[besson3c]

I'm sick of these terms being tossed around solely as a means to invoke strong reactions when it is clear that these terms are being inappropriately used. I would like any Republican here who thinks that Obama is any one of these things actually make a case and provide an appropriate definition, if you can...

Is our Democracy really as fragile as you think it is? What are you afraid of? Take universal health care, for instance... Many countries have it and are not considered socialist countries. If we were to adopt this, do you really think that this would tip the scales and make us a socialist nation? Or wait, would this make as communist, marxist, or facist instead? These terms are so abused by you guys that I really don't even know what the hell you really mean anymore...

What would it take to get us all to dispense with these stupid hot button terms? This is sort of like calling Steve Jobs a Nazi for forcing DRM on us (back before the days of iTunes Plus). For starters, the term doesn't even apply, but second, it is a complete and total exaggeration. Has the extent of our abilities to form an intellectual argument suffered so much that we are forced to use these weighty words? Where does this stop? Why must people defend themselves against such ridiculous, all-heart-no-brains claims constantly?

This goes for LIberals and Conservatives alike too, and all sorts of subject matter, although all of the "Obama is ____ist" examples are the best I have right now for the purpose of getting this thread started.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm sick of these terms being tossed around solely as a means to invoke strong reactions when it is clear that these terms are being inappropriately used.

What term would you like us to use then?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

What term would you like us to use then?

It depends on the context, but I have yet to find a context where any of the ism words I've used are appropriate, because all political candidates believe in democracy and have provided no indications that they wouldn't continue on in a democratic government if elected.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It depends on the context, but I have yet to find a context where any of the ism words I've used are appropriate, because all political candidates believe in democracy and have provided no indications that they wouldn't continue on in a democratic government if elected.

So, IYE, you can't have a socialist democracy?

Why?

Isn't one an economic philosophy and the other a means of governance? Why are they incompatible?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, IYE, you can't have a socialist democracy?

Why?

Isn't one an economic philosophy and the other a means of governance. Why are they incompatible?

You can have a socialist democracy. There is a difference between policies that are about trying to provide for everybody rather than a select few, and actually having a socialist government. If you want to call the policies themselves socialist, fine, but don't go railing against socialism as a whole, because a policy that provides for everybody doesn't make us live under a socialist government any more than providing public education does.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

but don't go railing against socialism as a whole, because a policy that provides for everybody doesn't make us live under a socialist government any more than providing public education does.

What is your issue with socialism as a whole, and by extension, why does that issue not apply to its component parts?

By component parts I mean public schools, public roads, whatever.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

.

Is our Democracy ....

The US is a federal republic, not a democracy

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The US is a federal republic, not a democracy

I particularily enjoy this one.

[besson3c]

I think you meant to say a "representative democracy", Chongo?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

What is your issue with socialism as a whole, and by extension, why does that issue not apply to its component parts?

By component parts I mean public schools, public roads, whatever.

I'm not railing against socialism, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think you meant to say a "representative democracy", Chongo?

No. He means a Constitutional Republic.

I love it when someone corrects another and gets it wrong.

[Chongo]

Democracy is organized mob rule. The initiative and referendum process is the closest thing to democracy we have in the US, and has critics of the process on both sides of the aisle.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not railing against socialism, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here...

You must think something is wrong with socialism, otherwise you wouldn't be miffed at people using the term the way they do.

If you don't take issue with socialism, why would you take issue with people calling policy X socialist?

Again, "policy X" can mean anything from public schools to public roads to national defense: i.e. policies that provide for everyone.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by subego 

You must think something is wrong with socialism, otherwise you wouldn't be miffed at people using the term the way they do.

Not at all - he just thinks that using words inaccurately as the right tends to just confuses debate, which is, presumably, why hey do it. The right uses the word 'socialism' as far as I can tell, as short hand for Soviet Russia, which is just plain wrong.

[besson3c]

I don't have any strong opinions for or against socialism, I just dislike how the term is so grossly misused as a means to invoke fear and as a means to touch what have been turned into hot buttons. I'm assuming that many are fervently against socialism, which is what motivates these actions.

