Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7
Results 121 to 139 of 139
  1. #121
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,005
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Which all pale in comparison to what DSA wants to do now.[COLOR="Silver"]
    Support or retract that assertion {challenge thingy}

    ---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'm trying to think of an example where it isn't. Do you have one?
    Nevermind, I'll do it.

    hmmm, women's suffrage...the right of women to vote in elections...I'd say resisting that is immoral.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #122
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    If one is not going to freely use the slippery-slope fallacy and one is generally happy with the direction the country has moved over the decades, as in they are happier with things as they are now than what they were decades ago, I see absolutely no reason to decry the "leftward shift" or view it as a movement towards extremism.

    As an example, gay marriage.

    Right now, gay marriage is legal when it wasn't in the past. That is certainly a very good example of a "left-ward shift" from past decades and also, from my perspective, a very positive shift and therefore I would hold that it's a shift AWAY from extremism as I think banning gay marriage is the extreme notion.

    And likewise the left-ward shift seems to include things like more equality for minorities (no more Jim Crow laws), voting rights for women, more legal equality for gays, and so on.

    And as far as I know where "the line" is is pretty much subjective. "Too far" to one side is just based on where one thinks the line is. If one is against gay marriage, then allowing it has moved things too far leftward and if one supports gay marriage, then banning again it would move things too far to the right.

    So whether the steady left-ward shift is moving things towards extremism or away from extremism seem entirely dependent on one's own opinion of where things should be.

    And I think that's been the central problem of this whole debate. No valid yardstick has been provided for us to judge what is or is not extremist. It's pretty much just based on someone saying, in essence, "I think that qualifies as extreme" as if their opinion on the matter is a valid yardstick.

    So again, is legalizing gay marriage moving towards extremism or away from extremism? I say it's moving away and therefore an example of the left-ward shift moving us away from extremism. Is that just based on my opinion? I admit that it is. Can everyone else admit that their view is just based on their opinion? If not, then can you provide a yardstick that is not rooted in your opinion or at least some subjective notion that is universally accepted? I very much doubt that you can or will.
    Last edited by mican333; July 31st, 2018 at 06:29 AM.

  3. #123
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But you've never supported that those two conditions are indeed all that is required to be "Marxism". From my casual research of what Marxism or Communism is I've never seen them mentioned so as far as I can tell, it's just based on what you think qualifies as Marxism and unless I'm just going to take your word for it (which I'm not), I don't see any particular reason to agree.

    So please support that:

    1. Any ideology that contains those two conditions qualify as Marxism (and just pointing out that Marxism has them does not support that they are all that is required for an ideology to qualify as Marxism.

    If you do support 1, then support that:

    2.Democratic Socialism likewise meets that criteria.
    My version of Marxism is based on the Marx-Engels Reader (aka The Communist Manifesto). The premise of his theory is based on this concept of class struggle or a dialectic world view. He proposes that the Capitalism is a system naturally evolved by the elite and works inherently against the working class. He further proposes that the working class will eventually revolt and replace Capitalism with Socialism which will, in turn, evolve into Communism. That's the abbreviated cliff notes version of the story. Now, the two main components are the dialectic world view and socialism. Hence, not all Socialists are Marxists, but all Marxists are Socialists (in the short term). Now, if you wish to argue this point, feel free to offer some sort of narrative that contradicts this.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post


    And to support that they are different, I forward:

    "In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need. Nothing is obtained by working more than what is required.

    Like communism, socialism’s main focus is on equality. But workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production."


    https://www.investopedia.com/video/p...and-socialism/



    Please support that the DSA's website states that its ultimate goal is communism and the destruction of all class hierarchies.
    You know, I have already done this twice.

    However, in the interests of time:
    From their purpose statement
    "We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few."
    Now, I understand you are going to be invested in playing word games here and claiming running the economy isn't the same as working class owning everything... but the DSA never really explains the limit here. Nor do they explain what they mean precisely. However, they do make it clear that the working class should run the economy and society. They state this as an absolute. In other words, nowhere do the DSA state that the working class should have greater input or that the hierarchies in our society should be more fair. They are describing a system in which the current hierarchies are completely dismantled.

    I should also note that they use jargon we associate with Communism such as comrade. See the statement on Fetonte here
    https://www.dsausa.org/statements

    Comrade isn't usually associated with Socialist groups in particular but has a particular meaning in Communist organizations. Specifically, it implies a revolutionary mindset.

    While offering a course on Marxism does not mean the organization is Marxist, they certainly do not appear to oppose his views nor offer criticism of his philosophy/ideology. It should also be noted that they aren't offering courses on Austrian Economics.
    https://www.dsausa.org/introduction_to_marxism

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    Shifting the burden. If one argues that X is Marxist, then they have the burden of supporting that which means that its their burden to show what Marxism is and how X aligns with those same principles.
    No. Not shifting the burden. If you are entering into a debate, then it should be assumed you have a certain level of knowledge about the subject you wish to debate. I am not entering a debate on the best muscle car engines of the 70's. I have a basic understanding of how engines work, know some engines of that period, but couldn't possibly debate them. You are asking me to explain Marxism which, at the very least, should be a fundamental baseline in participating in this conversation. I'm willing to offer you some leeway, but not if you are going to make me go through and explain point by point all of Marx's theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Show me where the DSA says that it wants to eliminate the free market.
    Just read the quote above. Read the quotes I've offered previously. On the other hand, show me a quote where the DSA supports the free market anywhere. Let's be clear, saying that society should be Democratized is, in itself, a call to Communism. I mean, this, at its root is what Communism is. This is why North Korea is the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea. There is no free market solution where a class of people are given democratic control of the means of production. That is just incompatible. It isn't a free market. Let me offer an example here.

    Let's say the movie/entertainment industry was handed over to the "working class" and all pictures and employment was done democratically. We can sort of imagine how this would work. The studios would be run by worker-committees and all projects would require a vote of the committee. Likewise, they would vote on the actors. They could also imaginably vote on distribution. Maybe they don't want the movie to be shown to certain people, in certain cities, etc. Unbelievable? I dunno. I'm watching Trump admin members being asked to leave restaurants. Furthermore, at no point is profit an issue. How could it be? If profit existed, then the people with money (i.e. the elites) would just create a new studio under their control. But how could this be allowed? It would revert us back to the capitalist system our revolution just saved us from. This is the very dilemma that occurred in the old USSR, Cuba, and N. Korea. And we know damn well how that turned out, right? To claim that this isn't an extreme position is naïve. They are, the DSA, calling their movement a revolution. That isn't an extreme position? This isn't some advocacy group looking to improve healthcare or fighting for reproductive rights. This is an organization which is actively involved in replacing Capitalism with Socialism and with the same motivation and ends as described in Marxist ideology. The DSA is a terribly evil organization. It is just as evil as any fascist or neo-Nazi group and if you showed me where the GOP was courting such groups, I'd tell you to be really worried. So, the Democrats courtship with this group has me worried. It is the very definition of extreme.

    I am editing this post to add a good find by Even from the DSA. This clears up (or should clear up) their view on free markets.
    "Article II. Purpose

    We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population."

    ---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    This ignores 13,206,428 votes for DSA member Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential primaries.
    Not ignoring them. It is a far cry to note that 13M people voted for him and that they did so with the understanding of what the DSA is. I mean, we are on a debate website with people who are generally high-information people and there is an uncertainty about the DSA and what it is. All we can say for certain is that there are 40,000 people who actively joined the group. It is probably kind to insist that they all know what they are signed up for, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Now, look, I am with you that it is disconcerting that Sanders did so well, but Sanders also portrayed himself as a moderate socialist. I mean, I think he went on record supporting free markets and he certainly didn't campaign from the DSA mission statement. So, there was some ambiguity regarding his actual political and ideological views. Not to mention, he was running against Hillary so Satan, himself, would have probably gotten 10M or so votes.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  4. #124
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    My version of Marxism is based on the Marx-Engels Reader (aka The Communist Manifesto). The premise of his theory is based on this concept of class struggle or a dialectic world view. He proposes that the Capitalism is a system naturally evolved by the elite and works inherently against the working class. He further proposes that the working class will eventually revolt and replace Capitalism with Socialism which will, in turn, evolve into Communism. That's the abbreviated cliff notes version of the story. Now, the two main components are the dialectic world view and socialism. Hence, not all Socialists are Marxists, but all Marxists are Socialists (in the short term). Now, if you wish to argue this point, feel free to offer some sort of narrative that contradicts this.
    I won't do that.

    But what I will say is that you've not made clear what is "extreme" about this viewpoint. I might not agree with a certain economic philosophy but that doesn't mean that I agree that it's extremist.

    It's really the goal of the group that determines whether its extremist or not. When I held that communism's goal was to abolish all private ownership, then I agreed that it qualifies as extreme. But you have argued that that is not really their goal and I'm not going to argue that point with you. But when what IS their goal and is that goal extreme? Until I'm told what the goal is and agree that it's indeed extreme then I don't concede that Marxism is extremist and therefore trying to tie another group to them does not support that they are extremist.






    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, in the interests of time:
    From their purpose statement
    "We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few."
    Now, I understand you are going to be invested in playing word games here and claiming running the economy isn't the same as working class owning everything... but the DSA never really explains the limit here. Nor do they explain what they mean precisely. However, they do make it clear that the working class should run the economy and society. They state this as an absolute. In other words, nowhere do the DSA state that the working class should have greater input or that the hierarchies in our society should be more fair. They are describing a system in which the current hierarchies are completely dismantled.
    You seem to be playing word games yourself. You are taking ambiguity in the statement and interpreting it to fit your argument. You assume that not explaining the limit means that there is no limit. But I'm sure if you look deeper into DSA, you will find specific policy proposals which will state the methods that they will use to achieve their goals and therefore can make a better assessment of what their agenda really is as opposed to taking a mission statement and interpreting in the fashion that best suits your argument.

    And I personally don't see anything particularly extremist or disagreeable about that statement. I think the current system is extreme and it's certainly not unreasonable to agree that income inequality is what's extreme and moving control of our economic system from the money elite to the common person would be a move away from extremism, not towards it.

