Socialism on the rise?

[BrianJK]

So for all this talk about "socialism" in the context of Russia and China, does anyone actually have any interest in connecting it back to modern democratic socialism - you know, the only form of socialism that is even worth talking about in the American Politics part of the forum? No, please, by all means, tell me - what does Soviet Russia have to do with modern American politics? This thread is possibly the biggest waste of time I've ever seen. Yeesh.

You know I have yet to see a real argument regarding the stances Sanders it's taking on the individual issues. Perhaps because no argument can be reasonably formed against them? That might explain why arguing against the style is the repeated rhetoric even when presented with examples of Democratic socialists quite unlike the extreme socialist examples parroted time and again.

 

[Rick Otto]

I guess I should have written, "If I started talking about how I don't like Socialism because Socialism by definition means that there would no longer be any chocolate..."

I thought that starting off with the word "IF" would be adequate to prevent anyone from misunderstanding, but the 'best laid plans,' as they say.......

My bad.

 

[Rick Otto]

He admits to bring a Democratic socialist, again the same style used by Blair. To ignore this distinction is, in my opinion, not conducive to an honest discussion on his particular candidacy.

We can discuss reasons why stalin's or mao's brand of socialism would be bad for the us, but to pretend that what sanders is proposing is the same simply because they use the same word (well, Sanders uses it as only part of the style) would be dishonest.

Point.

 

[BrianJK]

Point.

Yet the distinction is being conveniently ignored by the Sanders opponents still!

 

[Rick Otto]

If one doesn't want to discuss Socialism in the extreme ... then one ought not bring up Capitalism in the extreme.

Whaddaya think?

Sounds reasonable, but the pebble in my shoe is being subject to "slave labor" competition and economically coerced into buying their products by job losses and severely flattened wages.
What kind of free market capitalism do we call current Chinese style? I forget.

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm coming to think that this incompetent could be the best protection against Socialism that we could have, if we put him into the White House.

You crack me up.

 

[Albion]

.

 

[Extraneous]

Supporting politicians is like straining gnats and swallowing camels, in my humbled opinion.

 

[Albion]

Sounds reasonable, but the pebble in my shoe is being subject to "slave labor" competition and economically coerced into buying their products by job losses and severely flattened wages.
What kind of free market capitalism do we call current Chinese style? I forget.

I don't know what all of that is supposed to mean, but NightHawkeye is correct. Those who have worked so hard to obscure the meaning of Socialism are also the ones who have insisted upon talking about Free Enterprise and Private Property rights in Upton Sinclair terms; and now you give us something about Chinese Communism, implying that it's a form of Free Enterprise!

red herring
noun
Simple Definition of red herring

• : something unimportant that is used to stop people from noticing or thinking about something important

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't know what all of that is supposed to mean, but NightHawkeye is correct. Those who have worked so hard to obscure the meaning of Socialism are also the ones who have insisted upon talking about Free Enterprise and Private Property rights in Upton Sinclair terms, and now you give us something about Chinese Communism, implying that it's a form of Free Enterprise!

red herring
noun
Simple Definition of red herring

• : something unimportant that is used to stop people from noticing or thinking about something important

Capitalism vs Socialism discussion cannot include current Chinese capitalism... Okey dokey.
Got it, Mr. Serious discussion insister.

 

[Rick Otto]

Point being no system gets it perfect and the one most comfortable for the most people we care about, turns out to be the best government money can buy.
Now that the inevitable flaws have been rigged around that, for so long by those who can afford it, realization of need for reform is near critical mass.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't know what all of that is supposed to mean, but NightHawkeye is correct. Those who have worked so hard to obscure the meaning of Socialism are also the ones who have insisted upon talking about Free Enterprise and Private Property rights in Upton Sinclair terms; and now you give us something about Chinese Communism, implying that it's a form of Free Enterprise!

red herring
noun
Simple Definition of red herring

• : something unimportant that is used to stop people from noticing or thinking about something important

Rules For Radicals 101.

