Yet another Republican comment that makes us ask, how do they define socialism?

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As a Millennial Democrat, I'd like to clarify that when we use Denmark as an example of "socialism," it's not because we actually think that Denmark is socialist. It's because the policies that we advocate for, which Republicans label as "socialism," are in place in countries like Denmark. So if those policies constitute "socialism," then Denmark is "socialist".

The policies aren't actually socialism, and Denmark isn't socialist - it's just a way to point out the absurdity of calling every social welfare program "socialism".

So your rebuttal to people misusing a word is to equally misuse it, just in the other direction?

Eh, that may be true of some people trying to make an ironic point (which sounds like what you're trying to do)

But there are some who actually try to promote actual socialism due to ignorance of what the term actually means (Like AOC). Based on her statements, she seems to think that the only difference between Cuba an Norway is that we have an embargo against Cuba.

Certain millennial democrats (Like AOC) are still try to insist that the reason Cuba's economy is failing is exclusively due to US embargoes. As if us allowing the sale of their cigars and sugar in our country would magically stave off the effects of their backwards economic policies.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
This is post that shows just how right the Republicans are to accuse Democrats have socialist policies and want to promote socialism in the US.

Democrats seem unable to clearly state they strongly oppose socialism and have always done so.

What I want to know, where has the welfare state led to socialism? It hasn't happened with any of the countries in Western Europe, that have been claimed to be "socialist" for decades by Republicans. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and Vietnam didn't have welfare states before becoming communist, though Venezuela did go full socialist by nationalizing their oil and steel industries back around 1970 before turning to a full dictatorship this century. So where does the welfare state often lead to socialism/communism?

If anything, we see the opposite. Great Britain is a good example, where they started to nationalize various industries (such as coal) and ended up, as they expanded their "welfare state" (social safety net) actually sold those nationalized industries back to private companies. Sweden is another country with a strong social safety net (or what you call a "welfare state") that appeared to flirt with socialism, as they expanded their safety net, but eventually remained a capitalist country. Maybe I'm missing something, but this idea that social safety nets lead to socialism seem to be Republican fibs.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So your rebuttal to people misusing a word is to equally misuse it, just in the other direction?
Not exactly. It's not "equally misusing it in the other direction" so much as taking their redefinition of the word and running with it. If someone says that "Such and such policy is socialism!", I often rebut with something to the effect of "Well, that must mean that Denmark (or Norway, or Sweden, or some other country with that policy) is socialist. And I'm okay with being that kind of 'socialist'."

And that's typically how I see others use it as well. I find that arguing over definitions is pointless in those sorts of discussions. It's easier to accept the redefined word, then point out that redefining it makes it meaningless.

Eh, that may be true of some people trying to make an ironic point (which sounds like what you're trying to do)
It's more of a reducto ad absurdum than irony (another word that no one seems to know the meaning of these days - thanks Alanis).

I don't pay much attention to AOC, so I can't really comment on her positions.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,613
9,331
the Great Basin
✟325,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is post that shows just how right the Republicans are to accuse Democrats have socialist policies and want to promote socialism in the US.

Democrats seem unable to clearly state they strongly oppose socialism and have always done so.

I'm sorry, I am against communism or any form of dictatorship. I also am not a Democrat. Instead, I'm an older person who can remember the Soviet Union, has lived in Europe, served in the US Military, and what you seem to be trying to read into my post is not there, nor is it evidence for what you claim.

I'm intentionally not using the word socialism because of how misused it has become -- to the point of becoming meaningless -- by both sides. But nice job of deflecting from the fact that a strong social safety net does not lead to socialism, since you can't prove the claim that Republicans keep making.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm sorry, I am against communism or any form of dictatorship. I also am not a Democrat. Instead, I'm an older person who can remember the Soviet Union, has lived in Europe, served in the US Military, and what you seem to be trying to read into my post is not there, nor is it evidence for what you claim.

I'm intentionally not using the word socialism because of how misused it has become -- to the point of becoming meaningless -- by both sides. But nice job of deflecting from the fact that a strong social safety net does not lead to socialism, since you can't prove the claim that Republicans keep making.

