Red Mosquito

Anders wrote:"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy."

"During the late 19th century and the early 20th century, social democracy was a broad labour movement within socialism that aimed to replace private ownership with social ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, taking influence from both Marxism and the supporters of Ferdinand Lassalle. By 1868–1869, the socialism associated with Karl Marx had become the official theoretical basis of the first social democratic party established in Europe, the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany."

Social democracy would not exist without Marx.

Much to Marx's disappointment I'm sure.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mike wrote:If the other side uses cheap attacks by throwing "SOCIALISM!!!" at your head because they are to stupid to know how words and their meanings work you are forced to clarify your position.

When communists and socialists refuse to recognize that USSR and Nazi Germany were at least somewhat socialist (and its a lot more than somewhat, especially in the first case), I have a hard time pitying them when Americans call them out on it.

They were somewhat socialist. Is anyone denying that? Being somewhat socialist is not what made them bad, though. So using socialism as an attack in that context makes no sense.

Well Sanders seems to be in the case of the USSR, which is what kickstarted this whole thing.

Communism and socialism come from the same place and thought, but are also different ideologies. And yes, the Soviet Union were many things (including being an authoritarian dictatorship), but I do think it's fair to call them communist.

But I can see why Bernie would distance himself. It's not a fair comparison to do f.ex. Lenin = Bernie. It would be more fair to point to post WW2 Europe, were socialists have been in power.

Mike wrote:

Anders wrote:

Mike wrote:

Anders wrote:

Mike wrote:Bernie is just as "socialist" as the leading german parties which is not comparable at all to the socialism of the past.

That's not true. The socialism of the past is the root of socialism today. It's the same ideology.

Okay, maybe I'm getting the words mixed up. Would you say most of europe is socialist? And would you say that's a bad thing?

No, most of Europe is not socialist. Europe is mostly run by non-socialist parties, even some that are strongly against socialism. But all European countries have more social justice, health care and equality for all, than they did in the 19th century, when Karl Marx lived.

And isn't that just the sort of "socialism" Bernie also wants? Social justice, health care and equality for all? (Maybe we're already on the same side of the argument) My point is just that Bernie is unfairly lumped in with bad political systems of the past because of word semantics.

Bernie is much more than those issues, for good or bad. I wouldn't vote for him, but I do agree that the US could use a better health care system. Not sure his plan is the best one.

Anders wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mike wrote:If the other side uses cheap attacks by throwing "SOCIALISM!!!" at your head because they are to stupid to know how words and their meanings work you are forced to clarify your position.

When communists and socialists refuse to recognize that USSR and Nazi Germany were at least somewhat socialist (and its a lot more than somewhat, especially in the first case), I have a hard time pitying them when Americans call them out on it.

They were somewhat socialist. Is anyone denying that? Being somewhat socialist is not what made them bad, though. So using socialism as an attack in that context makes no sense.

Well Sanders seems to be in the case of the USSR, which is what kickstarted this whole thing.

Communism and socialism come from the same place and thought, but are also different ideologies. And yes, the Soviet Union were many things (including being an authoritarian dictatorship), but I do think it's fair to call them communist.

But I can see why Bernie would distance himself. It's not a fair comparison to do f.ex. Lenin = Bernie. It would be more fair to point to post WW2 Europe, were socialists have been in power.

The distinction between socialism and communism is pretty muddled (thanks to Marx). I think social democrats/democratic socialists would be better off condemning the USSR every chance they get, or else ignoring the question altogether. This "not real communism/socialism" crap doesn't fly with me.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Anders wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mike wrote:If the other side uses cheap attacks by throwing "SOCIALISM!!!" at your head because they are to stupid to know how words and their meanings work you are forced to clarify your position.

When communists and socialists refuse to recognize that USSR and Nazi Germany were at least somewhat socialist (and its a lot more than somewhat, especially in the first case), I have a hard time pitying them when Americans call them out on it.

They were somewhat socialist. Is anyone denying that? Being somewhat socialist is not what made them bad, though. So using socialism as an attack in that context makes no sense.

Well Sanders seems to be in the case of the USSR, which is what kickstarted this whole thing.

Communism and socialism come from the same place and thought, but are also different ideologies. And yes, the Soviet Union were many things (including being an authoritarian dictatorship), but I do think it's fair to call them communist.

But I can see why Bernie would distance himself. It's not a fair comparison to do f.ex. Lenin = Bernie. It would be more fair to point to post WW2 Europe, were socialists have been in power.

The distinction between socialism and communism is pretty muddled (thanks to Marx). I think social democrats/democratic socialists would be better off condemning the USSR every chance they get, or else ignoring the question altogether. This "not real communism/socialism" crap doesn't fly with me.

I've never met a social democrat that hasn't condemned the Soviet Union's communisty party, if it has ever come up. I've met a few communists, that either didn't, or muddled it up.

BurtReynolds wrote:If socialism = the Marxist/communist definition, the no, the nazis weren't socialists. Neither are social democrats. (but the USSR was)

If socialism = the above as well as any state run economy (possibly with some corporate middlemen) with massive redistribution of wealth, then the nazis, commies and social democrats are all socialists.

The problem is that many socialists constantly switch between the two when arguing.

