(02-06-2019 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I thought I saw her clap slightly. Now, many Dems didn’t, and it’s because they know Trump wasn’t talking about actual socialism, but instead what him and other conservatives have tried to label as socialism - government programs that provide services (e.g. healthcare, childcare, etc.). It serves no purpose other than to induce the exact type of comment you just made.

Had Obama made a pointed comment about fascism, I doubt conservatives would have clapped, as it would have been viewed as the same eye-roll inducing jab.

So the main point for you is between 'real' socialism and plain jane 'normal' redistributive policies. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Tell me where in this amazing distinction does the line appear for you?

Socialism:

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism)

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

Tell me how specific policy positions, such as government funded childcare or healthcare are the exact equivalent to the state/public owning the entirety of the means of production.

This is a perfect example of how when everything is socialism, you lose sight on the actual definition of socialism. Venezuela nationalized their oil and gas company - so the government owned the means of production and distribution of goods. I'd draw the line at calling the government "socialist" if began owning and distributing natural resources, or owning complete monopolies on services.

Actually that definition of socialism utterly ignores national socialism.

No state ownership of the means of production there and the roots of that and the hard version of collectivism are readily available historical fact.

Sorry lad. Your definition seems a little short.

From that definition it would be hard pressed to label the current Chinese as socialist which anyone who isnt willingly blind sees is not so.

The archetypal socialist regime has at its core the main principles. of collectivism and redistribution. The core tenets of modern progressivism. I suggest you look at the history of socialist theory.

You do realize I gave you the sources of my definition, right? One of them being merriam-webster...

National socialism = nazism, by the way.

And you're pretty much making my point - that no one clapped at that line because what it was doing was trying to poke liberals by equating them to true socialists, as opposed to people who often advocate for similar policies to those of European countries. I've yet to see a major portion of the Democratic party advocate for Venezuelan style socialism by nationalizing our oil and gas reserves, or Chinese style authoritarian rule (I'm sure there are some out there, but they are certainly not in the majority).

your dance around the concept of 'true socialists' and the explicit Democratic policy of strict command and control over the 20 percent of the economy known as healthcare is truly laughable.

The distinction of 'true' socialists given both the past track record and their wish list is worthy of a soup category chapter in the Goldilocks tale.

Not even to mention the overriding urge and necessity for government control of such items as the loan industry for education.


But please feel frere to squawk that that is nowhere near a socialistic urge there.