[vmarks]

Of facism/communism/marxism/socialism, does one of those describe the former Soviet Union?

Does more than one describe the former Soviet Union?

Of the ones that do not, why are they "just plain wrong?"

[subego]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Not at all - he just thinks that using words inaccurately as the right tends to just confuses debate, which is, presumably, why hey do it. The right uses the word 'socialism' as far as I can tell, as short hand for Soviet Russia, which is just plain wrong.

If that's what we're doing, then I resubmit my original question. If we are using "socialist" as shorthand for Soviet Russia, what shorthand should we use when we think something is merely socialist?

I've already provided a list of "socialist" programs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't have any strong opinions for or against socialism, I just dislike how the term is so grossly misused as a means to invoke fear and as a means to touch what have been turned into hot buttons. I'm assuming that many are fervently against socialism, which is what motivates these actions.

Can you provide an example of what you'd find as an appropriate use of the term?

[subego]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

tends to just confuses debate, which is, presumably, why hey do it.

Maybe this is something one can only learn the hard way, but on the off chance this is not the case...

The thought process "I would only do X if I were an asshole, therefore people who do X are assholes" is always, always, always wrong.

[Chuckit]

So what we have here is kind of a Zeno paradox of socialism — no individual socialist policy is socialism, so no matter how many you implement, you can never actually achieve socialism.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So what we have here is kind of a Zeno paradox of socialism — no individual socialist policy is socialism, so no matter how many you implement, you can never actually achieve socialism.

Not at all. The problem is that the word has several meanings in different contexts. Paying for roads from taxation is socialist, the Soviet Union was socialist, and France has an active Socialist Party. They are all very different. Socialism is a political system that has at its core a belief that the means of production and distribution should be owned by the workers, or sometimes by the community at large. Social democracy (perhaps best characterized by some of the European Socialist parties) has as its defining idea that democratic forms of government can and should be used to improve the lot of all people.
Socialist policies (ie ones that benefit all people directly, rather than just a few) can emerge within a system that is, overall, not socialist in character.

[loki74]

Now this thread is interesting. In the title, it questions the intelligence of all Republicans (that's a generalization) as to the definition of certain terms (so it's semantic debate).

In the body it then proceeds to accuse Republicans of using said terms for the specific purpose of "invok[ing] strong reactions." Which is odd, because in order to deliberately misuse a term to get them to react, one would have to know that he or she is misusing the term, and therefore would know the "correct" definition of the term (that's a contradiction to the title).

And please. Let's not try for one moment to imply that this is solely a Republican fault (this would be hypocrisy). Hyperbole is all you're talking about, and everyone is guilty of using it, and not just in politics.

So what we have is a self-contradictory generalized hypocritical accusation wrapped in a semantic debate. Brilliant....

[subego]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Socialist policies (ie ones that benefit all people directly, rather than just a few) can emerge within a system that is, overall, not socialist in character.

So, I ask again, what should we be calling these policies?

[besson3c]

subego: I guess "publicly funded services"? My beef is not really with what we call these services though, but with calling people who favor services designed this way as "socialist". To me, the label "socialist" has a strong connotation of that person embracing a particular political ideology, and of course it is absolutely possible to favor something like public health care without being a socialist, as per this conceptualization.

I guess my problem is with treating these concepts as binaries, and failing to realize the sliding scale of socialist -> free market that most, if not all societies fall within...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by loki74 

Now this thread is interesting. In the title, it questions the intelligence of all Republicans (that's a generalization) as to the definition of certain terms (so it's semantic debate).

In the body it then proceeds to accuse Republicans of using said terms for the specific purpose of "invok[ing] strong reactions." Which is odd, because in order to deliberately misuse a term to get them to react, one would have to know that he or she is misusing the term, and therefore would know the "correct" definition of the term (that's a contradiction to the title).

And please. Let's not try for one moment to imply that this is solely a Republican fault (this would be hypocrisy). Hyperbole is all you're talking about, and everyone is guilty of using it, and not just in politics.

So what we have is a self-contradictory generalized hypocritical accusation wrapped in a semantic debate. Brilliant....

