Challenge to those accusing the Dems of "socialism"

[Chaos]

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.

It consists of two parts:

1) Define "socialism" in your own words, in such a way that those with an actual clue about economics (fair warning: that includes myself) can tell that you understand the meaning of the word "socialism".

2) Show, using actual evidence, how the policies of the Democratic Party, now or within the last couple of Dem presidencies (say, back to Kennedy) actually fit that definition.

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.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

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.

 

[DC]

using actual evidence

and that is why this thread will not work

 

[ProBonoShill]

Is the definition of Socialism soley determined by economic policy as the OP seems to indicate?

 

[DC]

Is the definition of Socialism soley determined by economic policy as the OP seems to indicate?

what is your definition of Socialism?

 

[ProBonoShill]

what is your definition of Socialism?

Socialism can be defined in many different ways, which is why I posed the question.

You're an admitted Socialist what does it mean to you?

 

[DC]

Socialism can be defined in many different ways, which is why I posed the question.

You're an admitted Socialist what does it mean to you?

this thread is not about me, it is about you people that claim Obama is a socialist. So it is you that has to post your definition of Socialism and also evidence that shows that Obama is a socialist according to your own definition.

i wonder if you are able to do so.

 

[mhaze]

<<Yawn>> I answer this because it does not a priori seem an intellectually dishonest question, as has been the case in the prior several cases where the question was asked in various contexts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Social Democracy Traditional Social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The Social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. 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.


By no means does the evidence suggest that the One has "abandoned the goal of achieving a socialist economy".


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.

The refusal to end this thread now that the OP has been shown should be taken as a denial of reality by the local and resident socialists, or just a continuation of their lame disinformative efforts.

 

[tyr_13]

Lincoln was a socialist. Good to know.

 

[lomiller]

Socialism can be defined in many different ways, which is why I posed the question.

The OP asked for those who cry socialism to say exactly what they mean by that. Saying “I can’t because no one will tell me what socialism means” is not a very good response. In fact it’s a response pretty much confirms the OP’s suggestion that the people who are decrying socialism don’t have a clue what they are objecting to.

 

[lomiller]

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.

Hence the OP asking you to provide your definition. If you refuse to define your own position, you have no call to complain when people infer what that position is.

 

[Spindrift]

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.

Then choose one of the various definitions of socialism that you see fit and argue on that basis that they are socialists.

 

[Thunder]

By no means does the evidence suggest that the One has "abandoned the goal of achieving a socialist economy".

why do you have to attack Obama?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Heath insurance has nothing to do with "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange".

Also, Obama doesn't have the authority to do what you say. Laws are passed by Congress, then signed (or vetoed) by the Chief Executive. We have a system of checks and balances across the three branches of government.

 

[ddt]

<<Yawn>> I answer this because it does not a priori seem an intellectually dishonest question, as has been the case in the prior several cases where the question was asked in various contexts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Social Democracy Traditional Social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The Social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. 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.

So, the OP asked for a definition of socialism and you give a description of the aims of social democrats. Great way to answer the question.

By no means does the evidence suggest that the One has "abandoned the goal of achieving a socialist economy".

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.

The refusal to end this thread now that the OP has been shown should be taken as a denial of reality by the local and resident socialists, or just a continuation of their lame disinformative efforts.

The second question in the OP was to describe how any Democratic president from Kennedy up to now has had socialist policies. I fail to see any name of a Democratic president in your answer. You speak of an elusive "The One" - who is that? But you utterly fail to address how his policies might be socialist.

 

[Chaos]

<<Yawn>> I answer this because it does not a priori seem an intellectually dishonest question, as has been the case in the prior several cases where the question was asked in various contexts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Social Democracy Traditional Social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The Social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. 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.


By no means does the evidence suggest that the One has "abandoned the goal of achieving a socialist economy".


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.

The refusal to end this thread now that the OP has been shown should be taken as a denial of reality by the local and resident socialists, or just a continuation of their lame disinformative efforts.

Total, utter FAIL.

Which part of "in your own words" is so *********** hard to understand?

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

And where is the actual evidence? All I see is the same demented claim repeated over and over, as if the claim itself already constitutes its own proof.

I conclude, then, that you are aware you have no idea what socialism is.

 

[mhaze]

Hence the OP asking you to provide your definition. If you refuse to define your own position, you have no call to complain when people infer what that position is.

But since I've done that, your post has zero meaning.

 

[A'isha]

But since I've done that, your post has zero meaning.

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!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Was there ever any doubt?

"Communist" is old. "Liberal" is tired.

"Socialist" is the new black.

 

[Chaos]

But since I've done that, your post has zero meaning.

What you´ve given is neither yours nor a definition.