    You seem to operating on the notion that large scale change is inherently extremist and I disagree with that. If the status quo is extremist, then moving away from the status quo is arguably moving away from extremism, not towards it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No. Not shifting the burden. If you are entering into a debate, then it should be assumed you have a certain level of knowledge about the subject you wish to debate.
    But the subject of this debate is not about Marxism - you will not see the word in the OP.

    Marxism did not enter the debate between you and I until you started using it in YOUR arguments. So, to repeat, if one argues that X is Marxist, then they have the burden of supporting that which means that its their burden to show what Marxism is and how X aligns with those same principles.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'm willing to offer you some leeway, but not if you are going to make me go through and explain point by point all of Marx's theory.
    It's up to you if you want to make a coherent argument that leads to the conclusion that you want to support. If you don't want to do that, then don't and we can move on.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Just read the quote above. Read the quotes I've offered previously. On the other hand, show me a quote where the DSA supports the free market anywhere.
    I see no quotes above where the DSA says eliminate the free market and asking me to support the opposite notion of what I asked you to support is shifting the burden.

    Also, to clarify, do you hold that a regulated market is not a "free market"? And if so, considering that there are some regulations on the market today, would you say that we currently do not have a free market? These questions are not so much a challenge as to hopefully clear up some uncertainty on what is meant by a free market.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Let's be clear, saying that society should be Democratized is, in itself, a call to Communism. I mean, this, at its root is what Communism is. This is why North Korea is the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea. There is no free market solution where a class of people are given democratic control of the means of production. That is just incompatible. It isn't a free market. Let me offer an example here.

    Let's say the movie/entertainment industry was handed over to the "working class" and all pictures and employment was done democratically. We can sort of imagine how this would work. The studios would be run by worker-committees and all projects would require a vote of the committee. Likewise, they would vote on the actors. They could also imaginably vote on distribution. Maybe they don't want the movie to be shown to certain people, in certain cities, etc. Unbelievable?
    Yes it is. And it's not at all what a movie studio would have to be like, or probably would be like, in a DS society.

    I think a more likely scenario is that whoever is in charge of the funds would distribute them to whichever artists were considered "worthy" and likewise the better the artist, the more funding he/she gets and then the artist just goes off and produces art without any interference. So Martin Scorsese could still be given tens of millions of dollars to make his movie and might have even less external interference in art than he does under the current studio system.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Furthermore, at no point is profit an issue. How could it be? If profit existed, then the people with money (i.e. the elites) would just create a new studio under their control. But how could this be allowed? It would revert us back to the capitalist system our revolution just saved us from. This is the very dilemma that occurred in the old USSR, Cuba, and N. Korea. And we know damn well how that turned out, right? To claim that this isn't an extreme position is naïve.
    That statement seems to be forwarding the premise that profits would not exist in a DS society. That premise will need to be supported before I will accept an argument with that as a premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    They are, the DSA, calling their movement a revolution. That isn't an extreme position?
    Not necessarily. I think the civil rights struggles in the 60s to qualify as a "revolution" and I wouldn't call them "extreme". I would say that their revolution was fighting against extremism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This isn't some advocacy group looking to improve healthcare or fighting for reproductive rights. This is an organization which is actively involved in replacing Capitalism with Socialism and with the same motivation and ends as described in Marxist ideology. The DSA is a terribly evil organization. It is just as evil as any fascist or neo-Nazi group and if you showed me where the GOP was courting such groups, I'd tell you to be really worried. So, the Democrats courtship with this group has me worried. It is the very definition of extreme.
    When you support this, I will respond to it.

    And also, the DS candidates, most notably Bernie Sanders, have not proposed scrapping the entire Capitalistic system for Socialism. They have proposed SOME DS measures like Universal Heathcare and free college. As I argued earlier, I think going all of the way in any direction would be extreme but going partially in one direction is not. If you want to argue that one cannot be a partial communist, fine. But one can be for SOME Democratic socialism such as being for universal health care (which does wrest health care from being based on profit and towards democratic control) and still want other industries to be more profit-driven.

    And even if you want to hold that to be a DS, one must be all-or-nothing and therefore Bernie does indeed want to scrap Capitalism entirely, this debate is about the Democratic Party and they have not fully adopted the DS agenda. Democrats, I believe, favor SOME DS, like Universal Healthcare, but they have definitely not taken the position of scrapping capitalism. So the Democratic move towards DS is not inherently an extremist position. If one feels that things are currently too profit-driven, then moving a bit towards DS is a move away from extremism, not towards it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am editing this post to add a good find by Even from the DSA. This clears up (or should clear up) their view on free markets.
    "Article II. Purpose

    We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population."
    And the extremism is where exactly?

    There is a difference between not having a system based on private profit and having a system with no private profit.

    In fact, I've provided the difference between communism and socialism earlier. Here it is again:

    "In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need. Nothing is obtained by working more than what is required.

    Like communism, socialism’s main focus is on equality. But workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production."

    https://www.investopedia.com/video/p...and-socialism/
    Last edited by mican333; July 31st, 2018 at 08:16 PM.

  5. #125
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I won't do that.

    But what I will say is that you've not made clear what is "extreme" about this viewpoint. I might not agree with a certain economic philosophy but that doesn't mean that I agree that it's extremist.

    It's really the goal of the group that determines whether its extremist or not. When I held that communism's goal was to abolish all private ownership, then I agreed that it qualifies as extreme. But you have argued that that is not really their goal and I'm not going to argue that point with you. But when what IS their goal and is that goal extreme? Until I'm told what the goal is and agree that it's indeed extreme then I don't concede that Marxism is extremist and therefore trying to tie another group to them does not support that they are extremist.








    You seem to be playing word games yourself. You are taking ambiguity in the statement and interpreting it to fit your argument. You assume that not explaining the limit means that there is no limit. But I'm sure if you look deeper into DSA, you will find specific policy proposals which will state the methods that they will use to achieve their goals and therefore can make a better assessment of what their agenda really is as opposed to taking a mission statement and interpreting in the fashion that best suits your argument.

    And I personally don't see anything particularly extremist or disagreeable about that statement. I think the current system is extreme and it's certainly not unreasonable to agree that income inequality is what's extreme and moving control of our economic system from the money elite to the common person would be a move away from extremism, not towards it.

    You seem to operating on the notion that large scale change is inherently extremist and I disagree with that. If the status quo is extremist, then moving away from the status quo is arguably moving away from extremism, not towards it.





    But the subject of this debate is not about Marxism - you will not see the word in the OP.

    Marxism did not enter the debate between you and I until you started using it in YOUR arguments. So, to repeat, if one argues that X is Marxist, then they have the burden of supporting that which means that its their burden to show what Marxism is and how X aligns with those same principles.




    It's up to you if you want to make a coherent argument that leads to the conclusion that you want to support. If you don't want to do that, then don't and we can move on.





    I see no quotes above where the DSA says eliminate the free market and asking me to support the opposite notion of what I asked you to support is shifting the burden.

    Also, to clarify, do you hold that a regulated market is not a "free market"? And if so, considering that there are some regulations on the market today, would you say that we currently do not have a free market? These questions are not so much a challenge as to hopefully clear up some uncertainty on what is meant by a free market.




    Yes it is. And it's not at all what a movie studio would have to be like, or probably would be like, in a DS society.

    I think a more likely scenario is that whoever is in charge of the funds would distribute them to whichever artists were considered "worthy" and likewise the better the artist, the more funding he/she gets and then the artist just goes off and produces art without any interference. So Martin Scorsese could still be given tens of millions of dollars to make his movie and might have even less external interference in art than he does under the current studio system.




    That statement seems to be forwarding the premise that profits would not exist in a DS society. That premise will need to be supported before I will accept an argument with that as a premise.




    Not necessarily. I think the civil rights struggles in the 60s to qualify as a "revolution" and I wouldn't call them "extreme". I would say that their revolution was fighting against extremism.



    When you support this, I will respond to it.

    And also, the DS candidates, most notably Bernie Sanders, have not proposed scrapping the entire Capitalistic system for Socialism. They have proposed SOME DS measures like Universal Heathcare and free college. As I argued earlier, I think going all of the way in any direction would be extreme but going partially in one direction is not. If you want to argue that one cannot be a partial communist, fine. But one can be for SOME Democratic socialism such as being for universal health care (which does wrest health care from being based on profit and towards democratic control) and still want other industries to be more profit-driven.

    And even if you want to hold that to be a DS, one must be all-or-nothing and therefore Bernie does indeed want to scrap Capitalism entirely, this debate is about the Democratic Party and they have not fully adopted the DS agenda. Democrats, I believe, favor SOME DS, like Universal Healthcare, but they have definitely not taken the position of scrapping capitalism. So the Democratic move towards DS is not inherently an extremist position. If one feels that things are currently too profit-driven, then moving a bit towards DS is a move away from extremism, not towards it.





    And the extremism is where exactly?

    There is a difference between not having a system based on private profit and having a system with no private profit.

    In fact, I've provided the difference between communism and socialism earlier. Here it is again:

    "In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need. Nothing is obtained by working more than what is required.

    Like communism, socialism’s main focus is on equality. But workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production."

    https://www.investopedia.com/video/p...and-socialism/

    First, let's untangle some word salad we have entered.


    Socialism is not socialism.
    Socialism is not Marxism.
    socialism is not Marxism.

    Socialism does not have a single meaning agreed on by everyone. So, the fact you have a link that purports to offer such a definitive definition invalidates the sources legitimacy. Oh, and the link appears to be broken. You'll notice that in describing Socialism as it relates to the DSA, I am going by their own statements rather than simply picking a definition. Who cares what Investopedia describes socialism as when the group has made it clear what they want?


    So, a group who claim to be Socialists may be different than a group who may support some socialist concepts. For instance, European Socialism is a mix of socialism and capitalism. A group which claims to be Socialist is not advocating for a socialism and capitalism mix. They are suggesting an intention towards socialist economy. Now, Socialism and/or socialism is not a singular commitment to Marxism or Communism. Certainly, Marxists believe socialism is a stepping stone towards the ultimate goal. However, there are lots of different paths groups may imagine to get there. What we have witnessed, however, is that all Communist states (or states with Marxist visions) eventually turn to totalitarianism and brutality.


