That’s not what ‘socialism’ means

[Verax]

Been to MM or Huffington?

Beside, fascism and fascists are nationalist not capitalist.

And democrats are socialists not capitalists? :roll:

 

[Verax]

First, let's maintain an American political context where appropriate and that includes American political media aimed at Americans.

Second, fascism and fascists are nationalist not capitalist. but this doesn't stop MSNBC/MM/Huff from calling even moderate conservatives fascists.

Nah, not going to stick around to listen to excuses for the right's hyperbolic use of "socialist". Just admit it's a propaganda hook and move on.

 

[ecofarm]

And democrats are socialists not capitalists? :roll:

Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. You're thinking of communism.

 

[ecofarm]

Nah, not going to stick around to listen to excuses for the right's hyperbolic use of "socialist". Just admit it's a propaganda hook and move on.

In an American political context, Obama is a socialist. Is he a socialist in the Stalin sense? Of course not. In the Swedish sense? Not quite.

If you cannot maintain context or choose to drop it for political grandstanding, that's your problem and not others'.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

In an American political context, Obama is a socialist. Is he a socialist in the Stalin sense? Of course not. In the Swedish sense? Not quite.

If you cannot maintain context or choose to drop it for political grandstanding, that's your problem and not others'.

Why because we still function in a mixed economy? What American conservative would not?

 

[ecofarm]

Why because we still function in a mixed economy? What American conservative would not?

Bottom line: this "Obama is not a socialist" context-dropping crap is nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Bottom line: this "Obama is not a socialist" context-dropping crap is nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

No, calling him a "socialist" is nothing more than an ad hominem.

 

[Fletch]

Immediately move the goalposts and start playing games with what words mean. I have no interest in pursuing dishonest debate.

I didn't move the goalposts. You just demonstrated that you aren't capable of addressing the issue honestly.

 

[Fletch]

People who refer to Obama as a socialist shouldn't be taken seriously.

Is Bernie Sanders a socialist? He claims he is. In what ways does he and Obama differ?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Is Bernie Sanders a socialist? He claims he is. In what ways does he and Obama differ?

Yes, Bernie would be consider far more socialistic than Obama. Let's take healthcare for instance. Bernie called for a single payer system which cuts out the private insurance companies. Obama's plan mimics much of the conservative/libertarian think tanks' ideas right down to pick your favorite private plan and cut out any public option(s).

 

[Fletch]

Yes, Bernie would be consider far more socialistic than Obama. Let's take healthcare for instance. Bernie called for a single payer system which cuts out the private insurance companies. Obama's plan mimics much of the conservative/libertarian think tanks' ideas right down to pick your favorite private plan and cut out any public option(s).

Do you think Obama opposes single payer? I don't. I think Obama took what he could get through congress. I doubt you could find an issue where Obama disagrees with Sanders in any substantial way. So it is impossible to say that Sanders is a socialist and Obama is not.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Do you think Obama opposes single payer? I don't. I think Obama took what he could get through congress. I doubt you could find an issue where Obama disagrees with Sanders in any substantial way. So it is impossible to say that Sanders is a socialist and Obama is not.

I suppose a case can be made that Obama's hands were tied due to his Congress. The main reason I don't buy it is because he effectively killed the public option with backroom deals he made with the for profit hospital lobby. That speaks volumes to me. Rhetoric (what a politician says) is usually just that......rhetoric. They all do it. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[ludin]

No, calling him a "socialist" is nothing more than an ad hominem.

not when that is what he promotes.

 

[ludin]

I suppose a case can be made that Obama's hands were tied due to his Congress. The main reason I don't buy it is because he effectively killed the public option with backroom deals he made with the for profit hospital lobby. That speaks volumes to me. Rhetoric (what a politician says) is usually just that......rhetoric. They all do it. Actions speak louder than words.

no he killed the public option because he couldn't even get some of his own party members to vote for it without trying to bribe them which technically is illegal and he should have been brought up on bribery charges.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

not when that is what he promotes.

As I stated, people that do that are either ignorant of what socialism is in relation to his policies, or are just using it as an Ad Hominem. I think it's mostly the latter, but sometimes the former.