My caution, observation, and implicit recommendation was for Democrats. If you are not one, then the comments don't apply to you.

IMO, the Left wing of the Democratic Party does the party no favors when they argue among themselves with regard to which of the democratic socialist countries we should admire for their expanded welfare state policies. Being proud of being democratic socialists instead autocratic socialists is a nuance that is not part of the election rhetoric that swing voters will use to decide their choices. Of course, AOC has no interest in discussing such distinctions; she is proud to be called "socialist". And, yes, there re folks who remember or know what socialism really is, and they will vote against whatever party AOC belongs to.

Democrats ignore the fact that so many Hispanics voted Republican because of the party's strong anti-Cuba and historical stands against socialism. For many, it is simply a mistake to proudly lead toward more and more "socialist" polices. If the Democrats MUST continue to use other countries as examples, then they need to clearly support countries because of their more robust safety net. In any case, this effort is a political liability. These policies are right because they are right within the framework of the American experience, not because the Danes are so happy.

And let us be clear, many Democrats simply don't want to honor the fact that the welfare states are arguably much more capitalistic than the US, some with no wish to have any minimum wage, never mind $15 an hour. The Left Wing simply doesn't to stand foursquare for capitalism and a market economy.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Nobody accused West Germany of that because during that time, we were up against actual socialism and communism, so people had a better understanding of the distinction.
Well, that's an interesting guess, but it could be argued that people would naturally be even MORE aware of the failures of Socialism with such a living comparison as the two Germanies, side by side, provided.

People understood that "capitalist society that has elevated taxes to fund universal healthcare and education" wasn't the same thing as living under Nicolae Ceaușescu.
People also understood from the East German example that Socialism was NOT just about "taxes." ;)

I've yet to hear of a modern welfare state (that was implemented post cold war) that has led to actual socialism.
It's always easy to get out of that bind by qualifying such a comment through adding "modern," isn't it? ;)

That means that Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, China, rand some other disasters can be brushed aside because "people" will only talk about Denmark or Norway, which are not Socialist states, when defending Socialism.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Capitalism describes free markets and free enterprise by the private sector.

Socialism describes government programs funded by taxes.

No, socialism describes government ownership of facilities and government employment of the workers. The military and VA medical systems are examples of socialized medicine in the US.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Today’s Anniversary of Medicare & Medicaid reminds us to reflect on the critical role these programs have played to protect the healthcare of millions of families. To safeguard our future, we must reject Socialist healthcare schemes."
https://twitter.com/EliseStefanik/status/1421115026300186634 (No. 3 ranking Republican in the House of Representatives)

I'm trying to understand, Medicare and Medicaid are not socialist but they would be if we expanded them to cover all Americans?

Republicans originally called Medicare and Medicaid socialism.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well, that's an interesting guess, but it could be argued that people would naturally be even MORE aware of the failures of Socialism with such a living comparison as the two Germanies, side by side, provided.


People also understood from the East German example that Socialism was NOT just about "taxes." ;)


It's always easy to get out of that bind by qualifying such a comment through adding "modern," isn't it? ;)

That means that Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, China, rand some other disasters can be brushed aside because "people" will only talk about Denmark or Norway, which are not Socialist states, when defending Socialism.

I'm not defending socialism, I'm very critical of actual socialism.

I'm saying that a market economy with an expanded welfare state isn't socialism.

With regards to the use of the word "modern", that talking point is invoked because people tend to equate any expansion of welfare programs with some sort of slippery slope argument about how we'll end up like Yugoslavia in 5 years.

There hasn't been a post soviet country I'm aware of that was build around a market economy, that somehow turned into a non-market economy, simply due to the implementation of social welfare programs.

Cuba, Vietnam, and China were all soviet era holdovers... and China has actually in the other direction, and introduced more market based concepts as the years have gone by and are no somewhat of a hybrid economy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Cuba, Vietnam, and China were all soviet era holdovers... and China has actually in the other direction, and introduced more market based concepts as the years have gone by and are no somewhat of a hybrid economy.

While still having an authoritarian government.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,038
US
✟1,060,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,038
US
✟1,060,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Well, according to that link, the cows left the barn long, long, long ago.