    Now, you have made an argument that short of eliminating private ownership, these ideologies are not extreme. First, part of the issue is how we define private ownership. Even in Communist states such as China and the USSR, the concept of private ownership was not entirely removed. Although, there is a caveat. Ownership is by state approval. Part of the more extreme elements of these nations has been in how to properly distribute goods and services which at times, even in the USSR, required some form of currency. And, of course, currency has an implied ownership in the person who holds it. So, how do you prevent the wrong people from holding too much? Well, this is where the brutality usually occurs. Many of the same issues with Marxism also occur in Socialism. The difference is the motivation. Whereas Socialists may be quite happy to live forever in a Socialist system, Marxists ultimately desire Communism. However, even if we stopped at Socialism, it is simply not compatible with our current economic system nor our understanding of individual freedoms and rights.


    Why? Let's return to the DSA statement I have now quoted several times.
    "We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."


    Now, you have argued that this quote does not imply ALL or that SOME would be satisfactory here. However, that is a limit you have arbitrarily imposed yourself. The group, itself makes no mention of such limits. If I asked you to count from 1 to 10, would you presume that I would be satisfied if you stopped at 6?

    And let's also look at the following statement:
    "We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population."


    Again, you have arbitrarily inserted some sort of limit when the group has never mentioned one. They don't say they reject some private profit. They reject it. They believe in an order based on the popular control of.... Again, not based on an increased input from the masses, but in absolutely stated popular control. To your rebuttal regarding the movie studios, you offer that directors would get money based on how good they are. What money? From who? if profit does not matter, then where does this money magically come from? As an aside, and in a point not meant for debate, the system you offered was already attempted by the studios back in the 70's where studios gave money freely for artists (i.e. directors) to put out films with little to no input from the studios. The studios almost went bankrupt and quickly seized back control. Just a little fun fact.

    There is no limit being implied here. This is why the group is extreme. Even if you don't wish to believe this group is Marxist, it is clearly seeking an absolute change to the current economic and social structure of this country. To your analogy, civil rights meant more people could be included in American society and its economy. It wasn't an actual revolution. In as much as you may call it a revolution, the actual changes to the political and organizational structure were not significant. The DSA is looking to completely alter (some would say dismantle) the social and economic structures. They are contemplating an actual revolution and, from the looks of it, have judged that the Democratic party is the best vehicle to get them there.


    You offer some sort of attempt to equivocate policy you don't like with a complete restructuring of society. A single policy or set of policies does not imply extremism when those policies really make very little effort to alter existing law and don't attempt to replace one ideology or structure with another. Just like I am not claiming the Democratic party's push for single-payer healthcare is a reason to be worried as it relates to party extremism. I certainly oppose such a policy proposal. No one could argue it'll have less impact on America and our economy than some policy which separated illegal aliens from their children when caught at the border. Whatever you think of such a policy, it is ridiculous to equate the impact of the two. By your logic, any policy enacted or proposed which we strongly disagree must be extreme.

    Finally, as regards the Democratic party itself. I only noted that I was currently more worried about extremism in the current Democratic party than I am about extremism in the current GOP. The GOP does not have a modern equivalent of the DSA. The GOP, as I supported earlier, does a pretty good job of keeping its distance from fascist groups. Note, I have never claimed the Democrats were currently an extreme political party in any sort of absolute terms. I am only offering that they worry me more than the GOP. I suppose the eye is in the beholder. If you don't see a cause to worry when Socialism and/or Marxism become intertwined with one of the major political parties, then that is your choice. For me, when I see either party playing around at the fringes, with those ideologies which have resulted in 10's of millions of dead people in the 20th century, I find it disconcerting. From everything I have read, there is no reason to believe that the DSA is any less extreme or ideologically based than what they claim. And for the reasons I mentioned in this post and others, there is most definitely a reason to believe they are even more extreme than they are publicly and openly admitting.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #126
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, let's untangle some word salad we have entered.


    Socialism is not socialism.
    Socialism is not Marxism.
    socialism is not Marxism.

    Socialism does not have a single meaning agreed on by everyone. So, the fact you have a link that purports to offer such a definitive definition invalidates the sources legitimacy. Oh, and the link appears to be broken. You'll notice that in describing Socialism as it relates to the DSA, I am going by their own statements rather than simply picking a definition. Who cares what Investopedia describes socialism as when the group has made it clear what they want?


    So, a group who claim to be Socialists may be different than a group who may support some socialist concepts. For instance, European Socialism is a mix of socialism and capitalism. A group which claims to be Socialist is not advocating for a socialism and capitalism mix. They are suggesting an intention towards socialist economy. Now, Socialism and/or socialism is not a singular commitment to Marxism or Communism. Certainly, Marxists believe socialism is a stepping stone towards the ultimate goal. However, there are lots of different paths groups may imagine to get there. What we have witnessed, however, is that all Communist states (or states with Marxist visions) eventually turn to totalitarianism and brutality.
    But you have yet to support that the DSA is communist at all.

    You have rejected any definition of communism that I have provided and have not provided any supported definition of your own (I have yet to see support for your definition regarding a dialectic view).

    So at this point, as far as I'm concerned, communism is undefined and therefore there is no basis to label any group that does not self-identify as "communist" with that label.

    So until I see some kind of support that DSA fits a VALID definition of "communism", I uniformly reject any assertion that they are communist and therefore communism is irrelevant to this debate since it does not apply to any of the groups that are under discussion here.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Now, you have made an argument that short of eliminating private ownership, these ideologies are not extreme.
    No, I did not argue that. Saying that X is extreme does mean that everything that is not X is not extreme.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Why? Let's return to the DSA statement I have now quoted several times.
    "We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."

    Now, you have argued that this quote does not imply ALL or that SOME would be satisfactory here. However, that is a limit you have arbitrarily imposed yourself. The group, itself makes no mention of such limits. If I asked you to count from 1 to 10, would you presume that I would be satisfied if you stopped at 6?
    But then I haven't seen the DSA ask us to "count to 10". And their stated agenda is limited. If you look at their policy proposals, you will see a finite number of things they want to accomplish. That IS a limit.

    Of course one can posit that after they achieve their stated limited goals, they will create new goals and then new goals after that and so on and it will become unlimited but such an argument requires support. And arguing that since you are aware of what their limits are supports that there are no limits is engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. It's kind of like saying that since your neighbor never said he wasn't going to kill you, you must conclude that he plans to kill you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    They don't say they reject some private profit. They reject it.
    No, they did not say that they reject private profit. Look at the statement again:

    "we reject an economic order based on private profit". You can have private profit without basing a system on that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    They believe in an order based on the popular control of.... Again, not based on an increased input from the masses, but in absolutely stated popular control. To your rebuttal regarding the movie studios, you offer that directors would get money based on how good they are. What money? From who? if profit does not matter, then where does this money magically come from?
    That argument is based on the completely unsupported premise that the DSA wants to eliminate all profit. Since that premise is not supported, any argument based on that premise is rejected.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Even if you don't wish to believe this group is Marxist, it is clearly seeking an absolute change to the current economic and social structure of this country. To your analogy, civil rights meant more people could be included in American society and its economy. It wasn't an actual revolution. In as much as you may call it a revolution, the actual changes to the political and organizational structure were not significant. The DSA is looking to completely alter (some would say dismantle) the social and economic structures. They are contemplating an actual revolution and, from the looks of it, have judged that the Democratic party is the best vehicle to get them there.
    When you support this, I'll concern myself with offering a rebuttal.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Finally, as regards the Democratic party itself. I only noted that I was currently more worried about extremism in the current Democratic party than I am about extremism in the current GOP.
    But I don't see any extremism in the Democratic party. The DSA, even if it had some extremist agenda (which has not been supported at all btw), there is no rational case to be made that the Democratic party is currently going there. Like I said, I think any system if followed to the extreme is extremist but a limited amount of something is likely not extremist. So the Democratic party is adopting SOME Democratic Socialism and short of inserting slippery-slope illogic, I see no reason to think that the party will move far beyond things like Universal Healthcare and such.

    And whether moving towards Universal Healthcare is a move towards or away from extremism is a pretty subjective view. I think such a move and most of the moves towards Democratic Socialism is a move AWAY from extremism, not towards it. I agree that it's theoretically possible to move too far towards DS but then it's theoretically possible to move too far towards any viewpoint.

    So as I've said and it still seems to be true, which side is moving more towards extremism is based very much on subjective viewpoints and therefore the statement that the Democrats are moving toward extremism more than Republicans, or vice versa, is not supported and probably not supportable.

    All you can do is tell me what you think which is pretty much what you've been doing here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The GOP does not have a modern equivalent of the DSA. The GOP, as I supported earlier, does a pretty good job of keeping its distance from fascist groups.
    You did not support that. You just said it.

    You seem to be rather selective of what is and is-not part of the GOP. When a White Supremacist is elected for office in the GOP, then he is part of the GOP. And more to the point, when he is ELECTED by Republican citizens, they are also acting as part of the GOP. Your argument just seems to be focusing on what the upper echelons of the GOP does as if that's all that counts when it comes to the GOP (numbers-wise, they are a tiny fraction). And the notion that "keeping their distance" is a satisfactory response to the extremism in their own party is a satisfactory reaction is very debatable. How about raising a hue and cry and DEMANDING that such a person be removed from office? Trump said of the WSs in Charlottesville that some are "very fine people" and I don't believe the rest of the Republican party took him to task for that.

    And Trump seems incredibly extreme and is calling the Press "the enemy of the people" and is attacking the FBI and the justice department and...

    And really, I don't need to pile on. You can disagree with any of this but my point is that how much one will or should excuse what I've stated above is quite subjective. If one wants to argue that this means the Republicans have indeed become incredibly extreme, they can. If one wants to argue that this is all just a tempest in a teapot, they can.

    But as I've said and seems to be clearly true, this is all very much subjective and really the answer to the question of which party is more extreme the answer is:

    To a Republican, the Democrats are more extreme
    To a Democrat, the Republicans are more extreme
    Objectively, there is no answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Note, I have never claimed the Democrats were currently an extreme political party in any sort of absolute terms. I am only offering that they worry me more than the GOP. I suppose the eye is in the beholder. If you don't see a cause to worry when Socialism and/or Marxism become intertwined with one of the major political parties, then that is your choice.
    Socialism IS intertwined in our system already (police and fire and roads and schools). And no, I don't see much a reason to panic over inserting socialism in certain aspects of our society where it will likely work quite well (like Health care).



