Challenge to those accusing the Dems of "socialism"

[DC]

Whoa.

Down boys.

Where have I claimed Obama is a socialist?

I was simply asking for clarification of the OP because Socialism means different things to different people:



Thanks.

So you agree that Obama is not a socialist?

 

[Francesca R]

This challenge, resulting from the wanton use of the terms "socialism" and "socialist" by the usual suspects, is to anyone on this forum who ever used either term to describe a member or a policy of the Democratic Party.

IMO this is a weird OP.

Universal health cover is socialist.

Lending-of-last-resort is socialist.

Public provision of other goods/services is socialist.

Public ownership of capital goods is socialist.

Every country--and by implication every government and head of government--embodies some socialist things.

Failure to respond to this challenge will be taken as an admission that you are using the term strictly as a smear against those against whom you do not have any valid arguments, regardless of the content of the term.

I think it takes both sides of an argument to effectively consent for something to be a "smear"

 

[brodski]

IMO this is a weird OP.

Universal health cover is socialist.

Lending-of-last-resort is socialist.

Public provision of other goods/services is socialist.

Public ownership of capital goods is socialist.

Every country--and by implication every government and head of government--embodies some socialist things.

I think it takes both sides of an argument to effectively consent for something to be a "smear"

with broad enough criteria every government system every devised or which ever could be devised is "socialist", if the word socialism is to have any meaning whatsoever (other than as a direct synonym for "government"), we need to narrow it down a bit.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't see why. You could just say "Obama is too socialist", "Obama wants too many socialist policies", "Obama's policies rely too much on the state for things that the state has no business doing / is crap at" and so on.

What's so great about being reductionist?

 

[quadraginta]

Really?

Since you're claiming the wiki text there as "your definition", let's look at it.

"Traditional Social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism."

So, traditional social democrats advocate the creation of socialism. What, exactly, do you think it is they're trying to create there? What would that "creation" look like, do you think?

"The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of achieving a socialist economy, and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits."

Hmm...so, since you say that this wiki article speaks for you, you agree that modern social democrats don't want to implement a socialist economy. So we're all safe: according to you, Obama and the Democratic Party aren't trying to make us all socialist after all!

I don't think mhaze liked that part, so he neglected to include it.

He's good at cherry-picking. After that his arguments seem to lose a lot of ground.

Had he pursued the link which his own chosen quote had provided he would have also uncovered this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrats

"Social democracy is a political ideology of the centre-left on the classic political spectrum. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.[1] "
​

I think, as you say, that it is only fair to take mhaze at his word and accept this as his personal definition of socialism.

Now he can explain what's wrong with the idea.

 

[Chaos]

IMO this is a weird OP.

Universal health cover is socialist.

Lending-of-last-resort is socialist.

Public provision of other goods/services is socialist.

Public ownership of capital goods is socialist.

Every country--and by implication every government and head of government--embodies some socialist things.

Yeah, sure, if you make the definition wide enough, everything can be called socialist to some degree. But, as Lincoln, even if you define a tail as a leg, that doesn´t make it a leg.

Socialism has certain core tenets. The people who dish out accusations of "socialism" have neither shown any knowledge of these core tenets, nor any kind of overlap between said tenets and Democrat policies.

I think it takes both sides of an argument to effectively consent for something to be a "smear"

Can you repeat that in English, please?

 

[Chaos]

I don't see why. You could just say "Obama is too socialist", "Obama wants too many socialist policies", "Obama's policies rely too much on the state for things that the state has no business doing / is crap at" and so on.

Except that "socialist" has a certain meaning. At least, it used to - the right-wing rant machine has emptied it of that meaning. "Socialist" as used in political discourse is no longer a description of any economic policy, simply a label saying "this is something we do not like".

What's so great about being reductionist?

What´s so great talking a steaming pile of crap?

When somebody does something bad, they need to be called on it. But, they need to be called on what they do. They do NOT need to be called out for something they don´t do. That´s simply unproductive.

I mean, if you feel ill and go to a doctor, you want him to analyze your condition and tell you what you´ve caught. You do NOT want him to say "demonic possession" every time you cough or sneeze or cut your finger.

 

[Francesca R]

Yeah, sure, if you make the definition wide enough, everything can be called socialist to some degree. But, as Lincoln, even if you define a tail as a leg, that doesn´t make it a leg.

It is relatively easy to identify a socialist policy, or the socialist component of a policy. Whether everything adds up to someone being socialist is a question you will not be able to answer conclusively in many cases.

Socialism has certain core tenets.

. . . Which are public ownership and/or public provision and (often) compulsion. Hence it is easy to categorise policies or institutions or laws etc. People and groups not quite so much.

The people who dish out accusations of "socialism" [ . . . ] Can you repeat that in English, please?

You evidently choose to regard it as an accusation and a smear, or else it would merely be correct or incorrect information.

 

[Francesca R]

Except that "socialist" has a certain meaning. At least, it used to - the right-wing rant machine has emptied it of that meaning.

So did "teabagger". So did "liberal" (and the latter did not mean collective ownership of capital and provision of services)

"Socialist" as used in political discourse is no longer a description of any economic policy, simply a label saying "this is something we do not like".

Seems you're happy to adopt the same usage given this thread. IMO that is odd. I've been called socialist, statist, liberal, right-wing, supply-sider, and probably more on this forum from people who quite evidently don't have a clue. I certainly have views/positions consistent with all of those on various topics.

 

[Beerina]

I find it rediculous to claim, "Have no fear -- they aren't socialist!" when, but for the efforts of freedom-based capitalists, they most certainly would.

This health care reform is a perfect example -- they demanded socialized, single-payer health care, with jailing for people who didn't want to deal with it.

But for the efforts of many, that would have come to pass.


So let's not pretend here, shall we?

 

[LukeB]

This health care reform is a perfect example -- they demanded socialized, single-payer health care, with jailing for people who didn't want to deal with it.

But for the efforts of many, that would have come to pass.

Boy, you sure dodged a bullet there!

 

[quadraginta]

Boy, you sure dodged a bullet there!

Yeah, but he's still trying to get over that Interstate Highway System thing.

 

[BeAChooser]

What is intellectually dishonest is to choose one of the various definitions of socialism by which The One and his fellow Progressives do not fit, and then argue on that basis that they are not socialists.

It's also dishonest for the OP to pretend that a definition of socialism hasn't been offered in previous threads ... one that, like the definition you provided, fits Obama to a T ... or should I say S. Or given the blur in these definitions ... perhaps even C.

 

[bikerdruid]

1: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

2: Obama keeps insurance companies in charge of health coverage.

which is exactly why obama is not a socialist.
under socialism, private industry (insurance companies)would never have control of something so vital as healthcare.

private industry is not, "popular administration and control of each industry or service."

 

[thaiboxerken]

This health care reform is a perfect example -- they demanded socialized, single-payer health care, with jailing for people who didn't want to deal with it.

Do you often lie to make a point?

 

[SezMe]

It's also dishonest for the OP to pretend that a definition of socialism hasn't been offered in previous threads ... one that, like the definition you provided, fits Obama to a T ... or should I say S. Or given the blur in these definitions ... perhaps even C.

Nowhere did the OP pretend that socialism hadn't been defined elsewhere. You're claim is what is dishonest.

The definition that mhaze offered started with these words, "Social Democracy Traditional Social democrats advocated the creation of socialism..."

It is entirely unclear to me how using the word "socialism" in a definition of socialism can possibly be valid.

So, BAC, as one of the primary screamers here about socialism, it was a real disappointment to see you duck the OP challenge.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Was one of those accusing Dems of socialism going to actually provide an example of a "socialist" program or policy that has been passed because of the Dems?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

IMO this is a weird OP.

Universal health cover is socialist.

Lending-of-last-resort is socialist.

Public provision of other goods/services is socialist.

Public ownership of capital goods is socialist.

Every country--and by implication every government and head of government--embodies some socialist things.

. . . depending, of course, on how you define "socialist". I think your usage is one of the better ones, but that's not what they mean when they raise the shrill cry, "That's socialism!" as if it's a slam dunk argument against something. Then they merely mean something like, "That's un-American!" or "That's bad!"

 

[BeAChooser]

Nowhere did the OP pretend that socialism hadn't been defined elsewhere.

The author of the OP has certainly claimed that. Here's a recent quote by him (from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6490649&postcount=372 ):

Indeed, so far not a single person who has called the Dems, or Obama, or their policies, "socialist" has ever displayed the least hint of a clue about what "socialism" actually is.

We don't need to keep repeating what we actually have provided, SM. You and Chaos just need to learn to pay attention.

 

[SezMe]

The author of the OP has certainly claimed that.

Immaterial. The OP itself didn't "pretend" what you claimed. Now you're just ducking and weaving.

We don't need to keep repeating what we actually have provided, SM. You and Chaos just need to learn to pay attention.

*snort* You've provided diddly-squat so far. I could tell that with half my attention tied behind my back.

ETA: