Challenge to those accusing the Dems of "socialism"

[SezMe]

The problem with the Democrats is that they are not socialists. <snip>

This post is completely off topic.

 

[Francesca R]

You are being entirely rational in your analysis and expecting those being analyzed as having behaved in a similar manner.

More like suggesting those analysing do so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The OP mentions nothing about "evil".

The OP uses the term "accusing". You can't "accuse" someone of doing or being something that is neutral or good.

I think the OP is exactly about the abuse of language many of us have talked about here where "socialism" is only used to mean "bad government".

On the other current "socialism" thread, I just replied to someone who said that what they're referring to is "the government forcibly taking [the people's] money and using it for something else". I pointed out that that describes pretty much ALL forms of taxation in ALL forms of government.

That I know of, no taxation is voluntary anywhere in the world. And all taxation may be described as "the government forcibly taking [the people's] money and using it for something else".

(Now that I've said that someone will no doubt find some obscure and insignificant voluntary tax! I'll at least preemptively point out that the presidential campaign fund donation on U.S. tax forms is a voluntary donation not a voluntary tax.)

ETA: Anyway, I think the OP is properly questioning this sort of usage of "socialism" in the U.S.

 

[bikerdruid]

Universal, mandatory health cover--for example--is quite definitely socialist (or socialised to avoid the grammatical ugliness) health provision. .

as i mentioned in an earlier post, the fact that the 'universal healthcare' (which isn't universal) that is being proposed by the democrats, is going to be handled by for profit insurance companies, clearly indicates that they are not socialist.
this is nothing more than a cash cow for large corporations, not a socialist policy.

in canada, where we have true socialized healthcare, the program is handled by a government agency.
the doctors and nurses are government employees.

 

[Chaos]

False. Universal, mandatory health cover--for example--is quite definitely socialist (or socialised to avoid the grammatical ugliness) health provision.

And your evidence for that is...? How can you tell me something is socialist if you can´t even tell me what socialism is?

If you disagree you shoot your OP position in the foot because you reveal that you don't know what it means, don't want an honest discussion of it, and merely have some mission to paint policies you like as "not socialist". Thus, you hand critics of such policies their victory. Way to go.

What the heck are you talking about?

It´s quite simple.
First, define what "socialism" is, in a way that goes beyond "anything the socialists do" or "anything that isn´t the exact economic policy I advocate".
Then, look at actual Democratic policies and find out how much these overlap with the definition arrived at in the previous step.
Depending on how large that overlap is, calling the Democrats "socialists" may or may not be justified. That´s elementary critical thinking.

The usual suspects, on the other hand, refuse to define "socialism" and and simply use it as a smear. This is NOT critical thinking. I´m surprised you can´t see the difference.

See above. I provided a straight answer in post 42, which you appear to want to reject because it apparently does not serve your purpose.

It takes more than taking things you don´t like and labelling them "socialist" to give a "straight answer".

And your statement "Every country--and by implication every government and head of government--embodies some socialist things" shows that your "definition" is worthless, because it would justify calling anyone a socialist, making socialism an empty term.

For (some) Republicans to be justified in calling Democrats "socialists" without being massive hypocrites, the line between socialism and capitalism would have to run somewhere between these Republicans´ positions and those of the Democrats. Nobody, including you, has provided the tiniest shred of evidence that this is so.

 

[bikerdruid]

And your evidence for that is...? How can you tell me something is socialist if you can´t even tell me what socialism is?
.

right wingnuts don't know what socialism is, but they know it's bad.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Back to the issue of taxation: the problem with this particular usage of "socialism" (as simply meaning "bad government" or even "big government") is that is shuts down dialogue. In fact, we all agree that we need to raise revenues through taxation and do things for the common good that the free market cannot or will not do.

We simply differ on matters of degree, but those who say "it's socialism!!!" are pretending that there is a difference in kind and not merely degree.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

right wingnuts don't know what socialism is, but they know it's bad.

Yup. See earlier in the thread where I quoted from Orwell's "Politics and the English Language".

 

[Chaos]

Back to the issue of taxation: the problem with this particular usage of "socialism" (as simply meaning "bad government" or even "big government") is that is shuts down dialogue. In fact, we all agree that we need to raise revenues through taxation and do things for the common good that the free market cannot or will not do.

We simply differ on matters of degree, but those who say "it's socialism!!!" are pretending that there is a difference in kind and not merely degree.

Indeed.

There is difference in kind between socialism and capitalism, and anyone who knows what that difference is cannot honestly use the term "socialism" to describe Democratic policies.

 

[BeAChooser]

Linking to a description of social democracy is not a definition of socialism

Proving that you did not pay attention to what I've previously posted.

And ending every allegedly serious post with a smilies is infantile.

 

[BeAChooser]

for the benefit of those of us that 'haven't been paying attention,' please give us your definition of socialism

Learn to use your JREF browser.

 

[mhaze]

as i mentioned in an earlier post, the fact that the 'universal healthcare' (which isn't universal) that is being proposed by the democrats, is going to be handled by for profit insurance companies, clearly indicates that they are not socialist.
this is nothing more than a cash cow for large corporations, not a socialist policy.

in canada, where we have true socialized healthcare, the program is handled by a government agency.
the doctors and nurses are government employees.

Why are you lying? The system in Canada is administered by the provinces, here the issue is the taking on of that job by the federal govenment.