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    For me, when I see either party playing around at the fringes, with those ideologies which have resulted in 10's of millions of dead people in the 20th century, I find it disconcerting.
    Well, if you aren't including Nazis, whose ideologies have indeed killed millions, in that equation, I think your concern is rather selective.

    And it seems to be real stretch to say that DSA ideologies have resulted in many deaths. You seem to be casting an incredibly wide net to lump DSA with whatever historical group killed many people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    From everything I have read, there is no reason to believe that the DSA is any less extreme or ideologically based than what they claim. And for the reasons I mentioned in this post and others, there is most definitely a reason to believe they are even more extreme than they are publicly and openly admitting.
    But the reasoning just seems to boil down to engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. Your conclusion that they have no limits is based on you being unaware of what the limits are.

    I mean your concern is over nothing concrete. How about looking at what the DSA actually says that they want to do! What specific policy or proposal or initiative have they forwarded that you think is extreme? Can you name one? The only example you've provided is a theoretical takeover of the entertainment industry.

    If your own slippery-slope conspiracy theories alarm you, so be it. But can you make a case for someone who isn't already convinced that what you say is true to find reason to fear the DSA as an extremist group?
    Last edited by mican333; August 8th, 2018 at 07:25 AM.

  7. #127
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But you have yet to support that the DSA is communist at all.

    You have rejected any definition of communism that I have provided and have not provided any supported definition of your own (I have yet to see support for your definition regarding a dialectic view).

    So at this point, as far as I'm concerned, communism is undefined and therefore there is no basis to label any group that does not self-identify as "communist" with that label.

    So until I see some kind of support that DSA fits a VALID definition of "communism", I uniformly reject any assertion that they are communist and therefore communism is irrelevant to this debate since it does not apply to any of the groups that are under discussion here.
    First, my claim is that they are Marxist. And I've supported this view and in my last post linked to scholarly article which discusses Marxism and the dialectic component. I mean, these are very nuanced conversations and you are just throwing out terms and definitions, but not really showing you comprehend what you are discussing. Is DSA Communists? Sort of. In the sense that their long-term goal is likely Communism, then yes. However, we do know they are Socialists, with a capital S. We know this because they tell us. My understanding of them as Marxists comes from all the quotes I've shared from their website which demonstrates they hold a dilaectic world view AND they aim to achieve Socialism.

    I'll get to this last claim in a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, I did not argue that. Saying that X is extreme does mean that everything that is not X is not extreme.
    How about saying what you mean. Is Marxism an extreme ideology? Is Socialism an extreme ideology? Don't answer yet. I've yet to get to Socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then I haven't seen the DSA ask us to "count to 10". And their stated agenda is limited. If you look at their policy proposals, you will see a finite number of things they want to accomplish. That IS a limit.
    I've offered the quotes multiple times where they tell us what they want. You are pointing at some of their policy proposals and acting like that is their end goal, but you have constructed this fantasy entirely in your head. Nowhere does the DSA state that the policies on their website are close enough to Socialism to be satisfactory. Their mission statement does not state nor imply they are looking for socialized solutions for specific problems.

    Either stop making the claim or support your claim that the DSA's goals are limited by the policy goals listed on their website. They are Socialists. This isn't debatable. You may disagree on whether they are Marxists, but that is really small potatoes. We know they posses a dialectic (i.e. Marxist) world view and we know they are Socialists. Your only quibble is whether they desire Communism in the long run. Part of your argument is based on a misunderstanding of Socialism. Not socialism. Socialism. Universal health care isn't Socialism on its own as a single policy. It isn't even socialism. It is a state run option in the mold of European Socialism which is really a mix of central planning and capitalism (or a type of socialism and a type of capitalism). I'm not going to repeat the quote again, but from the DSA website, they are quite clear that their goal is to remove/eliminate the private market. I know you disagree here. You believe that removing the profit motive is not equal to removing profits, but as I asked previously and you failed to answer, how do you enforce this? Either way? How do you ensure the workers control the means of production? How do you create an economic system you've imagined where people work, do their job, without concern for profit? Well, we know one way this gets enforced and it resulted in 100 million people dead during the 20th century.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Of course one can posit that after they achieve their stated limited goals, they will create new goals and then new goals after that and so on and it will become unlimited but such an argument requires support. And arguing that since you are aware of what their limits are supports that there are no limits is engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. It's kind of like saying that since your neighbor never said he wasn't going to kill you, you must conclude that he plans to kill you.
    Their policy proposals are short term goals. They have clearly stated their long-term goal. Do you have any evidence that they don't intend to work toward those long term goals? You are misrepresenting my argument. I am not claiming they don't have limits because they have not explicitly stated them. I am claiming that there is no reason to disbelieve them when they tell us what they are trying to achieve.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, they did not say that they reject private profit. Look at the statement again:

    "we reject an economic order based on private profit". You can have private profit without basing a system on that.
    I've addressed this several times. Even taking this as-is, our economic system is based on private profit. So, any attempt to remove that is extreme. I should also point out that our economic order is based on individuals making choices. If an individual chooses not to base his decisions on private profit, he is free to do so. At the very least, they are calling for us to remove this individual choice. And I'll repeat, how do they intend to do that?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That argument is based on the completely unsupported premise that the DSA wants to eliminate all profit. Since that premise is not supported, any argument based on that premise is rejected.
    I believe I've addressed this above.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When you support this, I'll concern myself with offering a rebuttal.
    That's fine. I'll consider that you have no rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I don't see any extremism in the Democratic party. The DSA, even if it had some extremist agenda (which has not been supported at all btw), there is no rational case to be made that the Democratic party is currently going there. Like I said, I think any system if followed to the extreme is extremist but a limited amount of something is likely not extremist. So the Democratic party is adopting SOME Democratic Socialism and short of inserting slippery-slope illogic, I see no reason to think that the party will move far beyond things like Universal Healthcare and such.


    And whether moving towards Universal Healthcare is a move towards or away from extremism is a pretty subjective view. I think such a move and most of the moves towards Democratic Socialism is a move AWAY from extremism, not towards it. I agree that it's theoretically possible to move too far towards DS but then it's theoretically possible to move too far towards any viewpoint.

    So as I've said and it still seems to be true, which side is moving more towards extremism is based very much on subjective viewpoints and therefore the statement that the Democrats are moving toward extremism more than Republicans, or vice versa, is not supported and probably not supportable.

    All you can do is tell me what you think which is pretty much what you've been doing here.
    So, here is the issue. You equate universal health care with Socialism as though that was the dangerous part of Socialism. It isn't. By the way, Democratic Socialism is an organization. On their website, they claim to be Socialists. So, let's not use Democratic Socialism as though it is some sort of moderated form of Socialism. The dangerous part of socialism is how they go about imposing their ideology on society. Whether you believe they want to only remove private profit as a motivation or private profit entirely, you have to ask yourself how they intend to do it. I cannot answer that. Nor can you. I can look back in history and note that when this experiment has been attempted, it ended poorly. Really, really poorly. A hundred million dead men, women, and children. So, when a major political party openly flirts with such an ideology, I think everyone should be concerned. And you can make these sorts of mental leaps of logic that there is nothing to it, but the Democrats openly supported Bernie Sanders and just elected another DSA member and the DNC (the party's leadership) has not openly spoken out or repudiated these candidates.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You did not support that. You just said it.
    Wrong. You listed a group of Republican candidates who were linked or purportedly linked to fascist causes and I demonstrated how each and every one of your examples were handled. And in each case, either the candidate's platform was misrepresented or the GOP made it clear they had no interest in being associated with the candidate.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You seem to be rather selective of what is and is-not part of the GOP. When a White Supremacist is elected for office in the GOP, then he is part of the GOP. And more to the point, when he is ELECTED by Republican citizens, they are also acting as part of the GOP. Your argument just seems to be focusing on what the upper echelons of the GOP does as if that's all that counts when it comes to the GOP (numbers-wise, they are a tiny fraction). And the notion that "keeping their distance" is a satisfactory response to the extremism in their own party is a satisfactory reaction is very debatable. How about raising a hue and cry and DEMANDING that such a person be removed from office? Trump said of the WSs in Charlottesville that some are "very fine people" and I don't believe the rest of the Republican party took him to task for that.
    No. I addressed this quite clearly and I'm not being selective at all. In general, when candidates who are associated with a fascist group run as Republicans, the GOP distances itself from them. We are not seeing the same thing on the Democratic side of the aisle. I never said the GOP nor its candidates were perfect. I said they have done a better job. The fact is, even when Trump made his comments, leadership in his own party criticized him. There is a pretty clear line and the GOP does a pretty good job not going beyond that line. What is the line for the Democrats? How left is too left? It clearly isn't Socialism. It may or may not be Marxism. We know this because they have allowed members of an openly Socialist organization with a Marxist world view (I'd call them neo-Marxists but you have a blind spot in identifying Marxism for whatever reason) .

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And Trump seems incredibly extreme and is calling the Press "the enemy of the people" and is attacking the FBI and the justice department and...
    You are equivocating an individual who makes extreme comments with individuals who have extreme ideologies. And I've already stated I am weary of Trump and that he does not drag the party too far right and into the realms of fascism. So, I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And really, I don't need to pile on. You can disagree with any of this but my point is that how much one will or should excuse what I've stated above is quite subjective. If one wants to argue that this means the Republicans have indeed become incredibly extreme, they can. If one wants to argue that this is all just a tempest in a teapot, they can.

    But as I've said and seems to be clearly true, this is all very much subjective and really the answer to the question of which party is more extreme the answer is:

    To a Republican, the Democrats are more extreme
    To a Democrat, the Republicans are more extreme
    Objectively, there is no answer.
    No. This isn't subjective.

    Either Republicans are in cahoots with fascist groups or they are not. If you are claiming that they are, please share. So far, you've noted some local politicians who were ostracized by the party leadership at both the state and federal levels. What this tells me is that as an organization, they don't have much tolerance for those types of beliefs or ideologies. By this I mean fascist, neo-Nazi, etc.

