>>66
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.
‘Crazy pinko fuckers’ such as, presumably, Hitler. And no, ‘many’ democrats are not socialist. You simply believe this because of your misguided and frankly ignorant perception of what socialism is. I’m not a socialist; socialism is an economic model which in my opinion doesn’t work. That doesn’t mean that I’m not going to take you apart for your bull-headed ignorance.
”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.”
Hmmm, lets see. Add up all the true democracies in the world, and count the number which are as right-wing as the United States. The United states has NEVER EVER elected a left-wing leader. As in ever ever. The United States has NEVER EVER elected a left wing government. As in never ever. The United States is one of the most capitalistic nations on earth, and one where even being secular is frowned upon. But no, it’s not a right-wing political climate at all, is it?
”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.”
Complete bullshit. I’ll explain why.
First of all, making one step to the left IS NOT SOCIALIST. If you have a free market economy with limited government controls, but happen to have national health care and education, you’re not socialist.
Secondly, you’re foolish idea that left means socialism is mirrored in your belief that right means capitalism. Left and right are political terms, not economic terms. Socialism and capitalism however are exclusively economic terms. Yes, left-wing parties tend to have socialist leanings, and right wing parties tend to have capitalist leanings, but the terms are not mutually exclusive. You yourself are claiming that Hitler, who was right-wing, was socialist, and that the Democrats, who support a capitalist economy, are left-wing. Yet at the same time you want us to believe that once you are in any way to the left, you’re automatically socialist, and vice versa? You’re managing to make two incorrect statements that actually contradict each other. Wow, well done sir.
”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.”
Wow, that’s great, except there are plenty of capitalist dictators too. Three of those people were communists, and one was a Baathist. All 4 were as such believers in totalitarianism from the beginning; socialism was merely their economic policy. Since Mao China has become capitalist, but it remains a one-party state. I only have to point at numerous European economies over the last 50 years which have at one point or another been inherently socialist, and yet entirely democratic. My point still stands- I cannot think of a single dictator who was a dictator because he was socialist- it’s an economic idea.
”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.”
No it’s not. Regulation can mean anything. Applying the law of the land (for instance the constitution) to business is regulation. Having standards which a business must meet is regulation. It’s not socialism to prosecute the major figures at Enron, for example, but it is regulation. The more ‘laissez-faire’ an economy is, the more capitalist it is, that is true. But that simply means that the state should not try to control/influence market conditions. In practice, no state is completely removed from the economy. What’s more, getting involved does not instantly make you socialist. Pure capitalism does not exist; there are varying degrees. Furthermore, not being capitalist does not mean being socialist. There is more to it than how free the market is; whether (and how much) business can be privately owned is important as well. For instance, Jewish people could not own business in Nazi Germany, and so instantly that means that the market was not free. However, private companies were still the basis of the economy, and market forces operated within the country.
”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. “
Look, if you seriously think that a three-line definition is the be-all and end-all of a political theory, then you need to GTFO. Don’t be such a fool. It makes you look like an absolute joke when you state that anything beyond a summary you got from Wikipedia is not relevant. Good lord.
”Hitler was a democratically elected leader, elected by the people.”
No he wasn’t. He had just 33% of the vote and simply appointed by Von Hindenburg (the president who did it due to political intrigues, his fear of the communists and the misguided belief that he could be controlled). He then banned the main opposition party, outlawed press and arrested its leader (after the Reichstag fire), and only then secured a democratic majority. History FTW. Get your facts straight.
”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.'”
What? God, that’s such crap. There is a reason that the socialist concept is designed with the sole intention of benefiting the lower classes and poor at the expense of the wealthy- it’s part of the reason it doesn’t work. That is what it’s meant to do, and what its followers believe it will do, so shut up.
“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.'”
You know what I said about simplistic definitions and how they expose your general ignorance? Yeah, more of that.
“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.”
Arguably a legitimate election? He banned the largest opposition party for crying out loud, and before he had implemented ANY of his economic ideas had become dictator. He also spoke openly about destroying democracy at the earliest opportunity, long before the 1933 election, and so was clearly a despot, so he actually believed in despotism.
The communist party in China claims to believe in socialism. By your flawed reasoning, it’s just a ‘brand’ of socialism- one than believes in a free-market economy and private enterprise, and which is capitalist by all accounts.
If all you can do is flaunt dictionary definitions like they’re gospel and produce simplistic babble which misses the point, and intend to pursue political debate in the future, then prepared to get laughed at.
Or possibly elected president, if the Republicans run out of decent candidates or your dad happened to have the job previously.