 

[Francesca R]

And your evidence for that is...? How can you tell me something is socialist if you can´t even tell me what socialism is?

But I did (post 48). Something is socialised if it is supplied by the state and compulsory. Conversely it is privatised if it is voluntarily provided by non-state agents.

You can wordsmith-lawyer the definitions all you want, of course. Those definitions are about as simple as one can get.

Many policies or institutions are mixed which means they have public and private parts to them. Universal health cover is almost everywhere compulsory (up to a minimum level of provision) and publicly funded (sometimes with means-testing). More or less of a country's healthcare sector may be in public ownership, but the cover (insurance-based financing) is just about always socialised. If it wasn't, it would not be universal, which is mostly a euphemism for socialised anyway.

And you disagree with this? Or not?

What the heck are you talking about?

Your approach is "Look here, no way are Democrat policies socialist, no way are Democrats socialist!" Well they are to some extent. And so are republican / some republican policies. IMO you'd do rather better accepting that reality. Instead you want to sign up to mutual revulsion to the term "socialism" and then insist Democrats are in no way connected with it.

It´s quite simple. First, define what "socialism" is, in a way that goes beyond "anything the socialists do" or "anything that isn´t the exact economic policy I advocate". Then, look at actual Democratic policies and find out how much these overlap with the definition arrived at in the previous step. Depending on how large that overlap is, calling the Democrats "socialists" may or may not be justified. That´s elementary critical thinking.

How's it working out for you?

The usual suspects, on the other hand, refuse to define "socialism" and and simply use it as a smear. This is NOT critical thinking. I´m surprised you can´t see the difference.

I am well aware of the popular effort to use the term as a smear. What is weird is your acceptance of the designation that it therefore must be--always and everywhere--a smear.

And your statement "Every country--and by implication every government and head of government--embodies some socialist things" shows that your "definition" is worthless, because it would justify calling anyone a socialist, making socialism an empty term.

So talk about institutions and views and applications instead of people.

For (some) Republicans to be justified in calling Democrats "socialists" without being massive hypocrites, the line between socialism and capitalism would have to run somewhere between these Republicans´ positions and those of the Democrats. Nobody, including you, has provided the tiniest shred of evidence that this is so.

Of course it doesn't. The "line" is subjective and a matter of opinion.

 

[bikerdruid]

Why are you lying? The system in Canada is administered by the provinces, here the issue is the taking on of that job by the federal govenment.

how is that a lie???
i said it was handled by the government....it is.
although it is administered on the provincial level, all provinces must comply with the canada health act, an act of the federal government.
at no level is it in the hands of private industry, hence it is a socialized system, unlike your proposed system which will net billions for the insurance industry, which already received trillions of your tax dollars (the AIG bailout)...another reason why obama and his team are not socialists.

why are you so quick to accuse me of lying...does the truth hurt?

 

[Francesca R]

Why are you lying? The system in Canada is administered by the provinces, here the issue is the taking on of that job by the federal govenment.

Are municipal governments not governments in your world then?

 

[bikerdruid]

Learn to use your JREF browser.

cop out...come on, tell us....we promise we won't laugh....

 

[mhaze]

how is that a lie???
i said it was handled by the government....it is.
although it is administered on the provincial level, all provinces must comply with the canada health act, an act of the federal government.......

And in the handling of the jobs by the provinces (and they do it in different ways) those provinces are capable of going broke if they spend money unwisely.

Here, the issue is the Federal government spending money it doesn't have, and therefore printing more out of thin air, which in turn creates problems of another sort.

We don't have a problem in the USA with states doing their own little socialist utopia health care plan. As you concede, that is indeed socialism. It is whether private companies are brought in to do the work or not. In public utilities, it is common to find vast amounts of the actual work done by private companies. Road building is a well known example.

Perhaps "lying" was not the right phrase, but you grossly misstated the similarities and differences between the US and Canadian systems, and drew inaccurate conclusions.

 

[BeAChooser]

cop out...

It's not a "cop out". I'm just tired of having to repeat what has been provided to people just like you over and over and over and over. I'm done doing that. One of the tactics of the left is to always act like nothing has been posted before in support of an allegation made by conservatives. The left refuses to listen. Just like the left refuses to learn from history. That's why I object to this thread in general. There was no need to start a new thread. The author could have simply gone back to one of the previous threads on this subject and argued his case there, where definitions of socialism were certainly offered. He didn't because he wanted you to think (as I quoted him stating) that the definition of socialism has "never" been provided by those alleging Obama is a socialist.

So I suggest you learn to use your browser. Then you can read not only what I and a few other JREFers have posted on socialism, you can listen to what dozens of others have already said on this subject out in the real world. For example, you might want to start with this: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/what-kind-of-socialist-is-barack-obama--15421 and this: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251245/radical-white-house-interview . I linked the latter to Chaos in the thread prompting this one, but he undoubtedly just ignored it. Then, if you want to go on believing Obama is not a socialist and is not trying to lead us towards a more socialist/communist country … go ahead. I can't stop you. All I can do is vote tomorrow and with millions of other Americans (at least 55%) ensure that doesn't happen regardless.

Besides … next you'll probably be asking me to define "is".

 

[SezMe]

It's not a "cop out". I'm just tired of having to repeat what has been provided to people just like you over and over and over and over.

Oh, goody. I hope that means you're done with the green smilie too.

 

[BeAChooser]

Oh, goody. I hope that means you're done with the green smilie too.