Socialism in the US

[Pardalis]

The problem is that real socialists, like Jihad Jane and Bikerdruid, would wholeheartedly disagree that Obama is a socialist.

 

[RandFan]

The problem is that real socialists, like Jihad Jane and Bikerdruid, would wholeheartedly disagree that Obama is a socialist.

Yes but they put milk on their porridge.

 

[Kid Eager]

The problem is that real socialists, like Jihad Jane and Bikerdruid, would wholeheartedly disagree that Obama is a socialist.

Nah, they're just less right-wing than their compatriots.... (insert "No True Socialist" anecdote here:...)

 

[Pardalis]

Yes but they put milk on their porridge.

It depends on your definitions of 'milk' and 'porridge', which seem to be anyone's guess.

 

[BenBurch]

Part of the issue here I think; *IF* you define socialism to be taxation used to benefit the general welfare, then there are a million degrees of socialism.

 

[RandFan]

It depends on your definitions of 'milk' and 'porridge', which seem to be anyone's guess.

Straw men are fun.

 

[lomiller]

No, I've asked a question twice and still no answer..

It's been answered. Large segments of the US right call, him a socialist on a regular basis. Are you prepared to say they are completely wrong? If so I find it odd that the people you choose to get argumentative with are the people who are criticizing the US right on this point when you repeatedly insist you agree with their position.

The contradictory nature of what you claim the believe and who you have chosen to pick arguments suggests to me that you are not in fact being honest about your position.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Part of the issue here I think; *IF* you define socialism to be taxation used to benefit the general welfare, then there are a million degrees of socialism.

But what is the purpose of using such a definition? From my perspective, it only needlessly confuses matters at best, and is ridiculously reductive at worst.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yes but they put milk on their porridge.

I propose we define being pro-separation of church and state as being "atheist". Obama is an atheist, just as many claim. The US, like most governments, is a mix of atheism and theocracy.

What is the point of such word games? I don't see it. I know why conservatives play, to burden their opponents with as many negative connotations as possible. But I don't see why anyone benefits from playing along.

 

[Travis]

One has to wonder at the role of the media in removing the shading from such discussions. In my 50 orbits around this planet the one thing I know for sure, nothing is black and white, only shades of grey

Assuming you didn't write that from a space station I'd like to congratulate you on being the most articulate 1 2/3 month old person I've ever met.

 

[Pardalis]

It's been answered. Large segments of the US right call, him a socialist on a regular basis. Are you prepared to say they are completely wrong? If so I find it odd that the people you choose to get argumentative with are the people who are criticizing the US right on this point when you repeatedly insist you agree with their position.

The contradictory nature of what you claim the believe and who you have chosen to pick arguments suggests to me that you are not in fact being honest about your position.

Obama is not a socialist, that's my position, nothing contradictory about that. What is your position?

I bet you're not going to answer like the others.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"Commies, pinkos, liberals, leftists, radicals, hippies... That's who supports socialism." It has been demonized to the point that you can't even use the word without generating spittle-emitting rants from some of our more extreme friends on the right.

Everyone knows Nixon went to china because he was a socialist.

 

[RandFan]

I propose we define being pro-separation of church and state as being "atheist". Obama is an atheist, just as many claim. The US, like most governments, is a mix of atheism and theocracy.

What is the point of such word games? I don't see it. I know why conservatives play, to burden their opponents with as many negative connotations as possible. But I don't see why anyone benefits from playing along.

I'm not sure what your point is. My claim is simply that words evolve and, IMO, the word socialist no longer has a singular definition. That Republicans use the word in a misleading and unfairly pejorative fashion doesn't change the fact that the word has evolved. Perhaps you don't like that the word "gay" has been appropriated by gays and lesbians. Perhaps you think those who use the word gay in that fashion are "playing a word game". Thing is, reality doesn't give a damn whether you like the outcome or not.

 

[Pardalis]

That Republicans use the word in a misleading and unfairly pejorative fashion

Didn't you just agree that Obama is a socialist?

So you agree that Obama is a Socialist?

Yes. I do

 

[RandFan]

Obama is not a socialist, that's my position, nothing contradictory about that. What is your position?

Depends on how you define socialist. The thing most people fail to understand is that words are not laws of physics that govern the universe. They are merely a means to convey ideas. I think he is a socialist. But then, to some extent, we are all socialists now.

I bet you're not going to answer like the others.

Given the cold war McCarthyism epithet of the word I really don't blame them. At least they are not using the word in a dishonest fashion as so many on the right do. As I told Wildcat, I would be fine if there were a singular definition if it would silence the idiots. I do not relish the fact that Conservatives have such ammunition. It's not as if I like the word or want the word.

 

[RandFan]

Didn't you just agree that Obama is a socialist?

YES! Jesus Christ!

That Republicans use the word in a misleading and unfairly pejorative fashion doesn't change the fact that the word has evolved. Perhaps you don't like that the word "gay" has been appropriated by gays and lesbians. Perhaps you think those who use the word gay in that fashion are "playing a word game". Thing is, reality doesn't give a damn whether you like the outcome or not.

Didn't you just agree that Obama is a socialist?

"Fashion", it's not the word itself but the way it is used. I've explained this over and over.

 

[Pardalis]

Depends on how you define socialist

And round and round we go.

At least they are not using the word in a dishonest fashion as so many on the right do.

People used to call Bush and Cheney "Neocons", in a pejorative fashion. But they were Neocons nonetheless.

 

[Pardalis]

YES! Jesus Christ!

OK, so Obama is according to you a socialist, so the Republicans and yourself are in agreement.

 

[RandFan]

Didn't you just agree that Obama is a socialist?

I can't help but wonder, do you bother to stop and even think about what it is that I'm arguing? Could you even tell me what the argument was that I made about the word "gay"? Because if you did I can't imagine you asking this question.

Yes, I agreed that Obama is a socialist. And? What "gotcha" do you think you have me on exactly?

 

[RandFan]

OK, so Obama is according to you a socialist, so the Republicans and yourself are in agreement.

NO! Please for the love of god take a deep breath and think about what I'm saying.

• Words are not ideas. They are a means to try and convey ideas.
• My idea of "socialism" is different from the Republicans idea of socialism.
• Just because we use the same word DOES NOT mean we agree as to what that word means.

Could you at least make an effort to try and understand my argument? I've been making it for pages now.