I don’t understand why republicans are so selective about the definition of socialism

[Mac1958]

What IS the model for Democrats? Name a socialist country that's not been a total disaster!

You already know what their models are: Canada, Australia, the Nordic countries, Germany.

But you choose to deny the obvious, because that's the game: Blatantly misrepresent the other tribe's positions, no matter how much you need to lie.

I wasn't expecting an honest response. I never do.
.

Since NONE of the countries that you've named are actually socialist nations...it's obviously YOU that is misrepresenting what your position is...either that or you don't have a clue what socialism is!

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that they are using a different definition.

They call it "democratic socialism", because what they want is not full socialism, but rather something similar to the countries I mentioned.

This isn't a secret. This isn't complicated. I don't know what you guys get out of avoiding the obvious. But whatever works for you, I guess.
.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've watched the people who believe in government control over the people rename or rebrand what they pursue to obscure what it really is. Why is it they feel the need to do that, Mac?

 

[Oldstyle]

What IS the model for Democrats? Name a socialist country that's not been a total disaster!

You already know what their models are: Canada, Australia, the Nordic countries, Germany.

But you choose to deny the obvious, because that's the game: Blatantly misrepresent the other tribe's positions, no matter how much you need to lie.

I wasn't expecting an honest response. I never do.
.

Since NONE of the countries that you've named are actually socialist nations...it's obviously YOU that is misrepresenting what your position is...either that or you don't have a clue what socialism is!

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that they are using a different definition.

They call it "democratic socialism", because what they want is not full socialism, but rather something similar to the countries I mentioned.

This isn't a secret. This isn't complicated. I don't know what you guys get out of avoiding the obvious. But whatever works for you, I guess.
.

So Bernie ISN'T a socialist? Why does he call himself one?

 

[Mac1958]

What IS the model for Democrats? Name a socialist country that's not been a total disaster!

You already know what their models are: Canada, Australia, the Nordic countries, Germany.

But you choose to deny the obvious, because that's the game: Blatantly misrepresent the other tribe's positions, no matter how much you need to lie.

I wasn't expecting an honest response. I never do.
.

Since NONE of the countries that you've named are actually socialist nations...it's obviously YOU that is misrepresenting what your position is...either that or you don't have a clue what socialism is!

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that they are using a different definition.

They call it "democratic socialism", because what they want is not full socialism, but rather something similar to the countries I mentioned.

This isn't a secret. This isn't complicated. I don't know what you guys get out of avoiding the obvious. But whatever works for you, I guess.
.

So Bernie ISN'T a socialist? Why does he call himself one?

I just told you. And they're running with the term because they know it's scaring fewer and fewer people.

I've made this as simple as I can.

This is boring. Play with someone else.
.

 

[dblack]

What IS the model for Democrats? Name a socialist country that's not been a total disaster!

You already know what their models are: Canada, Australia, the Nordic countries, Germany.

But you choose to deny the obvious, because that's the game: Blatantly misrepresent the other tribe's positions, no matter how much you need to lie.

I wasn't expecting an honest response. I never do.
.

Since NONE of the countries that you've named are actually socialist nations...it's obviously YOU that is misrepresenting what your position is...either that or you don't have a clue what socialism is!

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that they are using a different definition.

It's a shell game Mac. They are deliberately equivocating. Democrats need to understand that many, many of us reject socialism. We're not afraid of it, other than fearing the damage it would to do our society. We're not confused about what it is. We just don't like it. We understand that some socialism has already crept into US government, but we want to minimize or eliminate it - not expand it.

They call it "democratic socialism", because what they want is not full socialism, but rather something similar to the countries I mentioned.

Democratic socialism is still socialism. I'm not sure what you mean by "full" socialism.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not sure what you mean by "full" socialism.

Democratic Socialism: More government involvement mixed with market capitalism and private ownership. Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway.
Socialism: Complete government control over production and distribution, with very limited private ownership. Venezuela is close enough.