That's right. They're being milked, out in the open, by the sheep. This barn now houses the community tractor.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm not defending socialism, I'm very critical of actual socialism.

I'm saying that a market economy with an expanded welfare state isn't socialism.
Then why do you think there is such an immediate reaction from so many people if a moderate or conservative so much as says that Socialism isn't a desirable system of government?

Right on cue, there's the "Norway is nice" reply that sounds very much like an effort to defend Socialism.

With regards to the use of the word "modern", that talking point is invoked because people tend to equate any expansion of welfare programs with some sort of slippery slope argument about how we'll end up like Yugoslavia in 5 years.
Well, history does show us that the slippery slope is real. Why go to such lengths to pretend that it doesn't happen? Put such power into the hands of government--which Socialism by definition does--and it is likely to lead to a denial of individual freedoms. There's no mystery about that.

Put that kind of power into the hands of ayatollas and mullas who, arguably, have somewhat different goals, and the same thing happens.


...hasn't been a post soviet country I'm aware of that was build around a market economy, that somehow turned into a non-market economy, simply due to the implementation of social welfare programs.
Am I supposed to think that substituting "post-Soviet" for "modern" changes the nature of Socialism?

Cuba, Vietnam, and China were all soviet era holdovers...
...and they are all Socialist states. Cuba wasn't behind the Soviets' Iron Curtain, but descended into poverty and totalitarianism strictly because of Socialism. It had been the most prosperous country in the region prior to Castro, however.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Then why do you think there is such an immediate reaction from so many people if a moderate or conservative so much as says that Socialism isn't a desirable system of government? Right on cue, there's the "Norway is nice" reply or something else that sounds awfully like, yes, an effort to defend Socialism.


Well, history does show us that the slippery slope is real. Why go to such lengths to pretend that it doesn't happen. Put such power into the hands of government--which Socialism by definition does--and it is likely to lead to a denial of individual freedoms. There's no mystery about that.

No, it doesn't.


Am I supposed to think that substituting "post-Soviet" for "modern" addresses the point I made? Does it move the date forward or backwards a few years, and I'm supposed to think that Socialism is wonderful?


...and their experience destroys your argument.

It reinforces the argument. Those nations who were not within the sphere of the USSR implemented social safety nets with zero "sliding" into becoming socialist nations. Those who were open specifically to the USSR did slide over that slope. It was the USSR that was the problem.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ThatRobGuy
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It reinforces the argument. Those nations who were not within the sphere of the USSR implemented social safety nets with zero "sliding" into becoming socialist nations. Those who were open specifically to the USSR did slide over that slope. It was the USSR that was the problem.

That strikes me as such a simplistic approach. Blame everything on the Soviet Union, and of course, it no longer exists.

Ergo, no nation today that elevates a Socialist government into power will turn out like Venezuela. Really?

Cuba and Venezuela are what they are because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's the slippery slope. It's not the doing of the Soviet Union.

You cannot give more and more power to a central government (or permit the government to simply take it) and then expect that the governors will never abuse it.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That strikes me as such a simplistic approach. Blame everything on the Soviet Union, and of course, it no longer exists.

Ergo, no nation today that elevates a Socialist government into power will turn out like Venezuela. Really?

Cuba and Venezuela are what they are because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's the slippery slope. It's not the doing of the Soviet Union.

You cannot give more and more power to a central government (or permit the government to simply take it) and then expect that the governors will never abuse it.

I'm pointing out the difference between democratic countries with free-market economies that have instituted social service safety nets and authoritarian governments that have instituted command economies. It's not a "slippery slope" at all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Nominating and electing a centrist seems like a pretty clear statement.

I agree.

Biden took control and beat down the leftist positions in the primaries.

However, the move to the left resulted in lots of lost House seats. Many of the moderates elected in 2018 just couldn't repeat against the national Republican rhetoric against the Democratic left. The left continued to be re-elected and defeat moderate Democrats in 70% Democratic districts. But, the national message of their policies lost seats, and threatens to lose many more in 2022.
 
Upvote 0