Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

[evensaul]

You don't see a difference between saying that something just changed a little bit during a period of time and saying that something didn't just change a little bit during a period of time? Wow.

I edited to say "... in terms of effect on the op" while you were replying.

Your nit picking of verbiage doesn't change the fact that Dems moved, in total, farther than the Reps did from 1994 to 2017. Regardless what words you want to use, or that I did use, that overall change is what I think is important. You disagree with me. I can live with that. Apparently you can't. So either get over it, or find a better way to convince me.

[futureboy]

Your nit picking of verbiage doesn't change the fact that Dems moved, in total, farther than the Reps did from 1994 to 2017.

So here you're talking about the total amount they "moved". This is again a misleading statement. If we look at the actual movement which took place 1994-2017 (the total movement), Reps exhibited more movement than the Dems by about 60%. Sure, the Reps went back and forth, ending up not far further right from where they started, but if you're not considering that movement, then you simply can't make statements about how much each of them changed or moved. All you can do is say "This is where they were in 1994, and this is where they were in 20017, and comparing the two, there is a greater difference in Dems than Reps".

You can call this nit-picking all you want, but there is a distinct difference between saying "this is where it was, and look where it is now", and saying "this is how much it has moved". You have repeatedly relied on the latter kind of statement in order to make your argument that Dems are more extreme than Reps, all the while asserting that the only consideration we should make is for the former kind of statement.

As far as your limited criteria goes, all you're essentially saying is "this is where they were then, and this is where they are now". So what? That says nothing about whether one is more extreme than the other.

Regardless what words you want to use, or that I did use, that overall change is what I think is important.

Considering you haven't really nailed down the criteria for what should be considered "extreme", which has been pointed out to you by Mican, Dio, and myself, whether the granular changes are relevant vs. just the overall change is up for debate. You say that only the overall change is what you think is important, but this fails to take into account changes in the political center, and therefore any static comparison of two points in time is necessarily based on an arbitrary scale and therefore devoid of any real meaning.

You disagree with me. I can live with that. Apparently you can't. So either get over it, or find a better way to convince me.

Yet again, you seem to have it completely backwards. It's your thread, and your argument to support. If you can't provide sufficient reason to ignore the actual changes which took place and only consider a comparison between two static states, then there is likewise insufficient reason to take your OP seriously.

[evensaul]

... If we look at the actual movement which took place 1994-2017 (the total movement), Reps exhibited more movement than the Dems by about 60%...

I'm talking about the actual distance from Point A to Point B. You're doing your best to apply a different meaning to my words than what you know I intend.

You can call this nit-picking...

Call it nitpicking, conflation, obfuscation, or Mican's Method. They're an interchangeable set of tools for the losing debater.

As far as your limited criteria goes, all you're essentially saying is "this is where they were then, and this is where they are now". So what? That says nothing about whether one is more extreme than the other.

I think it is important that the Dems move ever-leftward. The Pew data shows that. My points about how Dems have gone from far right to far left since 1960 shows that. (I know. You reject that description because it isn't the same type of data as from Pew. Ridiculous.)

Considering you haven't really nailed down the criteria for what should be considered "extreme", which has been pointed out to you by Mican, Dio, and myself, whether the granular changes are relevant vs. just the overall change is up for debate.

I still think it is pretty clear, but some alternative possibilities have been discussed. You were too busy inventing the bogus concept of natural vs unnatural change to join in.

...there is likewise insufficient reason to take your OP seriously.

If that's your opinion, you are free to depart.

Revision: FB, I'm not going to keep going round and round with you. I'm done with you here.

[futureboy]

I'm talking about the actual distance from Point A to Point B.

The "distance from Point A to Point B" is nothing more than the difference between two points in the context of the data we're discussing. It says nothing about the movement or change which took place between them.
Wouldn't it matter if, in between point A and B, Reps went all the way to the extreme right side?

You're doing your best to apply a different meaning to my words than what you know I intend.

No, I'm saying that the intention behind the language you're using isn't supported by the data to which you are restricting yourself. Again, all you can say by comparing two static points is "this is where they were, and this is where they are now, and this is the difference between the two".

Call it nitpicking, obfuscation, or Mican's Method.

I'm not calling it anything, you are. This in no way addresses the point I made which you quoted just the beginning of, which is irrelevant to the point. I'm sorry, but that's not how honest discussions work. You can't take the first 5 words of someone's statement, add an ellipsis, ignore the rest of the statement, (try to) make a clever response to those first 5 words, and pretend that you've addressed the entire statement.

Here it is again, since you failed to respond the first time:
There is a distinct difference between saying "this is where it was, and look where it is now", and saying "this is how much it has moved". You have repeatedly relied on the latter kind of statement in order to make your argument that Dems are more extreme than Reps, all the while asserting that the only consideration we should make is for the former kind of statement.

I think it is important that the Dems move ever-leftward. The Pew data shows that.

This is interesting. It's a positive sign that you're starting to accept that you can no longer maintain the absurd claim that "Republicans moved slightly right since 1994, while Dems moved waaay left", and that you are instead actually considering the granular changes which took place in 1994-2017. We may be finally getting somewhere to approaching an honest discussion of the data which you claim is most significant.

So, you're saying a consistent change in one direction over 20-years? How so?

I still think it is pretty clear, but some alternative possibilities have been discussed. You were too busy inventing the bogus concept of natural vs unnatural change to join in.

I've already explained for you how the use of an adjective is irrelevant to the statement, so this is nothing more than a straw man. I provided the statement to you without the adjective so that you could respond to it, which you still haven't done. Here it is again:
And now some republicans (you, the "political editorial") are trying to spin this data into "the Dems are the extreme ones", "Democrats have moved sharply to the extreme left", ignoring the gradual shift left on both sides as well as the GOP's extreme change in direction, abandoning the new center and ending up further right than before.

If that's your opinion, you are free to depart.

Again, if you refuse to adequately respond to criticisms, then you abandon your argument.

[Ibelsd]

Lol. 500 words of kvetching and no attempt to offer anything new.

If you thought Ibelsd's posts could lead to fruitful dialogue why haven't you made any effort in that direction? He and I generally agree with each other on the dangers of the Left, so I don't have need for deep discussion with him. But you have a great opportunity here, so go for it, boy!

So, I want to do this respectfully and without rancor.
1. If we generally agree then your chart is generally meaningless. Please... please stop arguing about. It seems to me a statistic molded to demonstrate a point of view but lacking any sort of substance. Its like ok. Fine. Liberals have moved left quickly over the last x number of years and they've moved more quickly than people on the right have moved rightward. And this all means what? For the life of me, I cannot figure it out.

2. You are conflating socialism with Marxism. And if you want to posit that socialism is extreme, the answer is no. Nations have been mixing socialist and free markets together for over a hundred years (at least). Declaring some markets should be socialized isn't an extreme position. Let me offer an example here. Bernie Sanders is suggesting single payer health care for all. He wants to socialize the healthcare market. Now, we can discuss whether it is a good idea. However, it isn't extreme. On the other hand, Bernie is a self-described Democratic Socialist. They want to eventually abolish ALL private markets. They want to impose a form of Marxism but call it Democratic Socialism. Now, this IS extreme. You see the difference, right? So, it is not interesting that Democrats/liberals are moving left, supporting socialized markets which they may have preferred to remain private in past generations. It isn't interesting until you see a wave of support within Democratic circles to include Democratic Socialism as an acceptable position. Up until they cross that line, no matter how fast or slow it takes to get there, there is nothing particularly extreme about the Democrats.

3. The argument is whether they have crossed the line. By embracing Sanders and other self-described Democratic Socialists, have they turned themselves into a political party which has embraced Marxism? Do Democrats even acknowledge that there is a line to cross? This last question is especially worrisome since we cannot expect Democrats to shun an ideology which they don't recognize themselves as extreme. Again, to make an example. The Republicans are very clear that someone who is a member of the American Nazi Party is not welcome. They have done a decent job of acknowledging fascism as an extreme position and it is a line the party will not cross. Or at least, at this particular time, they seem unwilling to cross. Now, if the GOP started to openly embrace, support, give a platform to members who also held memberships in these known fascist groups, I'd certainly be worried. At that point I'd say the GOP has embraced extremist views and is dangerous. We have recently seen nationalism increase on the right and within the GOP. However, we are sort of safeguarded by the GOP's own aversion to actual fascism, a line they have basically drawn themselves. What we have not seen is the same introspection on the left to be clear about where the line should be drawn as it relates to Marxism. And while I am not going to say Democrats have absolutely crossed the line, I think they are certainly flirting with it and without them explicitly stating where the line is, I think there should be some concern.

[MindTrap028]

@ ibelsd.. so I don't really accept the chats argument...or weather am not concerned about it. I am much more interested in the contrast you have drawn. To me the Sanders pick is the only relevant kind of evidence...Ie what kind of Representatives are being elected and gaining ground. To me a socialist is the extreme. You are right that there are nuances in more social policies, but at some point the scale tips to an extreme.. and Sanders is as close to an alarm as I can think of. It would be like if an anarchist were in the running on the Republican side for Pres. .. if you recall my position of what left and right means you will understand why I reject facism as an extreme right position.

I think the most important point, no matter how much of the above you happen to disagree with, is what you said about the Democrats not recognizing any line. What is a bridge to far for them? I don't know and don't think they do either.. maybe because there isn't one, and that is the major concern and proof of extreme is itself. It means they simply lack opportunity to be extreme.