 

[Fletch]

I suppose a case can be made that Obama's hands were tied due to his Congress. The main reason I don't buy it is because he effectively killed the public option with backroom deals he made with the for profit hospital lobby. That speaks volumes to me. Rhetoric (what a politician says) is usually just that......rhetoric. They all do it. Actions speak louder than words.

Here is Bernie Sanders "bold" agenda for the US:

To that end, Sanders argues that the United States ought to

* Invest in our crumbling infrastructure with a major program to create jobs by rebuilding roads, bridges, water systems, waste water plants, airports, railroads and schools.

* Transform energy systems away from fossil fuels to create jobs while beginning to reverse global warming and make the planet habitable for future generations.

* Develop new economic models to support workers in the United States instead of giving tax breaks to corporations which ship jobs to low-wage countries overseas.

* Make it easier for workers to join unions and bargain for higher wages and benefits.

* Raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour so no one who works forty hours a week will live in poverty.

* Provide equal pay for women workers who now make 78 percent of what male counterparts make.

* Reform trade policies that have shuttered more than 60,000 factories and cost more than 4.9 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs.

* Make college affordable and provide affordable childcare to restore America’s competitive edge compared to other nations.

* Break up big banks. The six largest banks now have assets equivalent to 61 percent of our gross domestic product, over $9.8 trillion. They underwrite more than half the mortgages in the country and issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards.

* Join the rest of the industrialized world with a Medicare-for-all healthcare system that provides better care at less cost.

* Expand Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and nutrition programs.

* Reform the tax code based on wage earners’ ability to pay and eliminate loopholes that let profitable corporations stash profits overseas and pay no US federal income taxes.

Bernie Sanders

On which of those would he find Obama on the other side? If none, then how can one claim the Sanders is a socialist and Obama not?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

no he killed the public option because he couldn't even get some of his own party members to vote for it without trying to bribe them which technically is illegal and he should have been brought up on bribery charges.

Proof please.

 

[Ryan5]

The irony is both the left and right of the modern world are ardent capitalists.. The only difference being that the left wants measured growth and more public spending and the right wants no public spending and unmeasured growth.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Here is Bernie Sanders "bold" agenda for the US:

To that end, Sanders argues that the United States ought to

* Invest in our crumbling infrastructure with a major program to create jobs by rebuilding roads, bridges, water systems, waste water plants, airports, railroads and schools.

* Transform energy systems away from fossil fuels to create jobs while beginning to reverse global warming and make the planet habitable for future generations.

* Develop new economic models to support workers in the United States instead of giving tax breaks to corporations which ship jobs to low-wage countries overseas.

* Make it easier for workers to join unions and bargain for higher wages and benefits.

* Raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour so no one who works forty hours a week will live in poverty.

* Provide equal pay for women workers who now make 78 percent of what male counterparts make.

* Reform trade policies that have shuttered more than 60,000 factories and cost more than 4.9 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs.

* Make college affordable and provide affordable childcare to restore America’s competitive edge compared to other nations.

* Break up big banks. The six largest banks now have assets equivalent to 61 percent of our gross domestic product, over $9.8 trillion. They underwrite more than half the mortgages in the country and issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards.

* Join the rest of the industrialized world with a Medicare-for-all healthcare system that provides better care at less cost.

* Expand Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and nutrition programs.

* Reform the tax code based on wage earners’ ability to pay and eliminate loopholes that let profitable corporations stash profits overseas and pay no US federal income taxes.

Bernie Sanders

On which of those would he find Obama on the other side? If none, then how can one claim the Sanders is a socialist and Obama not?

It's all on how one goes about it. Let's take social security for instance. In the words of Sanders, “The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the future is to eliminate the cap on the payroll tax on income above $250,000 so millionaires and billionaires pay the same share as everyone else.”