The distinction is pretty clear to me.
.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure what you mean by "full" socialism.

Democratic Socialism: More government involvement mixed with market capitalism and private ownership. Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway.
Socialism: Complete government control over production and distribution.

The distinction is pretty clear to me.

Hmmm... so "democratic" doesn't really have any bearing? It's just a question of extent? Maybe "Socialism Lite" would be a better term.

My understanding of "Democratic Socialism", based on definitions of the term from DSA (What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)) is that it's just socialism with a stronger commitment to democracy (as opposed to "party rule"). Extent is a different question. It could be minimal, or "full", depending on the given government.

Anyway, here's what I think's going on. Democrats are convinced that the only reason voters are rejecting their plans for more socialism is that they harbor irrational, "Cold War" fears of a repressive, soviet-style state. But I think Democrats are kidding themselves in that regard. Most voters understand that Democrats aren't soviets, that they simply want government to have a larger role in society's economic decisions. And voters (many of them) reject that goal because they don't want that. They don't want more government interference in the market, and they don't want programs that promote more dependency on government. They want less.

 

[Oldstyle]

What IS the model for Democrats? Name a socialist country that's not been a total disaster!

You already know what their models are: Canada, Australia, the Nordic countries, Germany.

But you choose to deny the obvious, because that's the game: Blatantly misrepresent the other tribe's positions, no matter how much you need to lie.

I wasn't expecting an honest response. I never do.
.

Since NONE of the countries that you've named are actually socialist nations...it's obviously YOU that is misrepresenting what your position is...either that or you don't have a clue what socialism is!

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that they are using a different definition.

They call it "democratic socialism", because what they want is not full socialism, but rather something similar to the countries I mentioned.

This isn't a secret. This isn't complicated. I don't know what you guys get out of avoiding the obvious. But whatever works for you, I guess.
.

So Bernie ISN'T a socialist? Why does he call himself one?

I just told you. And they're running with the term because they know it's scaring fewer and fewer people.

I've made this as simple as I can.

This is boring. Play with someone else.
.

They're "running" with the term because they're pretending it's something that it's not! When Bernie Sanders says we need to be a socialist country like Denmark and the Danish President writes a letter to Bernie asking him not to label them as socialist because they're NOT...then it's obvious that Bernie is lying about what he is.

 

[Staidhup]

Maybe the real question should be is how many people on this site have lived in a democratic socialist, socialist, or progressive socialist country? I guess if its for free then its nirvana?

 

[Andylusion]

But you are missing something there... It is absolutely impossible, no matter how you work the math, to end up with more money, by destroying a profitable and growing company.

Sure there is. The thing is, making a company profitable actually takes work. Going into a company, selling off the assets, you don't get as much, but you get instant gratification, and that's the problem with our whole degenerate version of "Capitalism". It puts investors over workers and consumers.

It's why people like you will be crying in your beer when someone like Commie Bernie gets elected.

You just contradicted yourself, or at least made an implication that contradicted yourself.

"making a company profitable actually takes work"

You claimed the company was profitable to begin with, when you said that it was the VC company that destroyed hostess.

Now you are openly admitting that Hostess was not profitable to begin with.

So which is it? Was the company profitable from the start? Or was it losing money, which is why the owners sold out to a VC company?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Andylusion]

So you really don't know anything about the Soviet Union, and why it fell.

Sorry, if you know so little, do yourself and favor, and learn something about a system that you claim to support.

Yes, I do. An Empire failed, not an economic system. All Empires fall eventually.

The problem with all of those who say that Greece got screwed over by the EU, is that Greece made the choice to join the EU. Without doing that Greece would have been bankrupt back in the 1990s. It was joining the EU that gave more integrity to their bonds. Maybe you don't know this, but the interest rates on Greek bonds were going up dramatically in the 1990s, which is exactly why the lied and fabricated their way into joining the EU.

Oh, I agree, the EU never should have admitted Greece to start with. But they were eager to get into that market, so they let Greece fraud it's way into the EU, and then proceeded to screw them when they got in.