[CowboyX]

On the other hand, Bernie is a self-described Democratic Socialist. They want to eventually abolish ALL private markets. They want to impose a form of Marxism but call it Democratic Socialism.

When you have time could I ask you to expand on this? Where did you hear this from?

My own belief is they may want to control all private markets, but "abolish" them?, I'm not sure if that's the socialist ideology.

[Ibelsd]

When you have time could I ask you to expand on this? Where did you hear this from?

My own belief is they may want to control all private markets, but "abolish" them?, I'm not sure if that's the socialist ideology.

I shared a link in this post.
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post560455

To be clear, they aren't a group proposing socializing some markets. They appear to be a Marxist or neo-Marxist group with the intention to socializing all markets.
For instance they explain government ownership as follows:
"We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."

This seems to be a rather Marxist view. For a pedantic cross-reference to an explanation of socialism from Wikipedia
"In a socialist society, private property—in the form of the means of production—would be replaced by co-operative ownership."

Again, we can agree or disagree that certain markets should be publicly controlled (i.e. roads, healthcare, etc), however, the view of the Democratic Socialists is that all markets should be controlled in this manner. Indeed, the ideological view of the DS and Marxist both state the same capitalist v worker perspective.



---------- Post added at 07:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 AM ----------

@ ibelsd.. so I don't really accept the chats argument...or weather am not concerned about it. I am much more interested in the contrast you have drawn. To me the Sanders pick is the only relevant kind of evidence...Ie what kind of Representatives are being elected and gaining ground. To me a socialist is the extreme. You are right that there are nuances in more social policies, but at some point the scale tips to an extreme.. and Sanders is as close to an alarm as I can think of. It would be like if an anarchist were in the running on the Republican side for Pres. .. if you recall my position of what left and right means you will understand why I reject facism as an extreme right position.

I think the most important point, no matter how much of the above you happen to disagree with, is what you said about the Democrats not recognizing any line. What is a bridge to far for them? I don't know and don't think they do either.. maybe because there isn't one, and that is the major concern and proof of extreme is itself. It means they simply lack opportunity to be extreme.

The pick is interesting, but we are discussing political party extremism. The party and voters may not be aligned in views or ideology. The interesting factor is that the Democratic party is allowing Sanders to run under their party's banner.

I made an argument on how the GOP and fascism are linked. If you feel like having a discussion on that we can, but it should probably occur in a separate thread.


And you are mostly correct. The Democrats have no established line and, therefore, may wander off into their own form extremism without any sort of safeguard. I disagree that lack of an established line means they cannot be extreme. It just means they can cross into extremism much more easily than the GOP at this time.

[CowboyX]

I shared a link in this post.
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post560455

To be clear, they aren't a group proposing socializing some markets. They appear to be a Marxist or neo-Marxist group with the intention to socializing all markets.
For instance they explain government ownership as follows:
"We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."

This seems to be a rather Marxist view. For a pedantic cross-reference to an explanation of socialism from Wikipedia
"In a socialist society, private property—in the form of the means of production—would be replaced by co-operative ownership."

Again, we can agree or disagree that certain markets should be publicly controlled (i.e. roads, healthcare, etc), however, the view of the Democratic Socialists is that all markets should be controlled in this manner. Indeed, the ideological view of the DS and Marxist both state the same capitalist v worker perspective. [COLOR=#000000][FONT=camingodos-web]

They don't, however, argue for government ownership entirely - which is what I take you to mean by "publicly controlled". There would still be markets.

[Ibelsd]

They don't, however, argue for government ownership entirely - which is what I take you to mean by "publicly controlled". There would still be markets.

Without trying to interpret what I mean, just go by the group's self-description and put it next to a description of Marxism

For instance they explain government ownership as follows:
"We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."

This seems to be a rather Marxist view. For a pedantic cross-reference to an explanation of socialism from Wikipedia
"In a socialist society, private property—in the form of the means of production—would be replaced by co-operative ownership."

[mican333]

Without trying to interpret what I mean, just go by the group's self-description and put it next to a description of Marxism

For instance they explain government ownership as follows:
"We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."

This seems to be a rather Marxist view. For a pedantic cross-reference to an explanation of socialism from Wikipedia
"In a socialist society, private property—in the form of the means of production—would be replaced by co-operative ownership."

While I do recognize common ground between the two descriptions, they are not exactly the same thing so one cannot say that one is just like the other.

The Marxist/socialism description would essentially abolish private ownership of property which is not part of the Democratic Socialist platform.

And I don't think Democratic Socialism or even Socialism is inherently extreme. It's a question of HOW MUCH of those things we have that determines whether an agenda is extreme. I do think that a 100% socialist country would qualify as extreme but I don't think just any less-than-zero amount of socialism qualifies as extreme. I think we SHOULD have some socialism in this country (like publicly funded police and fire) and since I'm for single-payer, I would even like more socialism than we currently have and assuming the "line" is subjective (which seems to be the only standard here since no one has provided a line that is based on anything that is not ultimately rooted in their opinion), then I would say that adopting single-payer would move us away from extremism (since it moves us towards the line, not away from it), not towards it.

