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

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
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.

There IS such a thing as a slippery slope when it comes to progressively adding power to a central government, regardless of what social programs are instituted.

To talk always about health care (which, yes, is often what's done) and completely ignore the growth of the all-powerful state in the process is a big, big mistake (to put it as politely as I can).

To talk as though Health Care or free college is the last such undertaking that a government which has grown more and more powerful and intrusive in the process will ever have any interest in taking on is the opposite of what has happened repeatedly in history. And we don't have to look elsewhere than our own country for a good example of it. No slippery slope? What a joke.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As I remember, she said so. I could be wrong. No, I'm not going to look it up.
Sure, why should you verify your facts? Certainly not for your own knowledge....I know my memory is not always faithful to facts, so I do it for myself.

In any case, you do know that legislators have tons of staff to attend to the details and to alert their bosses to key points? Young, smart people who are paid to read and understand the fine points?
 
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
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.

You have to look at who falsely redefined the term first...

It was largely Reagan (even prior to his tenure as president) who popularized the notion that programs like social security and subsidized medicine were "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.

Do you have an example of a former market economy, who's transition to socialism was because they started providing subsidized healthcare?

At this point, almost every developed capitalist nation provided taxpayer funded healthcare to some degree (even us). Yet, very few actual socialist countries still exist.

If the slope were as slippery as you claim, I would've expected Canada, the UK, and the majority of western Europe to be flying hammer & sickle flags at this point.

...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.

Castro certainly was an ally of the soviets... Fidel and Gorbachev were quite chummy.

And to pretend that Cuba was a beacon of greatness prior to Castro can be a tad misleading as well. They were a little better before him, but they certainly had their share of problems before him as they had had socialist leaders running that country prior to him, and the few that weren't socialist weren't really any less brutal than the socialists.

The fact that they were the "best in the region" is a meaningless distinction if the bar is so low for that region. It doesn't take much to be better than the Dominican Republic, Trinidad, and Haiti.



The conservative side claiming "every form of spending I don't like is socialism" is just as counter-productive as young millennials labeling market economies as "socialist" because they have free healthcare.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There IS such a thing as a slippery slope when it comes to progressively adding power to a central government, regardless of what social programs are instituted.

To talk always about health care (which, yes, is often what's done) and completely ignore the growth of the all-powerful state in the process is a big, big mistake (to put it as politely as I can).

To talk as though Health Care or free college is the last such undertaking that a government which has grown more and more powerful and intrusive in the process will ever have any interest in taking on is the opposite of what has happened repeatedly in history. And we don't have to look elsewhere than our own country for a good example of it. No slippery slope? What a joke.

If we haven't gotten any further down that slope that supposedly began 80 years ago, it's not very slippery.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: mark46
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You have to look at who falsely redefined the term first...
Well, it certainly was those who had the most sympathy for Socialism. That takes us back to the pre-WW2 era and even to the turn of that century. All sorts of effort went into claiming that Socialism was nothing out of the ordinary, etc.

The apologists have a vested interest in not having the public connect their liberal political proposals with any kind of force, so the way to avoid that is to whitewash Socialism.

And also, to act verry, very alarmed--shocked even--if anyone ever points out that Socialism in theory or in practice is anything but a system of government in which fairness and generosity govern every decision made.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have to look at who falsely redefined the term first...

It was largely Reagan (even prior to his tenure as president) who popularized the notion that programs like social security and subsidized medicine were "socialism"

Actually that was Thomas Dewey (R) in 1948.

Do you have an example of a former market economy, who's transition to socialism was because they started providing subsidized healthcare?

That hadn't already been taken over by an authoritarian government.

At this point, almost every developed capitalist nation provided taxpayer funded healthcare to some degree (even us). Yet, very few actual socialist countries still exist.

If the slope were as slippery as you claim, I would've expected Canada, the UK, and the majority of western Europe to be flying hammer & sickle flags at this point.

There are apparently a lot of rocks and ledges on that slope.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Castro certainly was an ally of the soviets... Fidel and Gorbachev were quite chummy.

