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

[RandFan]

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?

I'm happy to let anyone narrow or widen it as they see fit so long as we can use that yard stick in a consistent way. My thesis is that it can't be done, at all with any consistency. My recent claim that we are all socialists brought out howls of scorn. Fair enough. Just give me some standard we can use to know what the sam hell you (those on the right) are talking about.

I wish someone had asked me when I was using Socialism as an epithet. I wouldn't have been able to answer the question. I honestly have no way of crafting a definition that would justify calling Obama a socialist and exclude most conservatives. Seriously. I don't give a damn how narrow they want to paint it unless it's "whatever Obama does" but I think most are smart enough to see how asinine that would be.

Let them bring it on. We can have a discussion. Why should I set the ground rules beyond a reasonable request of consitency? Its wide open as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy to give them all the rope they need.

 

[Minoosh]

Would he be a Chavez, he would make it possible, he would simply change the laws and put the "proper" judges in the "proper" positions

No, Obama cares too much about what Economist thinks. When I say "centrist" usually I mean the Economist. They peddle this wild notion that social justice is integral to economic growth.

 

[RandFan]

No, Obama cares too much about what Economist thinks. When I say "centrist" usually I mean the Economist. They peddle this wild notion that social justice is integral to economic growth.

Oddly enough social justice is correlated with economic growth.

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

I said it was an argument, I didn't say it was a good one.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My recent claim that we are all socialists brought out howls of scorn.

Apparently, the only conservative participating here, Grizzly Bear, agrees with you.

He said, "What's socialist? Pretty much everything to a certain extent..." And he claims that he is against the use of the term without giving it a narrowed and specific definition since it is at least an ambiguous term.

Odd, though, that he participated in BAC's thread entitled, "I am not a Socialist. . .(don't you believe me?)" without criticizing BAC for this ill-defined use of the term.

 

[RandFan]

Apparently, the only conservative participating here, Grizzly Bear, agrees with you.

He said, "What's socialist? Pretty much everything to a certain extent..." And he claims that he is against the use of the term without giving it a narrowed and specific definition since it is at least an ambiguous term.

Odd, though, that he participated in BAC's thread entitled, "I am not a Socialist. . .(don't you believe me?)" without criticizing BAC for this ill-defined use of the term.

Yeah, I think most Conservatives have never even thought of it. They're spoon fed democrat=socialist=communist=mass murder & free cable TV.

I shall be eternally grateful to Victor Danelechanko. Victor, come back to the five and dime.

 

[grunion]

To be fair, it is not only "the right" that demonizes the S-word. To my knowledge there is only one politician on the national level that does not run and hide when the talking heads incredulously prod him with sticks and say "Senator Sanders, is it true?" All of the Dems, even the "Social Democrat" leaning members of Congress, will flee from the term Socialist, for reasons anyone alive during HUAC will understand.



Reminds me of an incident I recall from back when I was teaching High School in the Bronx in the early 1980s. I was teaching Social Studies and it was the height of the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua. I assigned two students to debate the pros and cons of Reagan's policy toward funding the Contras. They both did a decent job researching the facts leading up to the revolution, the main U.S. policy issues in play, and the general ideologies of the debate. Yet I had to just bang my head against the closet when the anti-Contra kid, after laying out the litany of human rights abuses and terrorist tactics used by the Contra army, concludes with, "so tell me, who are the Real Socialists in this war? Why it is the US that is really acting like the Socialists!" (by which he meant terrorists, I assume.) Sigh.

 

[RandFan]

To be fair, it is not only "the right" that demonizes the S-word. To my knowledge there is only one politician on the national level that does not run and hide when the talking heads incredulously prod him with sticks and say "Senator Sanders, is it true?" All of the Dems, even the "Social Democrat" leaning members of Congress, will flee from the term Socialist, for reasons anyone alive during HUAC will understand.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=23931http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_12714e4ac5457f0b5.jpg

Reminds me of an incident I recall from back when I was teaching High School in the Bronx in the early 1980s. I was teaching Social Studies and it was the height of the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua. I assigned two students to debate the pros and cons of Reagan's policy toward funding the Contras. They both did a decent job researching the facts leading up to the revolution, the main U.S. policy issues in play, and the general ideologies of the debate. Yet I had to just bang my head against the closet when the anti-Contra kid, after laying out the litany of human rights abuses and terrorist tactics used by the Contra army, concludes with, "so tell me, who are the Real Socialists in this war? Why it is the US that is really acting like the Socialists!" (by which he meant terrorists, I assume.) Sigh.

Liberal has also fell into disrepute. It's been reclaimed some. I love the way the fat heads say liiibrul as if that actually conveyed some information. Liberals fought for the rights of women and minorities. They have a proud tradition.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

All of the Dems, even the "Social Democrat" leaning members of Congress, will flee from the term Socialist, for reasons anyone alive during HUAC will understand.

True the history of the term as a meaningless word goes back a long time. (Long enough, as I mentioned, that Orwell used it as an example in his 1946 essay.)

And the reluctance of progressives to use the term is fitting. The word has been abused for so long that it simply means "bad" nowadays, and has no other consistent meaning.

 

[RandFan]

True the history of the term as a meaningless word goes back a long time. (Long enough, as I mentioned, that Orwell used it as an example in his 1946 essay.)

And the reluctance of progressives to use the term is fitting. The word has been abused for so long that it simply means "bad" nowadays, and has no other consistent meaning.

I accept that. Now, if we can just get some on the right to agree or provide a definition. I don't think either are going to happen.

 

[Corsair 115]

And your definition is?

I suspect their definition is much like the famous quote about pornography: they can't necessarily define socialism/socialist but they can recognize it when they see it!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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

I decided to wait on responding to this until I had a more level head. My answer is yes I do think it's stupid to use one-word-liners like "socialist" to describe the evils of a politician. It often gets used as a derogatory catch phrase by conservatives in the same way that racist, and moronic catch phrases from the "liberal left" are used to paint the views of any conservative/tea party member. As a derogatory one-liner, it becomes nothing more than an excuse to express dissatisfaction without getting into what aspects about the policy makes the politician "bad." For me as a relative laymen in many of these debates it irks me that people can be that unwilling to explain - even if the answers they provide aren't necessarily sound - why they have problems with the way policies are carried out

Rather than seeing socialism as a fixed point on the political spectrum I see it as a wide range in-between "pure capitalism", and "pure communism." Go too far on either extreme and you get the abuse I was making comparisons to earlier. Get a decent balance and the "socialist" scare word loses most of its meaning as a derogatory label; provisions in the policies that are enacted usually determine whether or not it's bad for the country, not the scare hype.

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

Partly, but not quite. You brought up healthcare and infrastructure as examples. In the case of the so-called "Obamacare" it involves the government entering the health insurance industry with an unfair advantage over private industry - similar to how a monopoly works - dealing with the goods and services that are provided. It's my perception that most conservatives view that as leaving openings for further abuses and erosion of checks and balances in government's active role. I think the improvements could have been made much differently but that gets into a different debate entirely.

Infrastructure is a basic cost of government, which is similar in the sense that you wind up being "forced" to pay for it since it's tax funded, but I personally can't see any of the same potential "abuses" that the government run system would run into.

If you're looking for something more specific I'm not sure what to offer to you since I'll be overstepping if I try to talk about specifics I'm not well versed in.

 

[RandFan]

In the case of the so-called "Obamacare" it involves the government entering the health insurance industry with an unfair advantage over private industry.

Thanks for the response. I know this isn't directed to me however, we are talking about the well being of citizens. It's demonstrable that Americans pay more and get less. We have higher mortality rates, greater incidence of pathology than many other nations. Why should private industry take precedent over the health and well being of citizens?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Why should private industry take precedent over the health and well being of citizens?

I don't think it should. My problem with the setup is that it models a monopoly-like setting where there's little or no incentive to change prices, supply, etc. and there's no adequate measure for the recipient to change providers if the one providing coverage doesn't deliver a good "product." It drives other insurance options into the ground rather than pushes to reform or improved an existing infrastructure, and then leaves no incentive for the provider itself to offer better service... that's my opinion anyway...

 

[L.Y.S.]

I'd not only like to see a definition for socialism, but someone from the right also define for me the differences between socialism, communism, and Marxism? If you can do this I'll resend my claims about conservatives being puppets and or incompetent.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Good luck getting it... whenever the "catch term" is invoked, communism, marxism, and socialism are associated as one in the same. Reality is, the "definition" is nothing more than an equivocation, and a pretty inaccurate way to go about it.

 

[bikerdruid]

communism, marxism, and socialism are associated as one in the same....

........only by those who don't actually know wtf they are talking about.

 

[DavidJames]

My problem with the setup is that it models a monopoly-like setting where there's little or no incentive to change prices, supply, etc. and there's no adequate measure for the recipient to change providers if the one providing coverage doesn't deliver a good "product." It drives other insurance options into the ground rather than pushes to reform or improved an existing infrastructure...

I'm okay with all of this. I think the citizens of the country are worth it. I think the country is stronger because of it.

, and then leaves no incentive for the provider itself to offer better service...

Call me old fashion, but I think keeping people healthy, curing illness and repairing damage to human beings should, in itself, be something that incents providers to seek continuous improvement. I happen to think money isn't the only motivator in life.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Good luck getting it... whenever the "catch term" is invoked, communism, marxism, and socialism are associated as one in the same. Reality is, the "definition" is nothing more than an equivocation, and a pretty inaccurate way to go about it.

Pretty much. If they knew the distinct difference between them, they would not make such biased comments. Nor would they call Obama a socialist and then turn around and call him a fascist. Makes no sense.

 

[RandFan]

Pretty much. If they knew the distinct difference between them, they would not make such biased comments. Nor would they call Obama a socialist and then turn around and call him a fascist. Makes no sense.

If I were still a conservative I would attempt to define my terms. I don't have a problem doing that. The words don't matter if we agree what they mean. The problem is that to do so will show inconsistency and obfuscation. You can be sure I'm going to hold people accountable in the future for failing to offer a definition. Ill bump this thread and ask them to give a definition. Let's see how it goes.