Doesn't take away from the fact that Germany's behavior in insisting on screwing Greece was criminal.

No, you don't. The people inside Russia were starving to death. You don't know what you are talking about.

How do you blame the EU, for choices Greece made? That makes no sense. This is like you blaming the bank, for giving you a loan, when you lied on the application.

 

[Andylusion]

Maybe the real question should be is how many people on this site have lived in a democratic socialist, socialist, or progressive socialist country? I guess if its for free then its nirvana?

I would wager not many, however, I do know people who are from Workers Paradise. And... it's not.

 

[Andylusion]

To them, it’s a completely leftwing ideology when in reality it’s been part of the framework of the country since the beginning. The founders had socialist ideas after all. They basically were leftists. It’s also stupid to say that communism and socialism are the same thing when in reality communism is simply an example of socialism. Socialism itself is a very broad term that can’t be defined simply.

Also, isn’t Trump the bigger socialist than Obama? His bailout to farmers was twice as big as Obama’s bailout. Are republicans going to pretend that isn’t socialism?

You don't have a clue what Socialism IS...do you Billy? It's when government controls the means of production. Bailouts have ZERO to do with Socialism! Those farmers still operate in the Private Sector...the government doesn't "own" them! If you're going to post about things like this...do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the topic BEFORE you post nonsense like this!

We have Trumpsters running around screaming SOCIALISM at everything that moves.

We have Trumpsters running around thinking that the Dems are using Venezuela as their model.

Maybe you should have this conversation with them, first. They need it more.
.

Name one policy that the far left-wing promote... that was not implemented in Venezuela.

 

[Mac1958]

To them, it’s a completely leftwing ideology when in reality it’s been part of the framework of the country since the beginning. The founders had socialist ideas after all. They basically were leftists. It’s also stupid to say that communism and socialism are the same thing when in reality communism is simply an example of socialism. Socialism itself is a very broad term that can’t be defined simply.

Also, isn’t Trump the bigger socialist than Obama? His bailout to farmers was twice as big as Obama’s bailout. Are republicans going to pretend that isn’t socialism?

You don't have a clue what Socialism IS...do you Billy? It's when government controls the means of production. Bailouts have ZERO to do with Socialism! Those farmers still operate in the Private Sector...the government doesn't "own" them! If you're going to post about things like this...do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the topic BEFORE you post nonsense like this!

We have Trumpsters running around screaming SOCIALISM at everything that moves.

We have Trumpsters running around thinking that the Dems are using Venezuela as their model.

Maybe you should have this conversation with them, first. They need it more.
.

Name one policy that the far left-wing promote... that was not implemented in Venezuela.

I'm sure you actually know this, but our far left is not advocating the complete government takeover of all industries. And the Democratic party itself isn't, either.

But I get it. You think the Democrats want us to be just like Venezuela. I believe that you believe that.
.

 

[Andylusion]

To them, it’s a completely leftwing ideology when in reality it’s been part of the framework of the country since the beginning. The founders had socialist ideas after all. They basically were leftists. It’s also stupid to say that communism and socialism are the same thing when in reality communism is simply an example of socialism. Socialism itself is a very broad term that can’t be defined simply.

Also, isn’t Trump the bigger socialist than Obama? His bailout to farmers was twice as big as Obama’s bailout. Are republicans going to pretend that isn’t socialism?

You don't have a clue what Socialism IS...do you Billy? It's when government controls the means of production. Bailouts have ZERO to do with Socialism! Those farmers still operate in the Private Sector...the government doesn't "own" them! If you're going to post about things like this...do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the topic BEFORE you post nonsense like this!

We have Trumpsters running around screaming SOCIALISM at everything that moves.

We have Trumpsters running around thinking that the Dems are using Venezuela as their model.

Maybe you should have this conversation with them, first. They need it more.
.

Name one policy that the far left-wing promote... that was not implemented in Venezuela.