[Ibelsd]

While I do recognize common ground between the two descriptions, they are not exactly the same thing so one cannot say that one is just like the other.

The Marxist/socialism description would essentially abolish private ownership of property which is not part of the Democratic Socialist platform.

I don't think they are different at all. At least not in any meaningful way. The DS don't come out and say replace private ownership with co-ops. How do you get to their goal, ownership and control by consumers and workers without abolishing private ownership?

And I don't think Democratic Socialism or even Socialism is inherently extreme. It's a question of HOW MUCH of those things we have that determines whether an agenda is extreme. I do think that a 100% socialist country would qualify as extreme but I don't think just any less-than-zero amount of socialism qualifies as extreme. I think we SHOULD have some socialism in this country (like publicly funded police and fire) and since I'm for single-payer, I would even like more socialism than we currently have and assuming the "line" is subjective (which seems to be the only standard here since no one has provided a line that is based on anything that is not ultimately rooted in their opinion), then I would say that adopting single-payer would move us away from extremism (since it moves us towards the line, not away from it), not towards it.

Do you believe Marxism is extreme? To be clear, I have not argued that socialism is bad. I've argued, in fact, it is necessary. The question is which markets need to be socialized. The DS, as far as I can tell aren't proposing some mix of capitalism and socialism. They are making Marxist arguments and proposing a Marxist solution as I noted above.

[mican333]

I don't think they are different at all. At least not in any meaningful way. The DS don't come out and say replace private ownership with co-ops. How do you get to their goal, ownership and control by consumers and workers without abolishing private ownership?

By allowing people to privately own whatever they happen to buy. Attaining control over economic institutions does not require abolishing ownership of private property. I don't see how, for example, I personally cannot own a TV if the workers and consumers control the economic institutions.

Do you believe Marxism is extreme? To be clear, I have not argued that socialism is bad. I've argued, in fact, it is necessary. The question is which markets need to be socialized. The DS, as far as I can tell aren't proposing some mix of capitalism and socialism. They are making Marxist arguments and proposing a Marxist solution as I noted above.

Again, I reject your assertion that DS is Marxist so that cannot be the premise of an argument until it is supported.

And I don't consider Marxism to be inherently extremist. I think a purely Marxist society would be extremist but then I think a purely ANYTHING society (capitalist, socialist, etc) would likewise be extremist. So I differentiate between agreeing that a Purely X society is extremist and X itself being extremist. That's not to say that I agree with Marxism but mere disagreement of the tenets of X does not make X inherently extremist.

And to repeat my primary argument, I don't see how one can make a solid argument that either Dems or Repubs are becoming more extremist because it seems that where the "line" is and how far away from the line constitutes being "extreme" seems to be subjective. I agree that one can argue that there has been a steady shift left-ward over the past decades but then a left-leaning person could argue that we have been steadily moving away from extremism as opposed to moving towards extremism. For example, several decades ago we have Jim Crow laws and I would call those "extreme" and then we got rid of such laws and that would, IMO, constitute moving away from extremist. And likewise allowing gay marriage IMO is moving away from extremism. And one is free to think the opposite but I don't see how one can support such an argument - they would pretty much just be voicing an opinion and little else.

---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

Call it nitpicking, conflation, obfuscation, or Mican's Method. They're an interchangeable set of tools for the losing debater.

About the only recognizable tool I've seen for a losing debater is to refuse to continue the debate and make the excuse that it's the other person's fault that he's quitting. For example:

Revision: FB, I'm not going to keep going round and round with you. I'm done with you here.

So there's the Evensaul Method.

[Ibelsd]

By allowing people to privately own whatever they happen to buy. Attaining control over economic institutions does not require abolishing ownership of private property. I don't see how, for example, I personally cannot own a TV if the workers and consumers control the economic institutions.

Please point me to the statement in the website that supports this interpretation. The statement I quoted specifically notes "economic institutions". Now, you may love your tv, but no one would call it an economic institution. So, please retry answering my question.

Again, I reject your assertion that DS is Marxist so that cannot be the premise of an argument until it is supported.

I'm waiting for a rebuttal from you which makes sense. So, until then, the DS is very close approximation (if not precisely) a Marxist political party.

And I don't consider Marxism to be inherently extremist. I think a purely Marxist society would be extremist but then I think a purely ANYTHING society (capitalist, socialist, etc) would likewise be extremist. So I differentiate between agreeing that a Purely X society is extremist and X itself being extremist. That's not to say that I agree with Marxism but mere disagreement of the tenets of X does not make X inherently extremist.