Don't you ever rant about some things that you don't quite have your finger on and have conceptualized fully? I guess it was wrong of me to title this thread as something that only Republicans do, because like you said all sorts of people do this sort of thing, but some of the Republican posts in here triggered this thread, which is probably why I centered them out.

I don't agree that this is simply hyperbole though, because this is designed to invoke a little red scare, a little pressing against a bruise for some, a little something that often invokes a rather visceral reaction in some... I don't know what you would call it, but I think of hyperbole as merely a means to accentuate a point in a rather harmless way. This is something different, although I can't quite put my finger on it.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Don't you ever rant about some things that you don't quite have your finger on and have conceptualized fully?

Well, I always try to conceptualize things fully before posting, just in case I run into someone who's just as much a jerk as me, and tries to nitpick the hell out of my post! x]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't agree that this is simply hyperbole though, because this is designed to invoke a little red scare, a little pressing against a bruise for some, a little something that often invokes a rather visceral reaction in some... I don't know what you would call it, but I think of hyperbole as merely a means to accentuate a point in a rather harmless way. This is something different, although I can't quite put my finger on it.

Hm. A valid point. I guess the difference is that hyperbole is obviously hyperbole, and it's the one using hyperbole doesn't really expect the listeners to believe it (ie: "It's raining cats and dogs!"), while scare tactics actually attempt to convince the listener that the exaggeration is true, if not viable. I think a statement such as "Steve Jobs is a Nazi" is more of a hyperbole, while something like "so-and-so is a flaming red commie" is more of a scare tactic. It all depends on the delivery though. A hyperbole mixed with strong feelings over a highly polarizing issue can easily become a scare tactic.

But now I'm on a rant... and its 1:14 AM. So I'll shut up now....

[Doofy]

I think the more pressing question is: Do lefties know what fascism/communism/marxism/socialism is?

Most lefties I know are lefties because they think they support freedom yet don't realise that leftist policies can't be realised without a somewhat totalitarian regime oppressing at least part of the population.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I think the more pressing question is: Do lefties know what fascism/communism/marxism/socialism is?

Most lefties I know are lefties because they think they support freedom yet don't realise that leftist policies can't be realised without a somewhat totalitarian regime oppressing at least part of the population.

You forgot, and Godwin forgive me, Nazism. Anything that promotes the group over the individual is fascism/communism/marxism/socialism/nazism. The only difference is the mechanism of government control, whether directly or by proxy control of corporations.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You forgot, and Godwin forgive me, Nazism. Anything that promotes the group over the individual is fascism/communism/marxism/socialism/nazism. The only difference is the mechanism of government control, whether directly or by proxy control of corporations.

Oh please. This is exactly the kind of mis-informed nonsense the op is railing against.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You forgot, and Godwin forgive me, Nazism.

No I didn't - I was simply typing the thread title out again, with modifications. I can't read half the crap in here because certain annoying people found their way into the ignore list.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Anything that promotes the group over the individual is fascism/communism/marxism/socialism/nazism. The only difference is the mechanism of government control, whether directly or by proxy control of corporations.

I agree. It's a shame that some people are too stupid to understand this basic principle.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No I didn't - I was simply typing the thread title out again, with modifications. I can't read half the crap in here because certain annoying people found their way into the ignore list.

correcttion, the OP left it out.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess my problem is with treating these concepts as binaries, and failing to realize the sliding scale of socialist -> free market that most, if not all societies fall within...

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere.

I agree that the people you are taking issue with treat this as binary.

Barring (at least, for the sake of argument) ignorance or obfuscation, why do you think they do this?

Hint: what is (are) the important difference(s) between publicly funded service X in a society on one side of the socialist/free market scale, and the same publicly funded service on the other? Are you sure there are differences?

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by subego 

Hint: what is (are) the important difference(s) between publicly funded service X in a society on one side of the socialist/free market scale, and the same publicly funded service on the other? Are you sure there are differences?

The two are not binary options - there are endless ways to organize societies, markets, social ownership etc are not opposites on a scale. There are certainly differences between any two implementations of policies, but they don't fit on a simple scale.