    Are Democrats in cahoots with Socialist and Marxist groups. Well, we know for sure they are ok with DSA members running as Democrats which means they certainly tolerate Socialists. Now, if you don't believe that an ideology which was just as destructive as the Nazis and fascists were in the 20th century is extreme, then I guess we can just disagree and we'll wait and see who's right.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Socialism IS intertwined in our system already (police and fire and roads and schools). And no, I don't see much a reason to panic over inserting socialism in certain aspects of our society where it will likely work quite well (like Health care).
    Those aren't examples of Socialism. They are elements of a mixed capitalist system with some socialized components (i.e. what we call the European Socialist model). It isn't Socialism. That's a misnomer. You are equivocating two very different philosophies. The European Socialist model does not call for the end of either private profit nor the end of the private profit motive. And I've made it very very clear my argument is not based on any single or on a set of policy proposals which are based on centralized market control for specific markets.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, if you aren't including Nazis, whose ideologies have indeed killed millions, in that equation, I think your concern is rather selective.

    And it seems to be real stretch to say that DSA ideologies have resulted in many deaths. You seem to be casting an incredibly wide net to lump DSA with whatever historical group killed many people.
    At the very least, the DSA is a Socialist organization. We've seen what Socialists do when they gain power. Especially Socialist groups that possess Marxist views as the DSA does. We have multiple examples.

    Let's look at the list of current and former Socialist states
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

    How many of those are nice places to live? How many are totalitarian? How much violence against their own citizens can be traced back to the nations on this list?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But the reasoning just seems to boil down to engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. Your conclusion that they have no limits is based on you being unaware of what the limits are.

    I mean your concern is over nothing concrete. How about looking at what the DSA actually says that they want to do! What specific policy or proposal or initiative have they forwarded that you think is extreme? Can you name one? The only example you've provided is a theoretical takeover of the entertainment industry.

    If your own slippery-slope conspiracy theories alarm you, so be it. But can you make a case for someone who isn't already convinced that what you say is true to find reason to fear the DSA as an extremist group?
    My conclusion is that they mean what they say. They are Socialists and want to impose a Socialist system onto the U.S. That is extreme.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. Likes MindTrap028, evensaul liked this post
  9. #128
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    First off, I see nothing resembling an adequately supported argument that the DSA is extremist because it's Marxist. To make such an argument work, you would have to:

    1. Clearly define "Marxism" and support your definition with a link to a valid source. As far as I can tell, the definition you provided is of your own making and does not correspond to any definition that I'm aware of
    2. Using the definition you provide, support that Marxism is inherently extremist. So far the most coherent/consistent definition you have given is about dialectic viewpoint and socialism. Even if you support that as a valid definition, you likewise need to support that such a thing is inherently extremist.
    3. Then assuming you have shown that Marxism is, by definition, extremist, you need to show that the definition applies to DS.

    As far as I can tell, you haven't even achieved #1. So any following arguments that are based on the premise that DS is Marxist is engaging the begging the question fallacy and will be ignored for that reason.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I've offered the quotes multiple times where they tell us what they want. You are pointing at some of their policy proposals and acting like that is their end goal, but you have constructed this fantasy entirely in your head.
    You have constructed a straw man argument in your head. I didn't say that their proposals are the end goals.

    I directly rebutted your argument that they have not proposed a limit. They HAVE PROPOSED A LIMIT. A limited number of specific policies is indeed a limit. And I certainly did not say that this limit will always be the limit and that new goals won't be forwarded in the future.

    Sure, we can enter imagination-land and imagine these hypothetical future goals and we can even imagine some reaaaalllly scary ones to, like them taking over the entertainment industry and having a small cadre determine our artistic future. But I'm not going to bother considering these other goals until there is some level of support that these are indeed future goals of the DSA.

    In the meantime, we can only guess at what the future goals might be and I don't consider guesswork to be a valid basis for arguing that the DSA has some hidden extreme agenda.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Either stop making the claim or support your claim that the DSA's goals are limited by the policy goals listed on their website. They are Socialists. This isn't debatable. You may disagree on whether they are Marxists, but that is really small potatoes. We know they posses a dialectic (i.e. Marxist) world view and we know they are Socialists. Your only quibble is whether they desire Communism in the long run. Part of your argument is based on a misunderstanding of Socialism. Not socialism. Socialism. Universal health care isn't Socialism on its own as a single policy. It isn't even socialism. It is a state run option in the mold of European Socialism which is really a mix of central planning and capitalism (or a type of socialism and a type of capitalism). I'm not going to repeat the quote again, but from the DSA website, they are quite clear that their goal is to remove/eliminate the private market. I know you disagree here.
    When you show me the quote where they say that they want to eliminate the private market, I will respond to that claim. In the meantime, I consider it baseless.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You believe that removing the profit motive is not equal to removing profits. but as I asked previously and you failed to answer, how do you enforce this? Either way? How do you ensure the workers control the means of production? How do you create an economic system you've imagined where people work, do their job, without concern for profit? Well, we know one way this gets enforced and it resulted in 100 million people dead during the 20th century.
    Since I never argued for removing profits or the profit motive from the system nor has it been shown that the DSA wants this as well, this line of questioning appears to be off-topic. That's why I have no response to it. It's essentially a straw man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I've addressed this several times. Even taking this as-is, our economic system is based on private profit. So, any attempt to remove that is extreme.
    Because you say so? You don't get to be the sole arbiter of what is extreme based on your say so.

    I certainly don't agree that ALL change is extreme. A change can be a change towards extremism or away from extremism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I should also point out that our economic order is based on individuals making choices. If an individual chooses not to base his decisions on private profit, he is free to do so. At the very least, they are calling for us to remove this individual choice.
    Please support this assertion. I see nothing in their ideology that says that an individual cannot seek private profit.

    There is a difference between allowing an individual to seek something and basing a system on it. For example, individuals are free to seek sex. But our economic system is not based on seeking sex.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That's fine. I'll consider that you have no rebuttal.
    Right. I have no rebuttal but I do challenge it on the basis of being unsupported. So I will consider your statement retracted until I see support for it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, here is the issue. You equate universal health care with Socialism as though that was the dangerous part of Socialism. It isn't. By the way, Democratic Socialism is an organization. On their website, they claim to be Socialists. So, let's not use Democratic Socialism as though it is some sort of moderated form of Socialism. The dangerous part of socialism is how they go about imposing their ideology on society. Whether you believe they want to only remove private profit as a motivation or private profit entirely, you have to ask yourself how they intend to do it.
    I don't believe that they want to remove private profit at all. And if you are going to forward that that is what they want to do, then please support that.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I cannot answer that. Nor can you. I can look back in history and note that when this experiment has been attempted, it ended poorly. Really, really poorly. A hundred million dead men, women, and children.
    Just saying that two things are essentially the same and will have the same results does not make it so.

    In fact, I assume you will agree that any system where we ended up with millions dead ended up with a very, very strong centralization of power where a small group of people, or even one person (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) pretty much ran the show. The DSA directly states that want to decentralize power so if we ended up with a genocidal dictator with the power to murder millions, then the government is pretty much the opposite of what the DSA wants.

    In support that they want to decentralize power:

    "Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible."


    https://www.dsausa.org/govt_run_everything

    And likewise with a decentralized economic system, individual businesses will be their own entities and therefore will have to trade with one another and therefore there will be a need for trade and currency and therefore profit.

    So I have supported that the DSAs ideal system would still include profit. If you are going to claim the opposite (and it is your burden to back up your claim that they desire to eliminate profit), then please support that. Until you do, I consider any such claim to be retracted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, when a major political party openly flirts with such an ideology, I think everyone should be concerned. And you can make these sorts of mental leaps of logic that there is nothing to it, but the Democrats openly supported Bernie Sanders and just elected another DSA member and the DNC (the party's leadership) has not openly spoken out or repudiated these candidates.
    And I see nothing extreme in what Bernie Sanders has publicly proposed nor have you pointed out any particular policy that he forwarded or anything he said that would constitute extreme.

    You are the one making a LARGE mental leap by equating Bernie Sanders with, I dunno, Stalin. You didn't even specify exactly which supposed Democratic Socialist nation or leader had millions killed.

    Your argument to this effect is not only unsupported but incredibly vague.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No. I addressed this quite clearly and I'm not being selective at all. In general, when candidates who are associated with a fascist group run as Republicans, the GOP distances itself from them.
    But sometimes they get elected. If one runs as a Republican and gets elected into office, then CLEARLY a significant number of local Republicans voted for that person. Are you saying that those who voted for him are not part of the GOP? If so, then you are being selective. And Donald Trump said of the Charlotteville protesters that some are very fine people. That is not distancing. So yes, you are being selective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We are not seeing the same thing on the Democratic side of the aisle.
    Yes we have. We have seen NO White Supremacists elected to public office as a Democrat. We have seen a much stronger condemnation of Trump's comments about how fine some WSs are.

    And if you mean that the Democrats are more accepting of the DSA than the Republicans are accepting of WS, that’s true. But so what? IMO, its ridiculous to conflate the KKK with the DSA.


    As far as STATED AGENDA goes, WSs want to separate the races and the DSA wants to give everyone health care. The DSAs agenda is actually quite appealing to many people and IMO, it IS appealing. I personally think Universal Health care is a great idea and many agree with me. You have to resort to “read between the lines” and slippery-slopism and conflating them with other groups to make the case that they are extremist.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No. This isn't subjective.

    Either Republicans are in cahoots with fascist groups or they are not.
    That is not true at all. Some voted for a white supremacist and some did not. So any blanket statement is indeed false. So the question isn’t if Republicans support or condone White Supremacists but how many of them support/condone WS. The answer is clearly not “zero”.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If you are claiming that they are, please share.
    I don’t claim that they all are. I just claim that some of them have indeed voted for WS candidates. I claim that Donald Trump, the leader of the Republican party flattered some of the marchers in Charlottesville. And how much one wants to excuse or blow off such things is a subjective choice.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Are Democrats in cahoots with Socialist and Marxist groups. Well, we know for sure they are ok with DSA members running as Democrats which means they certainly tolerate Socialists. Now, if you don't believe that an ideology which was just as destructive as the Nazis and fascists were in the 20th century is extreme, then I guess we can just disagree and we'll wait and see who's right.
    I don't believe that Democratic Socialism, as DSA proposes it, has been practiced to disasterous effect in the 20th century and your mere claim that it has been does not give me reason to think otherwise.