I would point out that Castro tried really hard to climb into the pocket of the US. Really hard. He came to the US and crashed diplomatic parties to try to talk to people. The US could have bought Castro with season tickets to Yankees games. Even as late as the Johnson Administration, he was trying to come to an accommodation with President Johnson.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: mark46
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It takes quite the imagination to believe that view of the history. ;)

I'll file it with Obama's idea that the government of Cuba would become less oppressive and willing to join the family of nations if he acted open towards that country's rulers and we also made some concessions to them. You may have noticed that it didn't work.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It takes quite the imagination to believe that view of the history. ;)

I'll file it with Obama's idea that the government of Cuba would become less oppressive and willing to join the family of nations if he acted open towards that country's rulers and we also made some concessions to them. You may have noticed that it didn't work.

The fact that Castro was crashing diplomatic parties is a matter of political record. You can Google it--the diplomats who were at those parties and were collared by Castro spoke of it.

And you can also find a copy of the communication transmitted by Castro to Johnson online. It essentially says something like, "I know you have to talk bad about me in public because of politics, but maybe we can have a secret arrangement where I don't do anything bad to you and you don't do anything bad to me."

Back Channel to Cuba: The Hidden History of Negotiations between Washington ... - William M. LeoGrande, Peter Kornbluh - Google Books
 
  • Informative
Reactions: iluvatar5150
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

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The fact that Castro was crashing diplomatic parties is a matter of political record. You can Google it--the diplomats who were at those parties and were collared by Castro spoke of it.
Castro fooled a lot of people in the early days. You should know that. And he had not the least intention of behaving any differently from what he actually did show the world over the next 50 or (whatever it was) years.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Castro fooled a lot of people in the early days. You should know that. And he had not the least intention of behaving any differently from what he actually did show the world over the next 50 or (whatever it was) years.

Castro was a mouse dancing between two elephants in those days and was trying to hedge his bets. Nothing wrong with that...good diplomacy can make good deals of such a situation.

The US didn't do good diplomacy, and wound up forcing Castro into a hardened position...unnecessarily. For that matter, the US made the same mistake with Ho Chi Minh, who was also initially willing to climb into the pocket of the US.
 
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
GOP definition of socialism: Any policies proposed or supported by anyone I don't like. Even if our own people supported the exact same thing (see Romneycare in MA).

Yes, this is true for the far right, McCarthy's crew. And it is generally true for large safety net programs.
The Democrat Party strongly support a much stronger safety. The leadership also strongly supports big business, the bankers, a strong set of military alliances, and strong free capitalist markets. Many on the left disagree.

What Democrats need to understand is that we do NOT (more precisely can not) want elections based on AOC's ideas. Democrats would simply lose lots of seats. For sure, her ideas appeal to many Democrats. However, having candidates support her ideas forces the party to appeal to a very limited part of the electorate. This is similar to the situation of Republicans today who are forced to accept really radical views from their leadership.

AOC’s Dangerous Obsession With Socialism Needs to End – The University News (unewsonline.com)
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, this is true for the far right, McCarthy's crew. And it is generally true for large safety net programs.
The Democrat Party strongly support a much stronger safety. The leadership also strongly supports big business, the bankers, a strong set of military alliances, and strong free capitalist markets. Many on the left disagree.

What Democrats need to understand is that we do NOT (more precisely can not) want elections based on AOC's ideas. Democrats would simply lose lots of seats. For sure, her ideas appeal to many Democrats. However, having candidates support her ideas forces the party to appeal to a very limited part of the electorate. This is similar to the situation of Republicans today who are forced to accept really radical views from their leadership.

AOC’s Dangerous Obsession With Socialism Needs to End – The University News (unewsonline.com)

Right-wing extremism doesn't seem to be hurting Republicans as much as it should.

I'm not certain Democrats need to fear left-wing extremism.

The country may be fed up with center-of-the-road.
 
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

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
That's right. Medicare and Medicaid are neither Socialist nor Capitalist. They are American. They are meant -or at least were meant- to care for those who cannot care for themselves. We have a long history of caring for those who cannot care for themselves. But too many people want to turn our sense of charity into their own sense of entitlement, and then there are those who want to use the entitlement as a means of obtaining power.

So what if we expanded Medicare and Medicaid to cover everyone who needs it when they need it? So that nobody has to go into medical debt.

That way it's not "everyone" who gets it, just those who need it.
Would that be acceptable?

-CryptoLutheran
 
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 what if we expanded Medicare and Medicaid to cover everyone who needs it when they need it? So that nobody has to go into medical debt.

That way it's not "everyone" who gets it, just those who need it.
Would that be acceptable?

-CryptoLutheran
Fun fact: Obamacare tried to do exactly this by providing states with increased federal funding for Medicaid. Republican states largely refused to participate.
 
Upvote 0