Reply With Quote
You know ChumpDumper? I thought you were pretty new here, he hasn't posted in a while. So the Chucho account is some other disgraced poster's sock puppet?
A legitimate form of modern (libertarian) democratic socialism would include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, personal property rights etc. the fundamental difference is economic.
There has never been a truly democratic socialist state to date. This is partly because there has never been a leader as willing to relinquish their personal vision and influence utterly to the hands of the people like George Washington did, IMO. Among myruad other reasons, mostly economic.
You know ChumpDumper? I thought you were pretty new here, he hasn't posted in a while. So the Chucho account is some other disgraced poster's sock puppet?
Why, you'll just get upset and quit again.
When you use a word like socialism to describe an entire country /government... you play a binary game. Get to Europe and then come back and explain.
To be fair, Bernie always touted the sicialism of Scandinavia. We'll check back on their flavor of socialism after some decades after their cultural enrichment experiment.
calling America absurdly secular....the US has significantly more religiosity than any other modern country in the world.
He looks to them for examples of healthcare and education being socialized. What does that have to do with immigration/cultural experiments?
Anytime somebody praises something unrelated about sweden the response is "but their Muslim rapes!"
You think I haven't been to Europe?
Like you just did?
I answered your question, but you chose the last line of my answer, that I didn't believe you, and in a huff you ran off and quit, again.
The 2nd party doesn't also quit after you've forfeited already.
That's not an euphemism, it's simply avoiding generalization when it's not warranted. There's been socialist parties all around the world since the 1800's that are still around today, and have undergone transformations from straight up Marxism to being perfectly fine with a capitalist economy, as long as there's a social justice component (which is literally what's known as Social democracies nowadays). The SPD in Germany would be a fine example of that. On the other hand, you do have cases where socialism is used as an economic, and even political policy, and then you'll find the Chavez, Maduro, etc.
I don't particularly disagree with the notion that 'by definition' socialism isn't the same as what you call 'deviations'. Although some of those 'deviations' are more like a subset, than actual deviation (ie: the social component of the philosophy). In essence, they don't apply the entire spectrum of socialism, but are still called the same, which is why generalizations are just silly. ie: lumping together the Nordic Model with Venezuela is like comparing apples to oranges, tbh...
Last edited by ElNono; 02-22-2017 at 09:40 PM. Reason: wrong expression
It should be said, however, that Social Democracies are much easier to build when you have a relatively geneous group of people. It would be damn near impossible to put something together here with the current political and racial vitriol.
Immigrants matter, because the sustainability of that system can be tilted by mass immigration (they're still a capitalist economy, but with a much bigger social safety net). So, we'll see.
Were you were alert or comfortably numb?You think I haven't been to Europe?
You questioned my trustworthiness so I opted against a back and forth. It's fine. Others in this thread are doing a fine job handing your ass to you for your gratuitous simple-minded arguments. No need for me to pile on.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 02-22-2017 at 09:58 PM.
The UK is in Europe and has very little of socialism about it (the NHS would probably be the outlier there). So let's not generalize in that aspect either, tbh...
According to DMC any forced wealth transfer is socialism, so all states are socialist. There are no shades of socialism. It's binary. Youre either a socialist state or not.The UK is in Europe and has very little of socialism about it (the NHS would probably be the outlier there). So let's not generalize in that aspect either, tbh...
This is why DMC never wins an argument. He stakes out the binary untenable positions.
It's like calling a bolt a screw. They look similar and serve similar functions but they aren't interchangeable so they aren't the same. So if someone says you're espousing socialism because you're talking about something like social security or public transportation then they should be dismissed as over-eager. However when someone tries to say socialism works and then uses public transportation or some other socialistic policy then it's completely misleading and wrong. Social democracy works within a framework of capitalism, and capitalism is the an hesis of socialism. How then can social democracy be a form of socialism? It's like saying a bisexual is a form of sexual. It simply isn't, by definition, even if at some point it's still two people of the same sex being sexually attracted to one another. One could be sexual, the other bisexual. It has more to do with "what else" than the component that can be cherry picked as a "subset".
The idea of socialism is fine, just like the idea of most well established forms of government. Like many others though, it breaks down once applied to humans.
This is why you always lose/quit: you want an endless gradient to hide behind so you can never be wrong. I simply draw a line and defend it. You're a pussy who would do no such thing.
Someone who can't afford a subscription to an online magazine and buys their appliances at 28% interest from rental centers isn't making a quarter mil a year.
Exactly.
i literally have never lost an argument to you. Both you and I know this.
You genrally draw the line (with the exception of your argument that CHL is uncons utional which devolved into, CHL is actually cons utional unless it's implemented in the very unique way Texas chose to implemented it) but you can't defend it successfully. Take your argument that there should be no forced wealth transfer. Another binary position, completely indefensible for which you could not provide a single historical example of that policy being employed successfully.
You completly the the bed with your arguement that the profit motive drives innovation in the modern pharmacutical industry.
You do stake out hardline positions, but you have repeatedly failed to effectively defend them.
Fake news
Sorry, you'll need to slow down, wipe your mouth and try again. Clean that up. It's almost illegible.i literally have never lost an argument to you. Both you and I know this.
You genrally draw the line (with the exception of your argument that CHL is uncons utional which devolved into, CHL is actually cons utional unless it's implemented in the very unique way Texas chose Tom implemented it) but you can't defend it successfully. Take your argument that there should be no forced wealth transfer. Another binary position, completely indefensible for which you could not provide a single historical example of that policy being employed successfully.
You completly the the bed with your arguement that the profit motive drives innovation in the modern pharmacutical industry.
You do stake out hardline positions, but you have repeatedly failed to effectively defend them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions