Challenge to those accusing the Dems of "socialism"

[Juniversal]

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"

The problem is the word is thrown around so often as a means to slander on the basis and belief that nothing socialist can be good when we are in fact, a social Democracy with inherent socialist leanings. These people have a very binary way of viewing the world. Socialism bad. Capitalism good.

Does that mean socialist policies suddenly change the nature of our government? Of course not, again, we are a social Democracy. Until the government controls the means of production i'd say Obama comfortably falls well within the confines of our quasi-capitalist system but don't tell that to the wing nuts.

 

[Chaos]

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.

First, I did not claim in the OP that a definition of socialism hasn´t been offered. => Lie #1

Second, Mhaze has not provided a definition of socialism => Lie #2

Third, you haven´t provided such a definition, either, thus as per the terms of the OP I will accept your admission that you use "socialism" simply as a fact-free smear.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ] 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!"

Why does what "they" do matter particularly? You seem to be complaining that one group (your opposition, I guess) is scoring some propaganda victories. Certainly it is much easier to score those if the other group hands it to them by opting to recoil in disgust from the relevant word and choose denial instead.

 

[SezMe]

Why does what "they" do matter particularly? You seem to be complaining that one group (your opposition, I guess) is scoring some propaganda victories. Certainly it is much easier to score those if the other group hands it to them by opting to recoil in disgust from the relevant word and choose denial instead.

Because over here the words socialism, communism, etc. are all synonyms for bad and evil and (especially) contrary to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the bible, and so forth. It is the next station on the road to loss of freedom, taking your guns, FEMA camps, and worse. You may think I'm exaggerating but I'm not.

You may think it's illogical but it is a political fact, especially in these hyperpartisan times. In fact, that is why Chaos created this thread - to try to deal with the insanity that surrounds the nonsensical use of the word as a pejorative.

 

[Francesca R]

You speak of illogic as political fact and in the same paragraph you appear to expect something to come from an effort to challenge it that merely buys into the same illogic.

Again, weird "challenge" . . . .

 

[BeAChooser]

Third, you haven´t provided such a definition, either

Yes I have, on multiple threads. You just never bothered to pay attention.

 

[Chaos]

Yes I have, on multiple threads. You just never bothered to pay attention.

Linking to a description of social democracy is not a definition of socialism, just like linking to the GOP homepage isn´t a definition of fascism.

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

 

[bikerdruid]

Yes I have, on multiple threads. You just never bothered to pay attention.

for the benefit of those of us that 'haven't been paying attention,' please give us your definition of socialism and tell us how obama's administration fits that definition.

 

[Juniversal]

Why does what "they" do matter particularly? You seem to be complaining that one group (your opposition, I guess) is scoring some propaganda victories. Certainly it is much easier to score those if the other group hands it to them by opting to recoil in disgust from the relevant word and choose denial instead.

I don't understand your objection. Demanding evidence (or refuting) claims is what skeptics do. Swing by the 9/11 CT section sometime.

 

[Elind]

Jesus never talked about socialism. Therefore it is evil.

Glenn Beck

 

[Francesca R]

I don't understand your objection. Demanding evidence (or refuting) claims is what skeptics do. Swing by the 9/11 CT section sometime.

It is trivial in the extreme to describe policies of the Democrats as embodying socialism and I did so in post 42.

Sorry, you're not looking for evidence. You apparently object to the (illogical) negative perceptions of the term socialism and apparently are playing nicely into the hands of those who capitalise on that. Best of luck. Weird though.

 

[bikerdruid]

Jesus never talked about socialism. Therefore it is evil.

Glenn Beck

jeuse never talked about it, he lived it.
jesus was a socialist.

 

[Elind]

jeuse never talked about it, he lived it.
jesus was a socialist.

Not according to Glenn Beck & Co.

(but he is a newbie Mormon, what does he know?)

 

[tyr_13]

It is trivial in the extreme to describe policies of the Democrats as embodying socialism and I did so in post 42.

Sorry, you're not looking for evidence. You apparently object to the (illogical) negative perceptions of the term socialism and apparently are playing nicely into the hands of those who capitalise on that. Best of luck. Weird though.

I believe the intent is to show that those decrying Obama as a 'socialist' don't really know what socialism is besides some vague negative connotations having to do with Communism, that the policies and politicians they support are just as 'socialist', or that socialism is not that bad in and of itself.

