Those on the right, define "socialism" and "socialist"..

[H'ethetheth]

Will those on the right adopt this?

Well, assuming that this is not Poe's law at work, some of them do.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, assuming that this is not Poe's law at work, some of them do.

Well, one--Andrew Schlafly--and his mom Phyllis, but that's it. (Conservapedia isn't a parody, sadly.)

Still, I don't think it offers a version of conservatism that most conservatives would accept.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I liked the bit best about how socialism caused the financial crisis. Whether parody or not, it's comedy gold.

Within the European Union, a form of democratic socialism was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Well, one--Andrew Schlafly--and his mom Phyllis, but that's it. (Conservapedia isn't a parody, sadly.)

Possible, though then the creation of that article alone would already have required the creation of about 20 sockpuppet accounts.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What's socialist? Pretty much everything to a certain extent...

So using the word as a reason to reject a proposal or policy is meaningless, right?

It's one of the examples where the use of the terms needs a well defined context if it's going to be used to talk about a person's politics. There's no solid threshold that suddenly makes you something

Fair enough. Let me re-cast the question as a much narrower one than what RandFan is asking:

What definition can you provide such that it's meaningful to refer to a single payer healthcare system in the U.S. as "socialist" but taxpayer funded military or tax funded interstate highway system not "socialist"?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Whatever this means, it's not on topic.

Obama "socialism" =/= Chavez "socialism"
What is is Obama's policy like, compared with Chavez? I meant that as an example to show why you can't use the term as it commonly is today with a strict definition.
Clear enough?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I meant that as an example to show why you can't use the term as it commonly is today with a strict definition.

So using that term as a criticism of anything is meaningless and dishonest, right? (See again what Orwell had to say about the use of meaningless words in political discourse.)

At best it's equivocation. The word is used as if there was one single clear meaning even though there most certainly is not.

At any rate, since you admit the word has no single conventional meaning, you should also admit that using it as if it did is dishonest.

If you think conservatives never use it this way, but only use it in a consistent manner in contexts where the meaning is clearly defined, then you should be able to answer my question about what the word means such that it includes as "socialism" single payer healthcare systems but excludes taxpayer funded armies and roads.

 

[DavidJames]

Clear enough?

I think what is clear is no Republican is interested in defining the term, preferring to simply use it as a pejorative.

I suggest going forward when someone refers to Obama or his policies as Socialist or Socialism, we replace it with the phrase "Poopy Head" or "Poopy Headed".

This applies a similar amount of clarity to the claim while also casting the claimant in the correct intellectual light.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

The fear of those dirty socialists will always be there

I sometimes wonder at the absence of the terms "trickle-down" and "voodoo" economics

But yah calling something "socialist" is the same thing as pointing and yelling "Commie!"

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If you think conservatives never use it this way

I don't. Plenty do. I try not to. I represent only myself.

you should be able to answer my question about what the word means such that it includes as "socialism" single payer healthcare systems but excludes taxpayer funded armies and roads.

It's an issue of consolidation of government power and the erosion of checks and balances vs services required to maintain the country's infrastructure. Conservative ideology tends to be similar IMO to the liberal notion that big business hurts the middle class; too much government power leads to abuse. Let them have their role where it's essential, and stay out where it's not. Socialist/communist nations with the strictest interpretations of the ideology and least balances tend to get the more publicity which is why I personally think it gets associated so much even if wrongly to policies such as the government run healthcare, and often results in sweeping generalizations about the politics where the checks and balances are more established to prevent significant abuse.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't. Plenty do. I try not to. I represent only myself.

So do you condemn that usage of the word "socialism"?

you should be able to answer my question about what the word means such that it includes as "socialism" single payer healthcare systems but excludes taxpayer funded armies and roads.

It's an issue of consolidation of government power and the erosion of checks and balances vs services required to maintain the country's infrastructure. Conservative ideology tends to be similar IMO to the liberal notion that big business hurts the middle class; too much government power leads to abuse. Socialist/communist nations with the strictest interpretations of the ideology and least balances tend to get the more publicity which is why I personally think it gets abused so much, and often results in sweeping generalizations about the politics where the checks and balances are more established to prevent significant abuse.

Well, you quoted my request to address the question I asked, and you typed a lot of words, but you failed to respond to my question at all.

