What is a Socialist? - We need a simple and universal Definition

[Khayembii Communique]

Someone who believes in the centralization of economic power, information and political power.

Someone who thinks nations should erect walls to keep the rest of the world out.

Someone who appreciates decisions being handed down from a isolated leadership.

Someone who inherently thinks people's decisions cannot be trusted to "right" and must be monitored and corrected.

And lastly, socialists are conservatives who prefer the Cold War-era status quo of nations isolating themselves and fear the change brought by globalization, free markets and an interconnected world.

That work?

Sounds like a modern American Conservative more than an internationalist Socialist.

 

[RadicalModerate]

Sounds like a modern American Conservative more than an internationalist Socialist.

The old guard Communist and Socialists have often become the conservatives; resistance to the new globalization order, an inability to open national markets to foreign investment, the resurgence of mercantilism and the general lack of desire to get in line with the rest of the world.

Con·ser·va·tive; adj.- tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

LOL because modern American Conservatives are in any way comparable to "being conservative" in the sense of applying it to "the old guard Communist and Socialists".

BTW I'm still waiting for you to back up your silly claims in the other thread.

 

[RadicalModerate]

Communique, I try not to attach cultural baggage to language. When I say conservative, I mean someone resistant to change. When I say liberal, I mean someone favorable to progress or reform. If I want to specify a specific type of each, I make it obvious. Debating "liberal" and "conservative" in American political terms doesn't translate to someone living in Canada, Russia or the UK.

BTW I'm still waiting for you to back up your silly claims in the other thread.

I told you already, I'm going to get in a pointless debate about the "real" meaning of Marxism, what isn't real Marxism and what is. If we can't agree on a starting point, then we can't debate. I've had enough debates with Marxists that degrade into hopelessly obscure debates over meaning and intent. I refuse to argue with Creationists for the same reason; how do you debate against someone who completely denies the reality of the situation?

No thanks.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Debating "liberal" and "conservative" in American political terms doesn't translate to someone living in Canada, Russia or the UK.

I'm fairly certain that plenty of Canadians, Russians and Britons understand who American Conservatives are and what they stand for.

I told you already, I'm going to get in a pointless debate about the "real" meaning of Marxism, what isn't real Marxism and what is. If we can't agree on a starting point, then we can't debate. I've had enough debates with Marxists that degrade into hopelessly obscure debates over meaning and intent. I refuse to argue with Creationists for the same reason; how do you debate against someone who completely denies the reality of the situation?

Never asked that I asked you to put down what you mean by "Marxism" and how overfertilization in the DPRK was due to it.

 

[RadicalModerate]

Never asked that I asked you to put down what you mean by "Marxism".

Marxism is the collected works of master thespian Charles Nelson Reilly.

Some people think it's the philosophical and economic writings and theories of Karl Marx, but they are uneducated dolts.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

So once again you openly refuse to respond to the question, because we know you can't. Good show.

 

[RadicalModerate]

So once again you openly refuse to respond to the question, because we know you can't. Good show.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, friend!