So, by this premise, we could say the same thing about fascism? If Hitler only carried out some fascist policies then the world and Germany would have been ok. And yeah, my example makes no sense. Nor does your attempt to split the baby down the middle. Just as fascism leads to brutality, we can make the same claim about Marxism. Let's be clear, Marxism is an ideology rooted in class warfare. Is a little class warfare a good thing? I'd say even a little Marxism is an extreme position for an American political party.

And to repeat my primary argument, I don't see how one can make a solid argument that either Dems or Repubs are becoming more extremist because it seems that where the "line" is and how far away from the line constitutes being "extreme" seems to be subjective. I agree that one can argue that there has been a steady shift left-ward over the past decades but then a left-leaning person could argue that we have been steadily moving away from extremism as opposed to moving towards extremism. For example, several decades ago we have Jim Crow laws and I would call those "extreme" and then we got rid of such laws and that would, IMO, constitute moving away from extremist. And likewise allowing gay marriage IMO is moving away from extremism. And one is free to think the opposite but I don't see how one can support such an argument - they would pretty much just be voicing an opinion and little else.

That has really never been my argument. That is closer to something Even has posited and which I've actually opposed. In fact, if you go back and read my previous posts in this thread, you'd find I have made very similar arguments.

When I talk about a line, it is more concrete than abstract and has nothing to do with how close one party is to the line or how fast one party is moving towards that line. In addition, if you really dissect my posts (not that I am asking you to do that), I've noted several times that it is up to liberals (i.e. Democrats) to make their own line. To me, I think playing with Marxist ideologues as I've supported the DS to be as a potential line. Whether liberals draw the line there or not, it is just as concerning that it is really unclear where Democrats believe the line should be. I've also noted that the GOP is in charge of drawing its own line and I think they've done a reasonable job of doing that. I mean you simply do not see fascist, neo-Nazis, et al. being accepted into the GOP. If a group like the American Nazi Party represented a GOP presidential candidate, I'd tend to think that would be an example of the GOP moving past the line and I'd say it was on the extreme side of nationalism. So, I am not making an ideological argument here where I am picking on liberals. I'm not even making an argument against socialism or socialist policies.

The premise here, and it seems like you disagree, is that some ideologies are incompatible to American society. I'd certainly make the claim that Marxism and fascism are two such ideologies.

[CowboyX]

Marxism is an ideology rooted in class warfare. Is a little class warfare a good thing?

It is translated as class "struggle" and can be inherent in the system. Remedies against it - such as taxing the rich - are often labelled as class warfare. In that case, yes, it is good.

[evensaul]

For some reason, as a culture, we have not put Marxists like Che Guevarra, Castro, Lenin, et al. in the same box of evil. Ultimately, though, it comes down to liberal determining the line on their own.

The culture hasn't because the Left and leftist media have never admitted the evils of Marxism, and still view Guevarra, Castro and Chavez as heros to be emulated. The vast majority of Republicans reject Hitler, but the Left will never reject Marx. The dog that doesn't bark sees a friend or master.

Mosts liberal politicians want Marxism, even if they don't come out and say it. Here's Maxine Waters accidentally letting it slip that she wants to nationalize oil companies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLkWq4DLnAs

Not really. Why are we concerned about "rate of change"?

Because rate of change or velocity towards Marxism can legitimately be compared to the Republican conservatism trying to maintain the status quo. It is force vs inertia. One party continues pushing left, left, left against another party that mostly just wants things to remain as-is. And that fact is reflected in the other claim in the op, which no one has tried to dispute, that Democrats pushing ever-leftward is "causing a widening gap in political ideology between Left and Right".

---------- Post added at 06:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 AM ----------

1. If we generally agree then your chart is generally meaningless.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

2. You are conflating socialism with Marxism.

Point taken.

And if you want to posit that socialism is extreme, the answer is no.

If middling socialism was the real end, I'd agree. But using socialism as a stepping stone towards Marxism is extreme, and that appears to be what Democrats are doing. liberal=progressive=socialism=marxism. You can call it conflating, but to modern American Democrats it is all towards the same end.

3. The argument is whether they have crossed the line.

Got it.

[mican333]

Please point me to the statement in the website that supports this interpretation. The statement I quoted specifically notes "economic institutions". Now, you may love your tv, but no one would call it an economic institution. So, please retry answering my question.

A TV is property and the difference is:

Marxism would abolish private property and therefore I could not have a TV as property
DC would not abolish private property and therefore I could have a TV as property.

And that is a significant difference between the two.

So to answer your question; "How do you get to their goal, ownership and control by consumers and workers without abolishing private ownership?"

I would say that abolishing private ownership of property is not necessary to reach their goal so they just make sure to not ban private ownership of property (and I can still own my TV).