But let's try to play with what you've said. Is there any meaningful way you can define "too much government power" that distinguishes military spending or spending on the interstate highway system from healthcare spending?

Is it strictly a question of size? And if so, where do you draw the line?

And does this only apply to the federal government and not state, county or municipal governments?

The U.S. is still the largest economy in the world. In any reasonable definition of the words "big government", without rejecting the federalist system (i.e. the U.S. Constitution) and going back to some loose confederacy of states, we will always have a big government with a big federal budget.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But let's try to play with what you've said. Is there any meaningful way you can define "too much government power" that distinguishes military spending or spending on the interstate highway system from healthcare spending?

Like infrastructure & defense spending vs directly trying to influence how the private sector operates in certain industries?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Like infrastructure & defense spending vs directly trying to influence how the private sector operates in certain industries?

I don't understand this sentence fragment.

I'm not sure what dichotomy you are trying to set up here or how it relates to the question I've asked.

Are you saying that military and infrastructure spending does not directly influence how the private sector operates in certain industries but somehow public spending on healthcare does?

ETA: Currently, the healthcare industry gets a little under 50% of its revenues from public moneys (Medicare and such). Do you think the defense industry gets a smaller portion of its revenues from public moneys (primarily government contracts)? Or somehow these contracts have less influence over the defense industry than healthcare spending does over that industry?

ETA: And even defense contractors whose government revenues are down in the range of the healthcare industry such as Boeing, which gets 48% of their revenue from defense contracts primarily because they also have substantial revenues in making civilian aircraft, these are companies that are heavily regulated--in Boeing's case by the FAA (and OSHA, etc.)

So again, there really is no consistent distinction between government spending and regulation that is deemed "socialist" (or "big government") and that which is not other than spin, right?

 

[Tony]

Oddly enough we saw unprecedented growth and prosperity. The 50s are seen as a golden age by many Conservatives.

Indeed. Isn't it odd how conservatives lionize 1950's America while hating the policies that created it?

 

[RandFan]

Obama "socialism" =/= Chavez "socialism"
What is is Obama's policy like, compared with Chavez? I meant that as an example to show why you can't use the term as it commonly is today with a strict definition.
Clear enough?

I'll withdraw the OT claim. Let's first define socialsm in a way that we can identify Obama's policies as such and then compare. Until we do that we are simply wasting time with comparisons.

 

[RandFan]

Indeed. Isn't it odd how conservatives lionize 1950's America while hating the policies that created it?

So true.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'll withdraw the OT claim. Let's first define socialsm in a way that we can identify Obama's policies as such and then compare. Until we do that we are simply wasting time with comparisons.

How about my narrowing of your question? Even talking about "Obama's policies" is a pretty slippery idea. His only policy lately seems to be to compromise accede to GOP demands in order to keep the government limping along.

My narrowed question is about something Obama said he favors but took off the negotiating table as soon as he was elected: a single payer healthcare system.

Is there a meaningful definition of "socialism" that includes a single payer healthcare system but excludes current military spending?

 

[Alt+F4]

Is there any meaningful way you can define "too much government power" that distinguishes military spending or spending on the interstate highway system from healthcare spending?

That's a good question Joe and I think the answer they might come up with is that single payer healthcare is something being forced on the population by the governemnt (thus socialism) while the military and the interstate highway system are voluntary. You aren't forced to join the military or travel on the highway. This might be a weak argument but I can't think of another.

 

[Alt+F4]

Indeed. Isn't it odd how conservatives lionize 1950's America while hating the policies that created it?

Indeed, the good old days where teacher knew how to teach and there were powerful labor unions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's a good question Joe and I think the answer they might come up with is that single payer healthcare is something being forced on the population by the governemnt (thus socialism) while the military and the interstate highway system are voluntary. You aren't forced to join the military or travel on the highway. This might be a weak argument but I can't think of another.

You most certainly are forced to pay for the interstate highway system and the military. In what way are they voluntary such that the healthcare industry under a single payer system is not? [ETA: joining the military is not analogous to paying taxes to support a single payer healthcare system. Under a single payer system, for example, none of us would be forced to become nurses either.]

Under a single payer system, you are even free to pay for your own healthcare at a private hospital if you so choose. You could even buy private insurance to supplement the minimal essential government coverage everyone gets.