[subego]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

The two are not binary options - there are endless ways to organize societies, markets, social ownership etc are not opposites on a scale. There are certainly differences between any two implementations of policies, but they don't fit on a simple scale.

You're right. I should have posed the question (hint) as the inverse.

Are there similarities between publicly funded service X in its various incarnations amongst the infinite potential styles of economic governance?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Oh please. This is exactly the kind of mis-informed nonsense the op is railing against.

No, unfortunately the original poster's complaint has been whittled down by subego to the point where it no longer has any validity at all. If socialist policy is not socialist, what is it? If we can't call it socialist because socialism invokes fear, why should anyone opposed to socialist policy "nice it up" to make it more palatable?

Answer; they shouldn't. The entire reason why anyone has a problem with calling socialist policy socialism or any such person supporting socialist policy a socialist is because the word carries negative connotation from its failed historical precedent. The OP supports a candidate for President who wants public health care, public retirement, public child care, and more wealth redistribution, increasing minimum wage every time the cost of living increases, and goes to the Justice Department to silence an ad against him? His teen mentor; Frank Marshall Davis was a member of CPUSA. He's attended multiple Socialist conferences at Cooper Union, 20 years of attendance in a Church with roots to what can only be described as Marxists answer to socialism and theology, a family littered with sympathizers, and launched his run for State Senate from a fund raiser at the home of Bill Ayers; an unrepentant terrorist whose SDS Organization received funding from CPUSA? I mean c'mon man it's not as if the tag is entirely without merit here and it's not as if Obama is really even trying to be sneaky about it.

Besides, do we even know if Obama is opposed to being considered a communist, marxist, or socialist? For all we know he'd be tremendously complimented by any one of those labels. I can see why people who support Obama's bid for the Presidency would be offended, but I don't see any reason why those opposed to socialist policy should make it more palatable.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by subego 

You're right. I should have posed the question (hint) as the inverse.

Are there similarities between publicly funded service X in its various incarnations amongst the infinite potential styles of economic governance?

I'm having a hard time seeing where you're going with this, the answer is a fairly meaningless 'yes', but so what? Ebuddy's ridiculous screed I won't even dignify, except to suggest that he might have more fun on 4chan.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: George Bush supports public education. Does that make him a socialist too?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: George Bush supports public education. Does that make him a socialist too?

Public education predates socialism. By a lot.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Ebuddy's ridiculous screed I won't even dignify, except to suggest that he might have more fun on 4chan.

Yeah. Of course this is code for; "too many good points, not enough time for 'Mario Super Sluggers'". For now I'll accept that you're not qualified to accuse others of misinformed nonsense, k?

[besson3c]

Fine, he also supports Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as well. Does that make him Socialist?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: George Bush supports public education. Does that make him a socialist too?

Bush could be a transvestite for all I know. If public education fits your definition of socialist policy, then that most certainly makes him a supporter of this socialist policy. Now, if he had also supported public health care, public retirement, public child care, more wealth redistribution, increased the minimum wage every time the cost of living increased, and went to the Justice Department to silence ads against him I might say he's worth a second glance. If his teen mentor was a member of CPUSA and if he attended multiple Socialist conferences at Cooper Union, spent 20 years in a Church with roots to what can only be described as Marxists' answer to socialism and theology, had a family littered with sympathizers, and launched his run for governor from a fund raiser at the home of Bill Ayers; an unrepentant terrorist whose SDS Organization received funding from CPUSA; I might consider him even more suspect. In case you missed it; even if he has an (R) after his name.

With regard to public education, we spend more than anyone else, but rank 16th among industrialized nations. It either needs someone's axe or someone's support. I think support is likely the more reasonable approach at this point even for someone who professes to be a Republican.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Public education predates socialism. By a lot.

WTF does that mean? Nearly all of the characteristics of socialism predate it being an organized political principle.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah. Of course this is code for...

It's code for 'idiotic troll'.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Fine, he also supports Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as well. Does that make him Socialist?

I don't know, I think that there are a certain number of politicians that only support those things because it's political suicide not to.