What is Obama's stance? I will applaud him for doing things like this: Obama had included a chained CPI proposal in his budget last year. On Thursday, the White House said it would not be in his upcoming budget, due March 4. I'm still waiting to hear about long term changes. I wouldn't doubt if someone like Hillary will come up with some past conservative plan like privatize it and it will be called socialistic by her rivals. I have a feeling it will be a Democrat that puts the lipstick on the proverbial pig. In the meantime the conservatives will move further to the right and want people to be able to 'choose' if they want to have a retirement plan and simply leave the poorest behind. I suppose it could be argued being totally against people is beyond socialistic

 

[Somerville]

Perhaps it would help if you could identify someone who is a socialist, or where in the world socialism is being practiced so that an adequate comparison can be made. The leader of France is a socialist. Is he really not a socialist? And in what particular way would an American liberal be in disagreement with him. Thanks.

NOPE! Tell us how you define "socialism" and we might be able to work from that point.

 

[Somerville]

In an American political context, Obama is a socialist. Is he a socialist in the Stalin sense? Of course not. In the Swedish sense? Not quite.

If you cannot maintain context or choose to drop it for political grandstanding, that's your problem and not others'.

Only in the contemporary GOP political context can the President be seen as a socialist.

 

[fmw]

I think the term is used by conservatives to define activities that serve to increase government control at the expense of freedom. It doesn't meet the classical definition, but it isn't hard to figure out.

 

[Somerville]

I think the term is used by conservatives to define activities that serve to increase government control at the expense of freedom. It doesn't meet the classical definition, but it isn't hard to figure out.

Freedom to do what -- dump sewage where ever a corporation thinks is cheapest? Pollute freshwater sources, increasing the cost of purification? Keep giant pigfarms pouring out tons of fecal waste onto public lands? Increase air pollution because it is cheaper than updating furnaces? Pour flammable materials into rivers until they catch fire.

Every regulation usually, not always, but most of the time results in taxpayers paying less for cleanups.

Increased regulations on corporate entities is not socialism. Socialism at least in part means roads, schools, public utilities, all the basic necessities of life emanating from government OWNED bodies. In its most extreme form, every business would be a government body - well, that's kinda communism. In its most efficient form, socialistic practice would allow for private businesses and manufacturing along side the items I listed: infrastructure, education, healthcare with minimal housing and food.

Would some people take advantage of socialism and decide to sit on their asses for most of their lives? Yes, it cannot be denied there will always be a minority of lazy ass holes in society. The majority of the population, given a better starting point, would strive for more. A socialist has more faith in humanity than the free market advocate. The hard core capitalist who refuses to accept the reality of just how much support they receive from government efforts will of course point at the exceptions for justification to punish the poor hard-working 'others'

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I think the term is used by conservatives to define activities that serve to increase government control at the expense of freedom. It doesn't meet the classical definition, but it isn't hard to figure out.

Which is hogwash because they have no problem using that control for things from international trade to social policies etc...

 

[Paschendale]

Far too often socialism is simply a code word for "things I don't agree with".

And moreso, "things that benefit someone other than me*."

*Or the super wealthy people that I naively dream of one day being

..... and far too often "that's not what socialism means" is simply a code phrase for "I have no cogent rebuttal." If the definition of every "-ism" were guarded with the technical rigor socialists guard theirs, none of us would - technically - be anything.

And for a group of people that cannot coherently, let alone consistently define their own ideology, save in terms of everything it isn't, that particular excuse sure seems convenient; lame, but convenient.

Sure we can. You just never listen when we do.

No, calling him a "socialist" is nothing more than an ad hominem.

It's just inaccurate. I'm a socialist. He isn't. I'd really like it if he was. But he isn't. Bernie Sanders is. I like him.

no he killed the public option because he couldn't even get some of his own party members to vote for it without trying to bribe them which technically is illegal and he should have been brought up on bribery charges.

Despite what the right likes to claim, Democrats aren't socialists. If they were, we'd have gotten the public option, or maybe even single payer.

On which of those would he find Obama on the other side? If none, then how can one claim the Sanders is a socialist and Obama not?

All of them. You may notice that none of those things have happened or even come close.

I think the term is used by conservatives to define activities that serve to increase government control at the expense of freedom. It doesn't meet the classical definition, but it isn't hard to figure out.

The freedom that they particularly like. Conservatives have no problem increasing government control at the expense of freedoms they don't like. It's pretty hypocritical.