    It just looks like a whole lot of baseless conflation to me. And yes, it looks entirely subjective.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Those aren't examples of Socialism. They are elements of a mixed capitalist system with some socialized components (i.e. what we call the European Socialist model). It isn't Socialism.
    Yes, they are examples of socialism. If you mean its doesn’t make us a completely socialist society, agreed. But our society mixes Capitalism and Socialism. I mean the European Socialist model has the word “socialist” in it. So you just saying “nuh-uh” doesn’t add equate a rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You are equivocating two very different philosophies. The European Socialist model does not call for the end of either private profit nor the end of the private profit motive.
    And you have not supported that the DSA calls for the end of either private profit nor the end of the private profit motive.

    So you are conflating the DSA with something else.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    At the very least, the DSA is a Socialist organization. We've seen what Socialists do when they gain power. Especially Socialist groups that possess Marxist views as the DSA does. We have multiple examples.
    Begging the question. Please support that the DSA has Marxist views. And likewise support that the DSA desires power. Again, their position is that they want to decentralize economic power which I’m sure is the exact opposite of the practice with any disasterous regime you will hold up as an example.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    My conclusion is that they mean what they say. They are Socialists and want to impose a Socialist system onto the U.S. That is extreme.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that they said that they want to impose a socialist system.

    I conclude that you did not get the notion that they want to impose a socialist system from any direct quote of them (“We want to impose a socialist system”) but from “reading between the lines.

    As far as I can tell, you’ve not taken anything that they directly said and made the case that what was said is extremist but instead used what was said to imply something else (such as not mentioning limits implies that there are not limits or not wanting a system based on private profit implies that they want to abolish private profit or the profit motive).

    So can you show me something that they ACTUALLY SAID that, if taken as it is spoken (so no reading between the lines) is extreme? We can definitely do that for White Supremacist groups.
    Last edited by mican333; August 11th, 2018 at 08:23 AM.

  10. #129
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, I see nothing resembling an adequately supported argument that the DSA is extremist because it's Marxist. To make such an argument work, you would have to:

    1. Clearly define "Marxism" and support your definition with a link to a valid source. As far as I can tell, the definition you provided is of your own making and does not correspond to any definition that I'm aware of
    2. Using the definition you provide, support that Marxism is inherently extremist. So far the most coherent/consistent definition you have given is about dialectic viewpoint and socialism. Even if you support that as a valid definition, you likewise need to support that such a thing is inherently extremist.
    3. Then assuming you have shown that Marxism is, by definition, extremist, you need to show that the definition applies to DS.

    As far as I can tell, you haven't even achieved #1. So any following arguments that are based on the premise that DS is Marxist is engaging the begging the question fallacy and will be ignored for that reason.





    You have constructed a straw man argument in your head. I didn't say that their proposals are the end goals.

    I directly rebutted your argument that they have not proposed a limit. They HAVE PROPOSED A LIMIT. A limited number of specific policies is indeed a limit. And I certainly did not say that this limit will always be the limit and that new goals won't be forwarded in the future.

    Sure, we can enter imagination-land and imagine these hypothetical future goals and we can even imagine some reaaaalllly scary ones to, like them taking over the entertainment industry and having a small cadre determine our artistic future. But I'm not going to bother considering these other goals until there is some level of support that these are indeed future goals of the DSA.

    In the meantime, we can only guess at what the future goals might be and I don't consider guesswork to be a valid basis for arguing that the DSA has some hidden extreme agenda.




    When you show me the quote where they say that they want to eliminate the private market, I will respond to that claim. In the meantime, I consider it baseless.





    Since I never argued for removing profits or the profit motive from the system nor has it been shown that the DSA wants this as well, this line of questioning appears to be off-topic. That's why I have no response to it. It's essentially a straw man.



    Because you say so? You don't get to be the sole arbiter of what is extreme based on your say so.

    I certainly don't agree that ALL change is extreme. A change can be a change towards extremism or away from extremism.




    Please support this assertion. I see nothing in their ideology that says that an individual cannot seek private profit.

    There is a difference between allowing an individual to seek something and basing a system on it. For example, individuals are free to seek sex. But our economic system is not based on seeking sex.




    Right. I have no rebuttal but I do challenge it on the basis of being unsupported. So I will consider your statement retracted until I see support for it.





    I don't believe that they want to remove private profit at all. And if you are going to forward that that is what they want to do, then please support that.






    Just saying that two things are essentially the same and will have the same results does not make it so.

    In fact, I assume you will agree that any system where we ended up with millions dead ended up with a very, very strong centralization of power where a small group of people, or even one person (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) pretty much ran the show. The DSA directly states that want to decentralize power so if we ended up with a genocidal dictator with the power to murder millions, then the government is pretty much the opposite of what the DSA wants.

    In support that they want to decentralize power:

    "Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible."


    https://www.dsausa.org/govt_run_everything

    And likewise with a decentralized economic system, individual businesses will be their own entities and therefore will have to trade with one another and therefore there will be a need for trade and currency and therefore profit.

    So I have supported that the DSAs ideal system would still include profit. If you are going to claim the opposite (and it is your burden to back up your claim that they desire to eliminate profit), then please support that. Until you do, I consider any such claim to be retracted.



    And I see nothing extreme in what Bernie Sanders has publicly proposed nor have you pointed out any particular policy that he forwarded or anything he said that would constitute extreme.

    You are the one making a LARGE mental leap by equating Bernie Sanders with, I dunno, Stalin. You didn't even specify exactly which supposed Democratic Socialist nation or leader had millions killed.

    Your argument to this effect is not only unsupported but incredibly vague.




    But sometimes they get elected. If one runs as a Republican and gets elected into office, then CLEARLY a significant number of local Republicans voted for that person. Are you saying that those who voted for him are not part of the GOP? If so, then you are being selective. And Donald Trump said of the Charlotteville protesters that some are very fine people. That is not distancing. So yes, you are being selective.




    Yes we have. We have seen NO White Supremacists elected to public office as a Democrat. We have seen a much stronger condemnation of Trump's comments about how fine some WSs are.

    And if you mean that the Democrats are more accepting of the DSA than the Republicans are accepting of WS, that’s true. But so what? IMO, its ridiculous to conflate the KKK with the DSA.


    As far as STATED AGENDA goes, WSs want to separate the races and the DSA wants to give everyone health care. The DSAs agenda is actually quite appealing to many people and IMO, it IS appealing. I personally think Universal Health care is a great idea and many agree with me. You have to resort to “read between the lines” and slippery-slopism and conflating them with other groups to make the case that they are extremist.






    That is not true at all. Some voted for a white supremacist and some did not. So any blanket statement is indeed false. So the question isn’t if Republicans support or condone White Supremacists but how many of them support/condone WS. The answer is clearly not “zero”.




    I don’t claim that they all are. I just claim that some of them have indeed voted for WS candidates. I claim that Donald Trump, the leader of the Republican party flattered some of the marchers in Charlottesville. And how much one wants to excuse or blow off such things is a subjective choice.






    I don't believe that Democratic Socialism, as DSA proposes it, has been practiced to disasterous effect in the 20th century and your mere claim that it has been does not give me reason to think otherwise.

    It just looks like a whole lot of baseless conflation to me. And yes, it looks entirely subjective.






    Yes, they are examples of socialism. If you mean its doesn’t make us a completely socialist society, agreed. But our society mixes Capitalism and Socialism. I mean the European Socialist model has the word “socialist” in it. So you just saying “nuh-uh” doesn’t add equate a rebuttal.



    And you have not supported that the DSA calls for the end of either private profit nor the end of the private profit motive.

    So you are conflating the DSA with something else.





    Begging the question. Please support that the DSA has Marxist views. And likewise support that the DSA desires power. Again, their position is that they want to decentralize economic power which I’m sure is the exact opposite of the practice with any disasterous regime you will hold up as an example.





    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that they said that they want to impose a socialist system.

    I conclude that you did not get the notion that they want to impose a socialist system from any direct quote of them (“We want to impose a socialist system”) but from “reading between the lines.

    As far as I can tell, you’ve not taken anything that they directly said and made the case that what was said is extremist but instead used what was said to imply something else (such as not mentioning limits implies that there are not limits or not wanting a system based on private profit implies that they want to abolish private profit or the profit motive).

    So can you show me something that they ACTUALLY SAID that, if taken as it is spoken (so no reading between the lines) is extreme? We can definitely do that for White Supremacist groups.
    Ok, so in your legitimate view, Marxism is not an extremist ideology? We can remove the profit motive without removing profit and we enforce this how??? When a group makes a mission statement, do you only believe their immediate policy proposals? I mean if a neo-Nazi group stated they wanted to eliminate blacks and Jews but they listed only a couple of policy positions such as building a wall and enforcing immigration, would you assume that they are not actually fascists and insist that they are not an example of a group with an extreme ideology? I am interested in your answers here.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. #130
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Ok, so in your legitimate view, Marxism is not an extremist ideology?
    I do think Marxism is extremist because I believe Marxism calls for the abolishment of owning private property.

    But I believe that you do not agree that Marxism necessarily demands abolishing private property.

    And since I'm not going to challenge you regarding that, I ask that you provide your won definition of Marxism. Once I see what you've provided, then I will state whether I think the definition that you are using qualifies as an extremist agenda.

    But in the meantime, since Marxism is not clearly defined, I will not accept any argument that includes the premise that it's inherently extreme. Really, the lack of a clear definition of Marxism and yet trying to argue that it's both extreme and applies to the DSA looks a lot like equivocation. So give me a clear definition of Marxism please.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We can remove the profit motive without removing profit and we enforce this how???
    Until it is supported that the DSA wants to remove the profit motive or the creation of profit, this question is based on an unsupported premise.

    I'm not going to answer questions that don't necessarily have relevance to the debate.

