Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.
When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?
Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.
We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.
SHould I continue?
Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.
When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.
Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.
TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.
That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.
Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.
It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.
Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.
Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.
Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'
Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.
Now are we to use actual definitions or not?
But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.
I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.
Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.
You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.
Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.
I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".
Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.
If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.
Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.
Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.
I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.
As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.
Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.
Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.
You might should go read up on these terms.
They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.
Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?
No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.
And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.
The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.
The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.
That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.
Webster's is very clear about what a capitalist is....aside from the short answer, someone who owns capital....here is the longer definition....
"a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit "
But defining a capitalist as simply someone who owns their own labor does make one feel better I assume....
Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.
a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.
When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.
Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.
Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.
