[Wiskedjak]

I see. So, you really don't have anything. You like one form of socialism, but it can't possibly be socialism and you're unwilling to even entertain the possibility that it *might* be socialism. And, if it *is* socialist, then it becomes difficult to dismiss out-of-hand something you don't like simply on the basis that you believe it to be socialist.

You'd just rather browbeat your opinion into place by claiming that it's "been gone over a gazillion times", by implying "lunacy" and by claiming "lack of understanding". These are pretty common tactics when one is faced with a change in the perception of their paradigm. I don't blame you, though. I understand that the idea that the American military might be a socialist government service can be a difficult pill to swallow for someone so thoroughly entrenched in the thought that socialism = bad.

[ebuddy]

Wait! Government founded, managed, and operated socialism is...

Communism

So... really our national parks, military, and police are communist, not socialist.

An efficient argument in regards to what is and is not "socialist" or "communist" truly relies on the system of government it exists and functions under. In other words, are the limitations of these otherwise "socialist/communist" ideals kept in check by any documented principle? It seems then what we're really discussing here is the difference between a Republic, a Democracy... or something else entirely.

All systems of government have facets of them that could be considered socialist or communist. I asked for examples of systems that are all one or all the other and there was no response. Why? Because there are no examples. The question becomes then, how are those powers or ideals limited? When you have a socialist ideal, entity, movement, legislation, etc... that increases in scope without clear limitations outlined in the founding document of a Republic, you have something that begins to look more like a Social Democracy or something else entirely. When people rail against "socialism", they are not being somehow inconsistent as all systems of government have provisions that intertwine with socialist/communist ideals and because the activity in question is not clearly limited in scope; unlike the police, military, and national parks.

Simply put, when people rail against socialism, they are not railing against facets of nature that exist in all systems of governance. They are railing against economic policy increasingly hostile to capitalism and free enterprise.

So... you can call something "socialist" or "communist", but to do so without acknowledging the system of government these natures exist and function under is lame.