So, by this premise, we could say the same thing about fascism? If Hitler only carried out some fascist policies then the world and Germany would have been ok.

We aren't talking about "OK". We are talking about "extremism". And yes, if Hitler engaged in a milder form of facism which was not nearly as disastrous as what actually happened, then his government might not qualify as "extremist" and that does not mean that his government would be "OK". IT would still be bad, just not extremist.

When I talk about a line, it is more concrete than abstract and has nothing to do with how close one party is to the line or how fast one party is moving towards that line.

Until I see such a line and likewise agree that it is indeed a proper line (either because some objective criteria validates it or I personally agree with it), I don't accept that such a line exists.

As I've said, from all evidence, where the line is and how far to one side qualifies as "extreme" is subjective. So you can present a line but if it's just based on opinion, then it's invalidated by any and all lines based on different opinions.

In addition, if you really dissect my posts (not that I am asking you to do that), I've noted several times that it is up to liberals (i.e. Democrats) to make their own line. To me, I think playing with Marxist ideologues as I've supported the DS to be as a potential line. Whether liberals draw the line there or not, it is just as concerning that it is really unclear where Democrats believe the line should be.

So far I see no basis for singling out Democrats for this criticism. I've never seen an official line for the Republicans either. From all appearances, even this criticism is just rooted in a subjective bias against Democrats.

I've also noted that the GOP is in charge of drawing its own line and I think they've done a reasonable job of doing that.

And your opinion is noted.

I mean you simply do not see fascist, neo-Nazis, et al. being accepted into the GOP.

Actually, one can make the argument that such people are more accepted into the GOP now than have been in a long time.

When White Supremacists marched in Charlotte, Trump said that some of them are "very fine people" and didn't really single them out for criticism when compared to those who marched against them as if being a White Supremacist and being one who opposes them is a wash.

And there does seem to be more of such people in office now.


"White nationalist James Allsup is now an elected officer in the Republican Party of Washington state.

Over the weekend, Allsup posted a Facebook photo showing a piece of paper confirming his election as the state GOP’s precinct committee officer for Precinct 129 in Whitman County, The Daily Beast first reported Tuesday. The paper also states there were “no challenges for the office.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b074b9e089f1f7


"Voters in Illinois, Wisconsin, California, and Montana will be heading to the polls this summer and fall to make what should be an easy decision: neo-Nazi or not?

The candidates, all Republicans, are running various races in those four states — three for Congress and one for a state Legislature position. But they have one characteristic in common: Their views are openly white supremacist. Some even include limiting Jewish representation right in their political platforms or have the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan."

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...g-for-congress

And one can subjectively blow this stuff off as not that significant or think it's a smoking gun for the notion that the GOP has in no way drawn the line against Nazis.

And again, I see no way to get beyond one's subjective political bias in determining where the line is on how far one has to step away from it before they are considered extremist.

So to be clear, I'm not looking to argue about whether the GOP is Nazi-tolerant or whatever.

What I'm seeing is if one can indeed present some kind of concrete line based on some criteria that is not rooted in one's political bias. Otherwise we will always be in agree-to-disagree land.

The premise here, and it seems like you disagree, is that some ideologies are incompatible to American society. I'd certainly make the claim that Marxism and fascism are two such ideologies.

I thought the debate was about extremism.

A "little bad" is not extremist (which is not to say that it's not bad). As an example, I think racism is bad and there are extreme racist groups, like the KKK, but I wouldn't call, for example, Archie Bunker (I assume you know who I'm talking about) an extremist even though I would call him "racist". So again "bad" =/= "extreme".

[Ibelsd]

A TV is property and the difference is:

Marxism would abolish private property and therefore I could not have a TV as property
DC would not abolish private property and therefore I could have a TV as property.

And that is a significant difference between the two.

So to answer your question; "How do you get to their goal, ownership and control by consumers and workers without abolishing private ownership?"

I would say that abolishing private ownership of property is not necessary to reach their goal so they just make sure to not ban private ownership of property (and I can still own my TV).




We aren't talking about "OK". We are talking about "extremism". And yes, if Hitler engaged in a milder form of facism which was not nearly as disastrous as what actually happened, then his government might not qualify as "extremist" and that does not mean that his government would be "OK". IT would still be bad, just not extremist.





Until I see such a line and likewise agree that it is indeed a proper line (either because some objective criteria validates it or I personally agree with it), I don't accept that such a line exists.

As I've said, from all evidence, where the line is and how far to one side qualifies as "extreme" is subjective. So you can present a line but if it's just based on opinion, then it's invalidated by any and all lines based on different opinions.





So far I see no basis for singling out Democrats for this criticism. I've never seen an official line for the Republicans either. From all appearances, even this criticism is just rooted in a subjective bias against Democrats.





And your opinion is noted.




Actually, one can make the argument that such people are more accepted into the GOP now than have been in a long time.