At least that the usefulness of the thread in my mind. As you rightly point out, the policies of the Democrats could 'embody socialism' as could that of many other political groups, including Republicans.

 

[Juniversal]

It is trivial in the extreme to describe policies of the Democrats as embodying socialism and I did so in post 42.

Sorry, you're not looking for evidence. You apparently object to the (illogical) negative perceptions of the term socialism and apparently are playing nicely into the hands of those who capitalise on that. Best of luck. Weird though.

Of course i'm not looking for evidence. I know Obama's not somehow transforming America into a Socialist dictatorship. I'm demanding evidence from those making the claim just as I would if someone claimed "there were explosives at ground zero!!". It's pretty weird that the claim is made when, as you've pointed out, America has a history and Gov't structured around socialist policies. But the implications are that Obama is somehow transforming America into a purely socialist country which is not the case. Hence my demand for evidence.

 

[lomiller]

Why does what "they" do matter particularly? You seem to be complaining that one group (your opposition, I guess) is scoring some propaganda victories. Certainly it is much easier to score those if the other group hands it to them by opting to recoil in disgust from the relevant word and choose denial instead.

perhaps there are some propaganda victories to be had using bait and switch tactics. this is, however a skeptic forum, and when people use an overbroad generalization of socialism to vilify it then claim popular, sound policy is evil because it's "socialist" then I would expect people to call the people out on their weak logic.

The OP does this by asking for them to fully define their terms. Can you explain to us why you object to asking for people to define their positions? Are you trying to defend these tactics?

 

[lomiller]

It is trivial in the extreme to describe policies of the Democrats as embodying socialism and I did so in post 42.

And therefor you claim democrats are evil for being socialist?

This is a notion that permeates any and every thread that remotely touches on US politics, the idea that anything that socialist is a synonym for evil. even if you don't feel that way, there is no other way to interpret your posts in this thread as defending this notion.

The OP is an attempt to get the people making such claims to define exactly which policies they equate with evil socialism so the policies can be discussed instread of simply regurgitating the same claims while refusing to hold any actual discussion.

 

[Dorian Gray]

<<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.

Definitions of a term can't include the term itself in the definition. To show you what I mean, let's substitute "bleenism" for "socialism", and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bleenism
bleen Democracy Traditional bleen democrats advocated the creation of bleenism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The bleen democratic movement sought to elect bleenists to political office to implement reforms. The modern bleen democratic movement has abandoned the goal of achieving a bleenist economy, and instead advocates for bleen reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits.

Now, from that amended article, please tell me: What is bleen?

You are approaching failbot levels of failure. In other words, you fail so regularly, you appear to be programmed to fail.

 

[Chaos]

It is trivial in the extreme to describe policies of the Democrats as embodying socialism and I did so in post 42.

It is also wrong in the extreme.

In the same way, it is also trivial in the extreme to say that pigs can fly, but only if you accept "running around in circles" as "flying" and define "pig" as "chicken". You can do that, if you want, but any elementary school kid will laugh at you for it.

Sorry, you're not looking for evidence. You apparently object to the (illogical) negative perceptions of the term socialism and apparently are playing nicely into the hands of those who capitalise on that. Best of luck. Weird though.

No.

I am simply extremely fed up with the people who label anything they do not like "socialism", while at the same time being absolutely ignorant about what that term actually means. I´m aware that trying to actually get a straight answer out of the usual suspects is like trying to nail a pudding to a wall, but where would this forum be if we didn´t regularly try the impossible?

 

[Beerina]

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?

Hence the dishonesty rampant around here. But for the efforts of people who wanted no socialized medicine, we'd have had full-blown, single-payer, nationalized medicine.

I know some of you put on blinders so you can pretend, for fraudulent purposes, that this wasn't the goal, but it most certainly would have been but for the efforts of people to stop it.

Hence my previous statement that let's not pretend.

If some of you wish to persist that somehow Obama or Democrats wouldn't go way further than they did, had people not stopped them, go ahead. But you're wrong, and you know it.

Now I did find it enheartening during the election that Obama did state, IIRC, that a socialized, single-payer system was not his goal. But I suspect that's because he remembered, unlike many here, who are about to be reminded in two days, what happened in 1994. Again, people, threats of voters, which stopped this. Not some belief inherent to Democrats.

My point, ignored by those who don't like it, is that the OP's thesis, that the Democrats may not be socialist, is due to the political realities in the US, not to their desires. If they're not socialist in practice, it's no thanks to themselves.