I'm sure you actually know this, but our far left is not advocating the complete government takeover of all industries. And the Democratic party itself isn't, either.

But I get it. You think the Democrats want us to be just like Venezuela. I believe that you believe that.
.

Of course none of them openly advocate it. Hugo Chavez himself, didn't openly advocate it. You would never win an election on the basis of "I'm going to take everyone's stuff".

That's why they lie constantly, about what they really believe. Bernie Sanders himself, has never recanted any of his 70s and 80s open support for full blown socialism. Now he knows better than to openly run on that, or he would never get elected anywhere, ever.

But he still believes that, and we know he does, because he's never once contradicted those beliefs. Similarly, there's a reason why the media, and even the other Democrat candidates have never attacked Bernie on his pro-socialist record. Because they support his pro-socialist views. That's why Warren is only saying he's sexist... which is obviously not true, and nor is it working.

But you can't attack someone for views you agree with. Doesn't work.

And whether you realize it or not, that is the majority view in the Democrat party. They even sometimes let the truth out by accident.

Remember Maxine Waters?



And look at the people behind her. They were not shocked, or surprised, or flipping out. They were smiling because she admitted it. They all know it. They were just laughing because she accidentally told the truth.

And note, she didn't say "Company" she said "companies". Implying all of them. She wants the government to run all the companies. She's looking for a reason to justify it. Just like.... Hugo Chavez.

And once you nationalize one company, it's easy to go after the next, and then the next... and pretty soon Venezuela had control over all the major media outlets, all the oil companies, the car companies, the power companies... and on and on it went.

Now you can say that isn't what the Democrats really want... and that would just make you wrong. I've listened to them enough to know what they're real goal is. No one denounced Maxine Waters after openly suggesting they socialize all the oil companies, and many others have said similar, though less direct statements.

So you can naively believe that the Democrats don't want the same policies as Venezuela, but the reality is they do, whether you know it or not.

 

[JoeB131]

First of all, letting the Irish in may not have been a great idea. They still vote against American values to this day.

Second, Irish are quite distinct from craphole inhabitants.

JoeB is Irish?

Actually, I'm more German than anything else.

 

[Norman]

First of all, letting the Irish in may not have been a great idea. They still vote against American values to this day.

Second, Irish are quite distinct from craphole inhabitants.

JoeB is Irish?

Actually, I'm more German than anything else.

Oh... so you prefer the national brand of socialism over the democratic one?

 

[JoeB131]

And yet the entire "impressive" nation imploded on it's own...not because they were conquered by the West...but because their system was unsustainable! The only impression that should make on any intelligent person is that it's not something to emulate!

the British Empire imploded on it's own, not because they were conquered, but because their system was unsustainable.

Yet not a ******* one of you denounces capitalism, even though the British Empire was Capitalism in it's ugliest form.

 

[JoeB131]

"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled, alongside a democratic political system of government. Democratic socialism rejects self-described socialist states just as it rejects Marxism–Leninism."

Same trick as Hitler used when he added "national" in front of socialism. You don't get anything better, it's the same turd only with some extra words.

The problem with Nazi Germany wasn't the socialism, it was the nationalism. Capitalists did very well under the Nazis, at least until they lost the war that their capitalist economic policies made inevitable. (Germany essentially borrowed massively to rebuild her military industrial complex and needed to conquer other lands for the resources to sustain it.)

A lot of reasons why "Socialism" wouldn't work... but going into hysterics isn't an argument.

Or maybe it is if your core voter is too stupid to know what words mean. Kind of how Trump came to power to start with.

 

[JoeB131]

It's a shell game Mac. They are deliberately equivocating. Democrats need to understand that many, many of us reject socialism. We're not afraid of it, other than fearing the damage it would to do our society. We're not confused about what it is. We just don't like it. We understand that some socialism has already crept into US government, but we want to minimize or eliminate it - not expand it.

Yes, you think civilization happens via Magic Pixie Dust...