important.

Here is the definition of socialism the OP used:

"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are SOCIALLY AND COLLECTIVELY OWNED alongside a politically democratic system of government."

So medicare and medicaid are not one bit socialist by that definition either way (well, maybe the office buildings would contribute). Ah, seems like you skipped the "nuance".

Are France, Germany and Norway socialist countries?
.

Again, Mr Nuance, that depends what definition you use.

I would say no, but that's just my flavor.