Personally, though I don't support social security and I think it needs to GO, I don't really consider it a socialist program because of the way it's structured. It's close though.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I think that there are a certain number of politicians that only support those things because it's political suicide not to.

Given that they have to seek re-election, and that they represent their constituencies, what is wrong with that?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

WTF does that mean? Nearly all of the characteristics of socialism predate it being an organized political principle.

I think that public education has been around for a couple THOUSAND years and that it isn't in an of itself, a "socialist Program". That's what that means.

Just because a bunch of idiots latch on to an idea, that doesn't mean it's their idea.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Given that they have to seek re-election, and that they represent their constituencies, what is wrong with that?

I don't know that I am really saying that there is anything "wrong" with that. That is how the game is played. I do think it's sad that we can't rely on our representatives to be honest about their convictions.

As for representing their constituents; it's the rep's job to do what they feel is best for their people. Not to do what they want. That is why we don't have a democracy here in the U.S.. They should stand up for what they think is the good and proper thing to do. It's called having principles.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Fine, he also supports Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as well. Does that make him Socialist?

These policies already exist. The only other choice is to axe them. It's unfortunately too late for that. You've already created the dependancy, the only humane thing to do is less harm. What you don't do is propose even more means by which government can squander your resources.

You keep using "Bush" as though he's supposed to be some Republican stalwart zinger or something. If it'll help get to a point, "Sure, Bush is an absolute socialist and his Administration has squandered a surplus, advocated more invasion of privacy, bungled Katrina, bungled Iraq, and has given us all a taste of the fruits of more government including incredible amounts of wasteful spending." Does any of this somehow absolve Obama from the same criticisms as the one who is running for President this year?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Bush could be a transvestite for all I know. If public education fits your definition of socialist policy, then that most certainly makes him a supporter of this socialist policy. Now, if he had also supported public health care, public retirement, public child care, more wealth redistribution, increased the minimum wage every time the cost of living increased, and went to the Justice Department to silence ads against him I might say he's worth a second glance. If his teen mentor was a member of CPUSA and if he attended multiple Socialist conferences at Cooper Union, spent 20 years in a Church with roots to what can only be described as Marxists' answer to socialism and theology, had a family littered with sympathizers, and launched his run for governor from a fund raiser at the home of Bill Ayers; an unrepentant terrorist whose SDS Organization received funding from CPUSA; I might consider him even more suspect. In case you missed it; even if he has an (R) after his name.

With regard to public education, we spend more than anyone else, but rank 16th among industrialized nations. It either needs someone's axe or someone's support. I think support is likely the more reasonable approach at this point even for someone who professes to be a Republican.

ebuddy: I'm not going to go over laundry lists with you. That would require too much of my time for very little gain. We could do tit for tat all day, but it will change very little, and I think you know that.

You missed the motivation behind my question, maybe intentionally so, I don't know... At what point does somebody officially become Socialist? The whole tax system in this country supports a redistribution of wealth, does that make every government that has supported it socialist? Every government that has supported the other things I have listed?

There is no real answer, because the issue is not a binary thing. Most Republicans (maybe even you) and Democrats feel certain ways about certain issues that can be mapped all over the political spectrum. It is silly and wildly inaccurate to cling to labels that attempt to identify others by looking at a few variables, when identification is a personal reflection of where our tendencies lie as a whole. Obama does not identify himself as a socialist, and if you compare his positions to actual socialist party platforms, I think you can safely say that America and the vast majority of its people (including those in both major parties) are very far away from being Socialist.

America is clearly fiercely proud of its Democracy and free market/capitalism, and is built around these principles in its entirety. To pretend that these principles lie in some sort of fragile state is just as misleading and manipulative as me trying to tell others that you are a Democrat.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't know that I am really saying that there is anything "wrong" with that. That is how the game is played. I do think it's sad that we can't rely on our representatives to be honest about their convictions.

I agree that in an ideal world a representative would be 100% honest about their opinions.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

As for representing their constituents; it's the rep's job to do what they feel is best for their people. Not to do what they want. That is why we don't have a democracy here in the U.S.. They should stand up for what they think is the good and proper thing to do. It's called having principles.

Sure - but most politicians want more than one term.