    One you show that the DSA intends to remove profit or the profit motive, then we can discuss the ramifications of that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    When a group makes a mission statement, do you only believe their immediate policy proposals?
    If you mean whether I think I KNOW that the currently stated policy proposals are the only proposals that they will ever have, I do not know that. I find it entirely reasonable to consider that the DSA have some goals that they have not stated and/or that they will develop later on. So let's call these UNKNOWN GOALS.

    So I do think it's possible that the DSA has unknown goals. What I don't think is that these unknown goals are likely to be extremist.

    And if you are going to argue that these unknown goals are or will be extremist, you will need to support that. And so far you have not and therefore the notion that they will resort to extremism in pursuit of their mission statement is unsupported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I mean if a neo-Nazi group stated they wanted to eliminate blacks and Jews but they listed only a couple of policy positions such as building a wall and enforcing immigration, would you assume that they are not actually fascists and insist that they are not an example of a group with an extreme ideology?
    I would consider them extremist because their mission statement is extremist regardless of how innocuous their policy proposals are. It's possible that such a group will never have any extreme policy proposals but they would still be extremist because of their mission statement.

    But with the DSA, I don't think either their mission statement nor their stated policy proposals are extreme and you've provided no support that their unknown policy proposal are extremist.

    So you've not supported that:
    The DSA's mission statement is extremist
    The DSA's stated policy proposals are extremist
    The DSA's unknown policy proposals are extremist.

    Given that, so far no supported argument has been made that the DSA's mission statement shows that they are extremist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am interested in your answers here.
    And I've addressed all of your questions. And I will point out that questions are not rebuttals so at this point I consider every point I've made in my previous post to be unrebutted.
    Last edited by mican333; August 12th, 2018 at 10:20 AM.

  12. #131
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I do think Marxism is extremist because I believe Marxism calls for the abolishment of owning private property.

    But I believe that you do not agree that Marxism necessarily demands abolishing private property.

    And since I'm not going to challenge you regarding that, I ask that you provide your won definition of Marxism. Once I see what you've provided, then I will state whether I think the definition that you are using qualifies as an extremist agenda.

    But in the meantime, since Marxism is not clearly defined, I will not accept any argument that includes the premise that it's inherently extreme. Really, the lack of a clear definition of Marxism and yet trying to argue that it's both extreme and applies to the DSA looks a lot like equivocation. So give me a clear definition of Marxism please.






    Until it is supported that the DSA wants to remove the profit motive or the creation of profit, this question is based on an unsupported premise.

    I'm not going to answer questions that don't necessarily have relevance to the debate.

    One you show that the DSA intends to remove profit or the profit motive, then we can discuss the ramifications of that.




    If you mean whether I think I KNOW that the currently stated policy proposals are the only proposals that they will ever have, I do not know that. I find it entirely reasonable to consider that the DSA have some goals that they have not stated and/or that they will develop later on. So let's call these UNKNOWN GOALS.

    So I do think it's possible that the DSA has unknown goals. What I don't think is that these unknown goals are likely to be extremist.

    And if you are going to argue that these unknown goals are or will be extremist, you will need to support that. And so far you have not and therefore the notion that they will resort to extremism in pursuit of their mission statement is unsupported.



    I would consider them extremist because their mission statement is extremist regardless of how innocuous their policy proposals are. It's possible that such a group will never have any extreme policy proposals but they would still be extremist because of their mission statement.

    But with the DSA, I don't think either their mission statement nor their stated policy proposals are extreme and you've provided no support that their unknown policy proposal are extremist.

    So you've not supported that:
    The DSA's mission statement is extremist
    The DSA's stated policy proposals are extremist
    The DSA's unknown policy proposals are extremist.

    Given that, so far no supported argument has been made that the DSA's mission statement shows that they are extremist.





    And I've addressed all of your questions. And I will point out that questions are not rebuttals so at this point I consider every point I've made in my previous post to be unrebutted.
    Ok. So, you do believe Marxism is an extremist ideology. Great. Now, you and I may differ on how we get there, but we both agree on the end result. Again, this is a topic and discussion full of nuance. If someone thinks they can throw around a couple sentences and describe Marxism, good luck with that. I tried to boil it down to a couple of absolute fundamental positions, but I am in no way claiming it is a complete definition.

    Now, how about Socialism? Is that an extreme ideology? Not Nordic socialism which is not really socialism, but sort of a mixed economy with a heavy dose of statism, but actual Socialism. I should point out a key difference between Nordic or European socialism and Socialism is that in those systems, private markets exist and profits and there is no intention to eliminate the profit motive in most markets. The Nordic countries, for example, do not have democratically controlled markets as is desired in a true Socialist state. They do utilize a heavy welfare model and offer citizens a grand safety net. This though is not Socialism.

    The DSA's statements from their website absolutely claim to seek the end of the profit motive. I am asking you how that can be done without eliminating private markets because you believe these are two different concepts. Like the Nazi group you conceded you'd consider extremist, even if their stated policy goals were less than extreme, the DSA has a mission statement whereby they do several things:
    1) Call themselves Socialists
    2) State their desire to end the profit motive.
    3) Express a belief in a dialectic world view.

    In regards to #1, they do not add any sort of modifier here to describe themselves as Nordic or European type socialists. So, all we can do is take them at their word and consider them to be actual Socialists. In regards to #2, I've asked you to explain how they can enforce the end of profit as motivation without eliminating private markets. And last, I've linked to a scholarly article in a previous post where Marxism was linked with the dialectic world view. In other words, while they may not call themselves Marxists, they have the same motivations and have expressed similar missions. And we know Marxism begins with the attempt to replace capitalism with socialism which is entirely in line with the DSA's stated goals.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #132
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The DSA's statements from their website absolutely claim to seek the end of the profit motive.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that DSA's statements from their website absolutely claim to seek the end of the profit motive. If your statement is valid, it should be easy as you can just cut and paste the statement that backs up your assertion.

    Until you support this assertion, please do not repeat it in this debate. If you won't support it, it must be retracted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In regards to #1, they do not add any sort of modifier here to describe themselves as Nordic or European type socialists. So, all we can do is take them at their word and consider them to be actual Socialists.
    I think there's plenty of evidence on what kind of socialism they want the USA to practice. Look at their policy positions. Look at what Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are forwarding. And it does seem to me that what they are advocating does resemble European Socialism.

    You may disagree if you want but if you are going to argue that they want to practice a different kind of Socialism as opposed to the kind of socialism that their policies appear to reflect, you will need to support it.
    Last edited by mican333; August 12th, 2018 at 06:13 PM.

  14. #133
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that DSA's statements from their website absolutely claim to seek the end of the profit motive. If your statement is valid, it should be easy as you can just cut and paste the statement that backs up your assertion.

    Until you support this assertion, please do not repeat it in this debate. If you won't support it, it must be retracted.



    I think there's plenty of evidence on what kind of socialism they want the USA to practice. Look at their policy positions. Look at what Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are forwarding. And it does seem to me that what they are advocating does resemble European Socialism.

    You may disagree if you want but if you are going to argue that they want to practice a different kind of Socialism as opposed to the kind of socialism that their policies appear to reflect, you will need to support it.
    Mican, I have supported my position on the DSA with multiple quotes from their website.

    Here it is for something like the fourth time:
    "We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit..."

    Of course the key here is that they are SOCIALISTS. If you are unsure of their actual long-term goal, here is a hint, also from their website:"As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow..."
    The fairly obvious implication here is that the long term goal is to end capitalism. Hence their policy goals, which you have noted are incremental.

    Now, I'd like to address why Socialism is dangerous. Any group whose ideology is based upon identitarian politics is dangerous. The reason fascist groups are dangerous isn't simply because they promote nationalism and a high degree of structure. They create an us vs. them state where the them is always brutalized. Similarly, the reason Socialism and Marxism are evil is because they play the same type of identity politics where they define an oppressed group or groups. Historically, this always ends badly. I have linked to the statements from the DSA website where they explain their dialectic philosophy which can be properly termed neo Marxist.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. #134
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Mican, I have supported my position on the DSA with multiple quotes from their website.

    Here it is for something like the fourth time:
    "We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit..."
    And where does it say "we seek to eliminate the profit motive"? It doesn't say that there or likely anywhere in their mission statement. So you claim that they "absolutely claimed" to "seek the end of the profit motive" is not supported. You seem to be asking me to "read between the lines" and interpret that statement to say something more or other than it actually says. Either way, it does not absolutely state that they seek to end the profit motive so your claim that they do state that they want to that is not supported.

    Please do not repeat that claim until you support it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Of course the key here is that they are SOCIALISTS. If you are unsure of their actual long-term goal, here is a hint, also from their website:"As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow..."
    The fairly obvious implication here is that the long term goal is to end capitalism. Hence their policy goals, which you have noted are incremental.
    And again, you are taking something that they said and interpreting it to fit your argument. That statement doesn't even express a desire to end capitalism but just observes that it's unlikely to end tomorrow.

    I, on the other hand, have been addressing their actual stated policy goals. I can support that they seek to implement universal health care and free college and want to raise the minimum wage. So I have provided direct evidence of what their agenda is while you have taken things they said and claimed that they imply something other than what they directly say.

    So until you give me something that they have said that, if taken as it is stated and not from "reading between the lines" or a directly stated policy position that is extremist, you have no case to make that the DSA is extremist.

    Their agenda NOW is Universal Health Care, Free College, and a higher minimum wage. That is not extremist. What is their future agenda. We don't know and therefore have no basis to hold that the future agenda will be extremist. The notion that they intend to take us on a path that will result in the death of million is laughable IMO and just looks like paranoid ranting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Now, I'd like to address why Socialism is dangerous. Any group whose ideology is based upon identitarian politics is dangerous. The reason fascist groups are dangerous isn't simply because they promote nationalism and a high degree of structure. They create an us vs. them state where the them is always brutalized. Similarly, the reason Socialism and Marxism are evil is because they play the same type of identity politics where they define an oppressed group or groups. Historically, this always ends badly.
    Well, European Socialism doesn't look particularly disastrous. And a few posts ago, I addressed the issue of whether they are like Europeans Socialists and you did not respond to my argument (you opted to blow off most of the content to make a generalized statement in response),

    If you want to make generalized statements and therefore not address particular arguments I've made, that's up to you. But my unaddressed arguments still stand.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I have linked to the statements from the DSA website where they explain their dialectic philosophy which can be properly termed neo Marxist.
    As I said, until you provide a valid definition of "Marxism" in this debate, Marxism is irrelevant to any arguments here. Keeping the definition vague so you can both identify it as "extremist" and also apply it to the DSA is engaging in equivocation. So either give me a definition of Marxism that you intend to use consistently in this debate of cease bringing up Marxism in this debate (for it's a waste of time to discuss it if it's not clearly defined).