When White Supremacists marched in Charlotte, Trump said that some of them are "very fine people" and didn't really single them out for criticism when compared to those who marched against them as if being a White Supremacist and being one who opposes them is a wash.

And there does seem to be more of such people in office now.


"White nationalist James Allsup is now an elected officer in the Republican Party of Washington state.

Over the weekend, Allsup posted a Facebook photo showing a piece of paper confirming his election as the state GOP’s precinct committee officer for Precinct 129 in Whitman County, The Daily Beast first reported Tuesday. The paper also states there were “no challenges for the office.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b074b9e089f1f7


"Voters in Illinois, Wisconsin, California, and Montana will be heading to the polls this summer and fall to make what should be an easy decision: neo-Nazi or not?

The candidates, all Republicans, are running various races in those four states — three for Congress and one for a state Legislature position. But they have one characteristic in common: Their views are openly white supremacist. Some even include limiting Jewish representation right in their political platforms or have the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan."

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...g-for-congress

And one can subjectively blow this stuff off as not that significant or think it's a smoking gun for the notion that the GOP has in no way drawn the line against Nazis.

And again, I see no way to get beyond one's subjective political bias in determining where the line is on how far one has to step away from it before they are considered extremist.

So to be clear, I'm not looking to argue about whether the GOP is Nazi-tolerant or whatever.

What I'm seeing is if one can indeed present some kind of concrete line based on some criteria that is not rooted in one's political bias. Otherwise we will always be in agree-to-disagree land.





I thought the debate was about extremism.

A "little bad" is not extremist (which is not to say that it's not bad). As an example, I think racism is bad and there are extreme racist groups, like the KKK, but I wouldn't call, for example, Archie Bunker (I assume you know who I'm talking about) an extremist even though I would call him "racist". So again "bad" =/= "extreme".

This post is difficult to parse and refute because you are all over the place and have made gross generalizations leading to incorrect conclusions and false premises leading to faulty logic.
As an example, your whole take on the DSA and Marxism. Marxism is essentially two components. The problem statement: dialecticism. The solution: Socialism (short-term). The DSA expresses a dialectic world view and they propose a socialist solution. Period. The other stuff you're offering is just obfuscation and nonsense.

Regarding lines, I am not asking you to judge the line or even agree with the line I think should exist. If you don't think Marxism is a good line to draw, fine. Ultimately, it is Democrats/liberals who need to offer up their own line. Where is the liberal (left wing) ideology which is extreme? I'd suggest it should be Marxism (at the very least), but I am not insisting on that as the line. I am not a liberal so it really isn't for me to say. On the right wing side of things, where I generally seem to fit ideologically, I will certainly say right wing nationalism goes too far when it crosses into fascism. Furthermore, I stated the Republicans have generally done a good job of setting a line not to cross and you offered some reported evidence to the contrary. Except your evidence did not support your claim.

1) Allsup has denied being a white supremacist and has openly made statements against neo-Nazi groups. The Atlantic claimed he was alt-right and a white supremacist. He has denied this. At the very least it demonstrates that he recognizes the GOP would not accept him if he were to support fascist groups and ideologies. In other words, even if he is a neo-Nazi, he understands that this association is untenable for the GOP which supports my claim that the GOP has a line and has done fairly well in refusing to cross it.

2) In your examples from the second link, one candidate ran as a GOP but received no party support. This was more of an issue where the GOP state party chose not to run a viable candidate because they didn't want to sink money into a losing cause. It was not an example of the GOP supporting a fascist. In another example, in the article it states that the candidate was kicked out of the GOP for his comments. Again, further support that the GOP has a line which it defines and enforces fairly well.

I never said the line was perfectly enforced. Clearly, from your own references, the GOP has an ideological line. Where do the liberals define their line? Which left-wing groups are too extreme for them? As far as I can tell, there aren't any. To me, this does not mean Democrats are more extreme, but it means they don't believe any of their views can be extreme and this should worry anyone. I mean, as you said, if any ideology purely implemented is a bad thing. Well, how does one act as a partial Marxist? It is one thing to say, some markets work better when socialized. It is quite another to say there is a struggle (happy Cowboy?) between the classes and the only way to end the struggle is for workers and consumers to control the economic institutions. I mean, this isn't some prescription for an immediate problem such as healthcare. This is the solution for an existential problem and the intention is for it to be implemented globally. To be clear, the DSA says the following about themselves:

"We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo."

Does this sound like a moderate group? This is a Marxist (or neo-Marxist) group which has become a major component of the DNC. Is it extreme? That's a call for liberals to make I guess. It sure as heck worries me though. And if the GOP was getting candidates who openly associated and are members of the American Nazi Party, yeah, I'd be worried by that too. Frankly, I don't see much difference between the two groups. Fascism was no more or less destructive than Marxism in the 20th century. Now, if liberals set a line, at least we could judge them by A) where they set the line and B) whether they crossed the line. As it stands, there is no line and it is unclear where the DNC will allow themselves to be taken.