This. It boils down to “the government spending I like is socialism, the government spending I don’t like is corporate welfare”

You have to consider the history of this as well. There are people alive today who were around when the USSR, Nazi, Maosits, Castro were all committing horrendous acts of violence against their own citizens in the name of establishing a Socialist paradise and the Soviets, etc. all claimed to be socialists at the time. The experience of socialism they lived is different than what modern textbooks would assert, which is more focused on social justice than common ownership of the means of production, and this shift itself is suspicious because as Burt said above, the Soviets and Nazis claimed to be fighting for a lot of the same motives SJWs do now just with an explicit nationalist tinge

There are plenty of valid arguments against socialism, it's when you erroneously point to the Nazis, and while more valid against Soviet Communism, still mostly off topic, you end up sounding like you have no valid arguments.

"Mr Sanders says he would build 10 million affordable housing units at a cost of $2.5tn, to be funded by a tax targeting those with wealth above $32m.

Sanders says this would raise more than $4.3tn over a decade.

The scheme's plausibility has been questioned, as critics say the super rich would move their assets abroad to avoid the tax.

They point to Europe where more than a dozen countries have tried to implement a wealth tax - but only three remain in place due to difficulties enforcing the policy."

Anders wrote:There are plenty of valid arguments against socialism, it's when you erroneously point to the Nazis, and while more valid against Soviet Communism, still mostly off topic, you end up sounding like you have no valid arguments.

We’ve been over this before, the Nazis were socialists based on the popular understanding of that term in German in the 1920s, but not by the modern definition which emphasizes anti racism and feminism.

The argument isn’t for or against socialism it’s about the evolving definition and selective application of the definitions various forms

Bi_3 wrote:

Anders wrote:There are plenty of valid arguments against socialism, it's when you erroneously point to the Nazis, and while more valid against Soviet Communism, still mostly off topic, you end up sounding like you have no valid arguments.

We’ve been over this before, the Nazis were socialists based on the popular understanding of that term in German in the 1920s, but not by the modern definition which emphasizes anti racism and feminism.

They were never socialists. They were populist and nationalist, and chose whatever name they felt would fetch them votes. Their arch enemies from the very start was the social democrats, which were also the first political adversary to warn against them. They had wide use of slave labourers to propel the economy forward, and their most important policies were all nationalist and militaristic.

Socialists aren't the only ones that care about racism and feminism, and it's not what defines them. Socialists and social democrats have existed since the 19th century, and still build mostly from the same thoughts as they did then.

BurtReynolds wrote:Then there is nazism [yes, it was]

Bad take and unbelievably stupid and wrong, Nazis used socialist rhetoric when it suited them but their policies were the absolute opposite. They outlawed striking and trade unions, literally coined the term privatization when describing their own economic policies to "skew income in favor of the rich" in order to reduce consumption, they literally rounded up socialists and communists and trade union leaders and murdered them. This dumb fucking "durr they have SOCIALIST in their name" argument keeps coming up and it never stops being wrong

Sorry I replied before seeing that the Europeans had covered this

I miss Mickey.

theplatypus wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Then there is nazism [yes, it was]

Bad take and unbelievably stupid and wrong, Nazis used socialist rhetoric when it suited them but their policies were the absolute opposite. They outlawed striking and trade unions, literally coined the term privatization when describing their own economic policies to "skew income in favor of the rich" in order to reduce consumption, they literally rounded up socialists and communists and trade union leaders and murdered them. This dumb fucking "durr they have SOCIALIST in their name" argument keeps coming up and it never stops being wrong

Good post.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/ ... joe-biden/

I found this interesting. Looks like it will be Biden vs Trump.

If it's Biden vs. Trump then Biden is the clear option, but goddamn is that disappointing. I am certain Biden will lose.

Bi_3 wrote: The argument isn’t for or against socialism it’s about the evolving definition and selective application of the definitions various forms

Your last post before this one states:

Bi_3 wrote: You have to consider the history of this as well. There are people alive today who were around when the USSR, Nazi, Maosits, Castro were all committing horrendous acts of violence against their own citizens in the name of establishing a Socialist paradise and the Soviets, etc. all claimed to be socialists at the time. The experience of socialism they lived is different than what modern textbooks would assert, which is more focused on social justice than common ownership of the means of production, and this shift itself is suspicious because as Burt said above, the Soviets and Nazis claimed to be fighting for a lot of the same motives SJWs do now just with an explicit nationalist tinge

Socialism is a pretty broad term, and has been around a long time. Defining it by referencing a specific time in the past (20th century, 1930's to 70s/80s) seems pretty selective. ?

Anders wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Then there is nazism [yes, it was]

Bad take and unbelievably stupid and wrong, Nazis used socialist rhetoric when it suited them but their policies were the absolute opposite. They outlawed striking and trade unions, literally coined the term privatization when describing their own economic policies to "skew income in favor of the rich" in order to reduce consumption, they literally rounded up socialists and communists and trade union leaders and murdered them. This dumb fucking "durr they have SOCIALIST in their name" argument keeps coming up and it never stops being wrong

Good post.

No it isn't!

I already covered most of these dumb points

I get that that is the common argument. I've heard all that shit a thousand times and can understand how you've been brainwashed into believing it, but it's still incorrect.

I like that you're under the impression that "I've heard that argument before" is an argument