>>49
"The democrats were in power for well over 8 years in the 90s, and socialism simply wasn't on the agenda."
Clinton wasn't a socialist dem. Not all dems are the same.
"They are left wing relative to the Republicans, yes, but if you compare them to any of the left-wing parties in Europe (and I mean even the moderate ones) they look completely right wing."
That's because europe is full of crazy pinko fuckers. Wikipedia describes them as 'center-left'. Dems are far from right wing. Many within the party are no doubt at the very least borderline socialist.
"The Democrats may look left-wing in the highly conservative climate of U.S. politics, but as a standard they are not, or at least have appeared as such in government."
LOL. More like: 'The democrats may look right-wing in the highly left-wing climate of european politics, but as a standard, they are not, or at least have appeared as much in government.'
Fixed.
"Furthermore, 'centre' does not mean capitalist. It means exactly what it says- something which lies between the extremes of the right/left model (which is itself outdated anyway)."
A centrist would be a mix of capitalism and socialism - what is generally referred to as a mixed economy. If you travel further to the left than this, you are better described as socialist than capitalist in my book. Likewise, if you travel to the right of this center, you are better described as 'capitalist' or pseudo-capitalist.
"Centre-left does not mean socialist, by any stretch of the imagination."
That's partly bullshit. The democrats are, generally, center-left. Some democrats might be more conservative than others, but the party as a whole leans more to the left than to the right. The democrats are not more right wing than left wing. The democratic party does lean to the left of the center, and is thus better described as socialist than capitalist, in a lot of cases. The democratic party has generally adopted many of the former positions of the Socialist Party in the USA, incidentally, believe it or not. Considering this, and that wikipedia describes them as 'center-left', I'd say it is easy to say they are better described as socialist than capitalist overall, and that many of the more progressive democrats are indeed essentially socialists.
"Well, you referred to socialism as having produced some of the greatest assholes in history. Now, unless these are socialists who you know personally who happen to be epic assholes, I don't see how thats true. Communism produced many brutal dictators etc, but as socialism is primarily an economic rather than political theory, there have been very few brutal socialist governments- none, in fact that I can think of. Socialism does not necessitate government oppression, unlike communism."
Pure horse shit. Socialism, just like communism, ends up getting rammed down the people's throat at gunpoint. Socialism, unlike capitalism, depends upon an authoritarian method of controlling the people and forcing them to comply with the government's economic schemes and plans.
Here's one of history's most widely known and brutal socialists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein
Socialism, whether you like it or not, is almost ALWAYS an authoritarian ideology. In a capitalist system, you are FREE to decide to go live on a commune voluntarilly. In a socialist system, you cannot go live in capitalist la-la land. In a socialist system, if you don't go along with the economic and social schemes/plots of the government, you will be dealt with in a typical authoritarian manner. In a capitalist system, you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't violate the rights of others.
"Regulation is not the same as control. There is a subtle but very important difference. For example, the U.S. government regulates U.S. companies (every government on earth does to some degree)- it does not control them however."
Regulation is half-assed control. It is indeed a socialist idea. The more regulatory measures that are in place, the more socialistic the system. The more 'hands off' or laissez-faire, the more capitalist.
"More importantly, simply controlling the economy does not make you socialist. What you do with the economy is also crucial."
Bullshit. The definition does not specify that you need to do anything with the economy. It simply states that the government plays a large role in the economy, period.
"The stringent economic controls you talk about resulted (crucially) for different reasons and to acheive different ends than those usually associated with socialism. Hitlers state first and foremost rejected democracy and was totalitarian- as such, it was necessary that it had massive control over all aspects of life."
Hitler was a democratically elected leader, elected by the people.
"That does not make it socialist, as socialisms aim was/is to provide an economic system which benefits the lower-classes (even if that rarely worked in practice); government control was thus used to this end."
That might be the aim of some naive, ignorant, and in general misinformed idealistic socialists. That is not the aim of all who fit the category 'socialist.'
"This NOT the case in Nazi germany, where government control had entirely different aims and as such simply CANNOT be described as socialism."
All you are saying is that because Nazi Germany's intentions were different from the intentions of other socialists, it doesn't make nazi germany socialist. The definition of socialism doesn't say a thing about intentions, sorry.
'socialism
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.'
" Hitler was not a socialist; he was simply a despot, and despots can control the economy if they bloody well like. It doesn't make them socialists."
Hitler was a democratically elected leader. He was elected by the people in what was arguably a legitimate election. He was indeed further to the political left than the democrats, according to numerous sources, and according to simple fucking logic and dictionary definitions. Now, you are just being stubborn. Hitler was a socialist. His brand of socialism may be slightly different in 'nature' than what you think of as socialism, but that does not change the fact that it is 'socialist' by definition.