---------- Post added at 02:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 PM ----------

The culture hasn't because the Left and leftist media have never admitted the evils of Marxism, and still view Guevarra, Castro and Chavez as heros to be emulated. The vast majority of Republicans reject Hitler, but the Left will never reject Marx. The dog that doesn't bark sees a friend or master.

Maybe

Mosts liberal politicians want Marxism, even if they don't come out and say it. Here's Maxine Waters accidentally letting it slip that she wants to nationalize oil companies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLkWq4DLnAs

Again, you may be confusing Marxism with socialism. Waters may be socialist and I suspect she's a Marxist, but the two are not the same. You are again, kinda conflating the two and that would be wrong. Without the dialectic component, socialism is just a type of economic system which may or may not be well suited to specific markets. Those who are socialists but do not have a dialectic world view may simply be more inclined to view markets as working more efficiently when socialized. But, this is an economics and political issue which can be debated, discussed, and compromised. Like roads, restaurants, and healthcare. Some of these markets may be better privatized and some may require socialization. But, if one is an ideologue and believes the systems under capitalism are absolutely corrupt because they exist to support a specific group of people at the expense of some other group... then you enter into Marxism and there is no debate or compromise. The hierarchies exist and must be deconstructed under a Marxist world view. All markets must be controlled by those to whom the structures had been designed to oppress. This is critical theory. This is the Hegelian philosophy on steroids. So the upshot of my little rant is that I do not believe most liberal politicians want or believe in Marxism. I believe there are some. I am unsure how many and it worries me that the DNC seems to accept Marxists which is something, even 15 years ago it would not have been so open about.

Because rate of change or velocity towards Marxism can legitimately be compared to the Republican conservatism trying to maintain the status quo. It is force vs inertia. One party continues pushing left, left, left against another party that mostly just wants things to remain as-is. And that fact is reflected in the other claim in the op, which no one has tried to dispute, that Democrats pushing ever-leftward is "causing a widening gap in political ideology between Left and Right".

No. Marxism is not the counter-balance to the conservative status quo. It is the counterbalance to fascism. Republican conservativism is marked by a desire to maintain tradition, yes, but that does not occur doing nothing (i.e. inertia). How is the GOP attempting to maintain the status quo (i.e. tradition)? Typically it is done through the ideals of loyalty and nationalism and nationalism is a necessary condition of fascism. Just as socialism is a necessary component of Marxism. Neither is sufficient to produce the other. Just increasing nationalism does not suffice to introduce fascism. It requires a certain world view to go along with it (like white nationalism, a sort of Nietzschean world view).

I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

Guess so.

Point taken.

If middling socialism was the real end, I'd agree. But using socialism as a stepping stone towards Marxism is extreme, and that appears to be what Democrats are doing. liberal=progressive=socialism=marxism. You can call it conflating, but to modern American Democrats it is all towards the same end.

Got it.

Point taken.... but you keep doing it. And you are just wrong. This isn't even close to being true. It is certainly true for SOME progressives. It is certainly UNTRUE for others. So, you cannot say they are all equal. That is just factually and mathematically and logically wrong.

[evensaul]

So the upshot of my little rant is that I do not believe most liberal politicians want or believe in Marxism. I believe there are some. I am unsure how many and it worries me that the DNC seems to accept Marxists which is something, even 15 years ago it would not have been so open about.

And I think there are far more than you suspect, and the rest would just need a little persuading.

No. Marxism is not the counter-balance to the conservative status quo...

I didn't claim it was a counter-balance. I meant the D never-ending push left is in contrast with R being relatively stationary.

Point taken.... but you keep doing it. And you are just wrong. ...

And I think you're wrong. The fact that there is absolutely no push back from within the D party against Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez, and a rush towards their positions rather than away, with no effort to draw any kind of red line, suggests there won't be a line because they are at heart mostly communists, including several leftists posting on this forum.

[CowboyX]

I didn't claim it was a counter-balance. I meant the D never-ending push left is in contrast with R being relatively stationary.

This has to be a joke. Just the proliferation of right-to work for nothing states rebuts that. Not to mention the continued attacks on cultural progress or the amount of filthy money flowing into politics.

"the NRA, and some commissioners on the FEC, have often taken an extreme view of what is election-related and what is not. Twice, for example, FEC commissioners decided that a major dark money organization did not have to register as a PAC and disclose its donors in part, because they judged that ads the organization ran — criticizing candidates on the eve of an election — were really about issues, not campaigns. And twice a federal judge has found those judgments to be “contrary to law.” Yet there is no indication that the FEC will enforce registration and disclosure requirements in response."