 

[Rick Otto]

Let's put it this way, forget the factory if you are a Christian can you honestly say that you own your own brain?

Jurisdictions overlap in different venues.
It's complicated by design, but I thoroughly trust our creator, I am happy to share with you, in all sincerety.
My roast is about ready t o come out of the oven, and I got the last of the dishes done between laundry loads, so regardless of o ownership disputes and philosophical fine distinctions, I got a card and candy beat by a mile come Feb 14th. Are I a sly dog or what? I took my wife out to eat last night, and tonight I taking her to rehearsal so she can hang out with the other guy's wives and girlfriends. Good times. Pardon my aside.

 

[greenguzzi]

It would succeed if the market was fair, because people want clean energy, but powerful interests are invested in fossil fuels, so what we want gets corralled and chuted onto their killing floor.
Prosperity is a good thing.
Principle: Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

Capitalism will always try to minimise its costs and externalise its losses. One of the easiest ways to externalise its losses is to push them into the future, which leads to global warming etc..
Using fossil fuels as a source of excessively under-priced energy is, by its very nature, stealing from the future.
Capitalism naturally and organically produces powerful self-interested groups. It's yet another thing that's wrong with it.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Correction:

The comparison is between free-enterprise and government controlled enterprise. Choose wisely.

 

[super animator]

Correction:

The comparison is between free-enterprise and government controlled enterprise. Choose wisely.

nice false dilemma fallacy you got there.

 

[NightHawkeye]

nice false dilemma fallacy you got there.

Noting that there is no falsehood there.

 

[BrianJK]

I don't know what all of that is supposed to mean, but NightHawkeye is correct. Those who have worked so hard to obscure the meaning of Socialism are also the ones who have insisted upon talking about Free Enterprise and Private Property rights in Upton Sinclair terms; and now you give us something about Chinese Communism, implying that it's a form of Free Enterprise!

red herring
noun
Simple Definition of red herring

• : something unimportant that is used to stop people from noticing or thinking about something important

I get it. This is another attempt to avoid acknowledging the differences between extreme socialism and the Democratic socialism of people like Sanders and Blair.

I'm starting to think you might have a macro installed in your browser that deletes the word "Democratic" when in front of "socialism" since in near 20 pages you haven't addressed it.

But you do acknowledge that capitalism can be an extreme, as illustrated in Sinclair's work. You even called it unimportant. So you acknowledge extreme capitalism, Republican capitalism, and extreme socialism. You're missing one.

If you can differentiate between Sinclair's extreme capitalism, calling it unimportant, and that favored by Republicans, then it is downright dishonest and illegitimate to ignore the vast differences between extend socialism as it existed under mao and stalin, and the Democratic socialism of sanders and Blair.

But if you've ignored it so far, feel free to continue arguing by ignoring any counterpoints.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I get it. This is another attempt to avoid acknowledging the differences between extreme socialism and the Democratic socialism of people like Sanders and Blair.

I'm starting to think you might have a macro installed in your browser that deletes the word "Democratic" when in front of "socialism" since in near 20 pages you haven't addressed it.

But you do acknowledge that capitalism can be an extreme, as illustrated in Sinclair's work. You even called it unimportant. So you acknowledge extreme capitalism, Republican capitalism, and extreme socialism. You're missing one.

I will acknowledge that crony capitalism, which is where government picks winners and losers ... either for ideological reasons or simply to maximize profit for politicians ... is bad and destructive. Crony capitalism has been the norm for the past three presidents, btw. The bad results have been entirely predictable.

Perhaps if we tried free-markets, with less government intervention and control, we'd get better results?

 

[BrianJK]

I will acknowledge that crony capitalism, which is where government picks winners and losers ... either for ideological reasons or simply to maximize profit for politicians ... is bad and destructive. Crony capitalism has been the norm for the past three presidents, btw. The bad results have been entirely predictable.

Perhaps if we tried free-markets, with less government intervention and control, we'd get better results?

Your suggestion is pretty much what caused the terrible working conditions and rock bottom wages in the 19th century.