When is it ok to hate someone for their politics?

[Kontiki]

If a country can be "socialist" vs. "capitalist", there must some triggering point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Where did I claim such a thing? Point being that being related to is not in anyway the same as "being" now is it?

Or shall I assume you are the same as your father? I assume you are related.

Heck there must be some socialistic policies in our governement OMFGGG we teh commies. ZOMFGGG!!

At the time (New Deal), it most definately WAS decried as socialism. Universal health care, when proposed in the early 90s, WAS decried as socialism.

Hell, socialists in the US prior to the New Deal agitated for safety nets.

You have to face the facts, these programs were originally advanced by socialists, and it is no way a streach to claim them as socialist programs.

Do we, or do we not, live in a more socialist system than we did in 1900?

There is a reason that the moderate left parties in Europe that call for greater welfare state are called "Social Democrats".

Btw, the definition for "related" that refers to kinship is different than the one that speaks to being connected or associated with something.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kontiki
If a country can be "socialist" vs. "capitalist", there must some triggering point.

The triggering point is what is your ideology . I have to agree with a sliding point. The US has been sliding more socialist (current slide backs withstanding) as the 20th Century moved on and as the 21st Century begins.

[Arrian]

Ni! Bring us another shrubbery!

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


The triggering point is what is your ideology . I have to agree with a sliding point. The US has been sliding more socialist (current slide backs withstanding) as the 20th Century moved on and as the 21st Century begins.

I'd agree with a sliding scale as well, but clearly others do not. It's from them I'd be curious to hear where this dividing line is.

[Odin]

Socialists are not for equality of condition. Socialism is based on the idea that if you extend of the Labor Theory of Value to it's ultimate logical conclusion that profit in capitalism is theft from workers by business owners. The goal of socialism is to create an industrial society based on communal ownership of industry in the form of co-ops, communes, and/or central planning, thus cutting out the parasitical investor class.

A welfare state is a type of Capitalist state that partially compensates workers for capitalist parasitism, it's a tool to prevent a real socialist system from appearing. FDR hinself supposedly called himself the savior of Capitalism.

[Arrian]

Huzzah for the welfare state. Bah to the "Labor Theory of Value."

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


At the time (New Deal), it most definately WAS decried as socialism. Universal health care, when proposed in the early 90s, WAS decried as socialism.

Hell, socialists in the US prior to the New Deal agitated for safety nets.

You have to face the facts, these programs were originally advanced by socialists, and it is no way a streach to claim them as socialist programs.

Do we, or do we not, live in a more socialist system than we did in 1900?

There is a reason that the moderate left parties in Europe that call for greater welfare state are called "Social Democrats".

Btw, the definition for "related" that refers to kinship is different than the one that speaks to being connected or associated with something.

For a person who considers himself a moral relatavist you miss the greater relativism.

The feelings and rhetoric of the new deal age are passe today.

Likewise the safety nets of the US which are the most minimal concession to socialistic policy are in terms of world view barely humane. Socialism is indeed a sliding scale and does indeed depend on ideology. Which is why it is so foolish to attempt to invoke historical arguements and comparators as most definitely the worlds ideology has changed since that time.

Using relativistic comparisons one then sees the US as less socialistic then western Europe and the fact that it has social safety nets barely even measures on the socialism scale of the greater world community.

Again safety nets are socialistic tools but does not imply
socialism. Related does does not mean equal to.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Likewise the safety nets of the US which are the most minimal concession to socialistic policy are in terms of world view barely humane.

And? Are they not socialist policies? Did they not create a more socialist system? And did this more socialist system not allow for greater mobility? So then why is it so fanciful for Social Democrats or Socialists today to claim that a more socialist system would allow for greater mobility?

Again safety nets are socialistic tools but does not imply
socialism.

Safety nets are socialistic tools, but not socialist?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Likewise the safety nets of the US which are the most minimal concession to socialistic policy are in terms of world view barely humane.

And? Are they not socialist policies?

No in todays terms most defintely not.

Did they not create a more socialist system?

More socialistic yes, a socialistic government no. Comparatively vs. the rest of the world most defintely not.

And did this more socialist system not allow for greater mobility?

Debatable and many argue that it did not.

So then why is it so fanciful for Social Democrats or Socialists today to claim that a more socialist system would allow for greater mobility?

Some form of mass delusion?

Again safety nets are socialistic tools but does not imply
socialism.

Safety nets are socialistic tools, but not socialist?

I understand your dizziness. Its quite simple. Attributes vs a definitive.

Just because you learned to swim and have become proficient at it doesn't make you a Navy Seal. You have attributes that are related but you most defintely are not a Navy Seal.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Wealth brings prosperity to all.

That's objectively false.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
All the vouchers in the world aren't going to help if education is not truly valued and seen as the gateway to success it truly is. This phenomena is growing in all parts of our society.

Leading a horse to water and making him drink are two different things.

Vouchers are probably the worst possible idea to fix education. What we need to do is give schools the ability to choose their students. The students who aren't chosen have to stay home with mommy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


:Confused:

I beleive youmeant to say even the biggest commies on this site do NOT consider 'class' to be a permenent legal status.

Regardless the point does stand that the arguements that happen on this baord usually are of the type that says that economic mobility is unsurpassed in free market economies whilst commies generally poo poo these claims or claim otherwise.

Economic mobility in a communist system = 0/10

Economic mobility in a capitalist system = 1/10

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Vouchers are probably the worst possible idea to fix education. What we need to do is give schools the ability to choose their students. The students who aren't chosen have to stay home with mommy.

Its good to be an Alpha.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No in todays terms most defintely not.

So they are capitalist policies? I don't think so. Even in today's terms they are socialist policies.

More socialistic yes, a socialistic government no. Comparatively vs. the rest of the world most defintely not.

And someone said we have a socialist government? Well, aside from Ned who may or may not have?

Though at least you admit they made the US more socialist.

Debatable and many argue that it did not.

Those people who argue that it does not are smoking crack, IMO. Without welfare or other safety nets someone who loses their job is in deep, deep trouble. Getting on their feet becomes far, far harder. We can see greater social mobility in the late 20th Century than the early 20th, a good deal because we do have safeguards in place to prevent folks from falling through the cracks.

You have attributes that are related but you most defintely are not a Navy Seal.

How does this in any way pertain to the absurd idea that socialist tools are not socialist? Socialist tools are not attributes of anything, they are socialist in themselves.

When people say that universal health care is socialist, do you say, no it's a socialist tool, not socialist? Of course not, because that's ridiculous.

'Free markets' are a capitalist tool... that does not make it simply an 'attribute' of capitalism. It is capitalist in itself.