    And since you have often skipped rebutting my points one-by-one in lieu of a generalized statement, you have not addressed many of my rebuttals to your interpretations of the DSAs mission statement. As far as I know, I have rebutted every argument of yours that the missions statement shows extremism so I don't accept that you have successfully proven anything by linking the mission statement. And if I'm incorrect about that, then you need to show me directly what part of the mission statement you are referring to instead of vaguely referring to a past argument (which again, has likely been rebutted already by me).

    ----------------------------------

    And I find the mission statement arguments to be a bit of a red herring. This debate is not about Democratic Socialists but about Democrats. And of course DS is relevant to the debate because their ideology and candidates have become more popular among Democrats with Candidates like Sanders and Cortez gaining a significant number of votes from the Democratic base. So if we are going to take a look at what the Democrats are embracing, we get a much, much, much better picture by looking at what/who they are voting for, not what some organization states on their website. And from all indication, Sanders and Cortez and other viable DS candidates are an indication of the direction the Democratic Party is heading and since I don't believe they are forwarding anything extremist, I do not consider the Democratic acceptance of SOME DS to be moving towards extremist. Is it possible for the Democrats to adopt these reasonable DS policies and then move beyond them into extremist territory? It's possible. Has there been anything resembling support that that is what WILL happen due to their current acceptance of SOME DS? Not even close. If the DS actually proposed a policy to end private profit, it's a certainty that they would lose significant support from the Democrats. So even if there is some Dr. Evil nefarious hidden agenda behind it all (which has not been supported), it seems ridiculous to forward that the Democrats would go along with it after. The Democrats are more accepting of DS because CURRENTLY DS is forwarding some good policy positions (in the eyes of many Democrats as well as independents).
    Last edited by mican333; August 14th, 2018 at 07:35 AM.

  16. #135
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    549
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The Left often accuses Republicans of extremism, but available evidence suggests that, on the whole, it is Democrats who are becoming more and more extreme, causing a widening gap in political ideology between Left and Right.

    Think about any recent illegal demonstrations, unlawful or uncivil protests, and it was likely a group of activists from the Left.

    On the issue of legal immigration, Democrats don't have any proposal to solve problems. They just want to maintain the unsecured nature of our southern border, abolish ICE and close detention facilities, without offering any plan to resolve illegal immigration problems. https://www.yahoo.com/news/abolish-i...-election.html This is very different than Democrats of the past.

    The Democrats recently had a Socialist presidential candidate who very nearly won that party's nomination. And they are in the process of sending another Socialist to the US Congress: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/polit...ary/index.html

    A Pew Research study found that Democrats were much more likely to say that finding out a friend voted for Trump would strain the relationship than if the positions were reversed and the friend voted for Hillary Clinton. http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/...y-among-women/

    And finally, a Pew Research study has found that the growing divide between liberals and conservatives is due, in large part, to liberals moving further and further left on key issues: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-con...pe-release.pdf


    In a different thread something came up that seems relevant to this thread.

    I have talked personally with quite a few Clinton supporters that not only think have they never done anything wrong, but they are virtually incapable of doing wrong.

    Now contrast that with the average Reagan supporter and you are likely to hear support, but also there were things that he should not have done and they were wrong.

    The particular wrongs don't really matter in this case.
    I am just pointing out humans do wrong things sometimes for varying reasons. We all suffer from the emotions we carry all day and to suggest some one is above the human condition (greed, power, jealousy, etc.) because you agree with their politics is extreme!

    After all, if the Clinton's are Christian (and they say they are) they are pretty much required to do wrong at some point in their lives, as in "we are all sinners" being a Christians mantra. Otherwise they would be perfect like Christ and would not need to be "saved".

  17. #136
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And where does it say "we seek to eliminate the profit motive"? It doesn't say that there or likely anywhere in their mission statement. So you claim that they "absolutely claimed" to "seek the end of the profit motive" is not supported. You seem to be asking me to "read between the lines" and interpret that statement to say something more or other than it actually says. Either way, it does not absolutely state that they seek to end the profit motive so your claim that they do state that they want to that is not supported.

    Please do not repeat that claim until you support it.
    I'll keep repeating the claim which I have supported multiple times through multiple quotes from their website. Your response is a combination of lack of belief in what they are stating plus looking at some of their policy goals and claiming that represents the entirety of their agenda. Which it clearly does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And again, you are taking something that they said and interpreting it to fit your argument. That statement doesn't even express a desire to end capitalism but just observes that it's unlikely to end tomorrow.
    They claim to be Socialists. I am not adding interpretation here. I am taking them at their word. You have added interpretation by claiming they don't really mean Socialists but some other unidentified ideology.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I, on the other hand, have been addressing their actual stated policy goals. I can support that they seek to implement universal health care and free college and want to raise the minimum wage. So I have provided direct evidence of what their agenda is while you have taken things they said and claimed that they imply something other than what they directly say.
    We have already established an organization isn't just their policy statements. It is why organizations have mission statements. Apple used to build PC's. Their mission statement


    Mission statement from the 1980's of Apple Inc. Hmmm, does not specifically state they plan on making the IPhone, the Ipod, apple OS, et al. They were just making computers back then. I guess, per you, it'd have been impossible to predict Apple would expand their products within their mission of providing innovative hardware, software, etc. Per you, their mission statement is irrelevant. They are just a company that builds boxes. But, of course, this is ridiculous. Their mission clearly expressed their intention to do more than offer personal computers. Just like the DSA mission is very clear that they intend much more than free health care. Again, they proclaim themselves to be Socialists. I am unaware of some other definition which exists and that does not seek to eliminate the profit motive and free markets. They are pragmatic and have policy goals which they believe they can enact in the immediate future, but these don't undermine their long-term intention.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So until you give me something that they have said that, if taken as it is stated and not from "reading between the lines" or a directly stated policy position that is extremist, you have no case to make that the DSA is extremist.
    You're the one reading between the lines. Not me. I'm just reading what they say and choosing to believe them.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Their agenda NOW is Universal Health Care, Free College, and a higher minimum wage. That is not extremist. What is their future agenda. We don't know and therefore have no basis to hold that the future agenda will be extremist. The notion that they intend to take us on a path that will result in the death of million is laughable IMO and just looks like paranoid ranting.
    And at one time Apple just made PC's. We know Apple had interests in expanding from their mission statement. We know the DSA's goals from their mission statement. Furthermore, they are extremist because, first and foremost, they wish to implement Socialism based on a dialectic world view. Again, this isn't even debatable really (although I am sure you'll argue it). They clearly define their class within the concept of intersectionality (oppressed v oppressors) and view Socialism as a means to achieve an egalitarian society. Why is this extreme? Because every time this is attempted, brutality follows. Soviet Russia, Cuba, China and modern-day Valenzuela are just some examples. Those countries didn't all follow the same Socialist or Marxist models. However, they all tried Socialism with dialecticism as their primary motivation.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, European Socialism doesn't look particularly disastrous. And a few posts ago, I addressed the issue of whether they are like Europeans Socialists and you did not respond to my argument (you opted to blow off most of the content to make a generalized statement in response),

    If you want to make generalized statements and therefore not address particular arguments I've made, that's up to you. But my unaddressed arguments still stand.
    1) I've already noted that the European economic model isn't socialism. They mix central planning and private markets to various degrees. Not Socialism.
    2) I've already noted that individual policies don't make the DSA extreme. It is that in combination with their dialectic world view.

    And I didn't blow off argument. I explained why your comparison does not work. It still doesn't work. When you bring it up later, it still won't work.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As I said, until you provide a valid definition of "Marxism" in this debate, Marxism is irrelevant to any arguments here. Keeping the definition vague so you can both identify it as "extremist" and also apply it to the DSA is engaging in equivocation. So either give me a definition of Marxism that you intend to use consistently in this debate of cease bringing up Marxism in this debate (for it's a waste of time to discuss it if it's not clearly defined).
    You'd like some simple definition, but it is a economic and sociological explanation for how humans behave and is defined within a dialectic world view. I linked to an academic paper which offers some explanation. You can read the Communist Manifesto if you're interested. I broke Marxism down into a very set of two fundamental requirements. You didn't like it. Ok. Offer something better. If you want to get into this pedantic discussion of definitions, I guess it is your prerogative. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have facts, pound the facts. If you have neither, pound the table. This is just you pounding the table.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And since you have often skipped rebutting my points one-by-one in lieu of a generalized statement, you have not addressed many of my rebuttals to your interpretations of the DSAs mission statement. As far as I know, I have rebutted every argument of yours that the missions statement shows extremism so I don't accept that you have successfully proven anything by linking the mission statement. And if I'm incorrect about that, then you need to show me directly what part of the mission statement you are referring to instead of vaguely referring to a past argument (which again, has likely been rebutted already by me).
    This is just some odd obsession you have with point counting. I am more interested in honest discussion. Yes, I provide facts and support for my claims. But, if I am not rebutting something, it is probably because I didn't feel it merited a rebuttal. Honestly, you've kind of just gone round and round here. You don't know what Marxism is. You don't understand dialecticism or how it relates to Marxism. You don't really understand the link between Socialism and Marxism. Finally, you mistake the economic system in Europe with Socialism which is just completely wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    ----------------------------------

    And I find the mission statement arguments to be a bit of a red herring. This debate is not about Democratic Socialists but about Democrats. And of course DS is relevant to the debate because their ideology and candidates have become more popular among Democrats with Candidates like Sanders and Cortez gaining a significant number of votes from the Democratic base. So if we are going to take a look at what the Democrats are embracing, we get a much, much, much better picture by looking at what/who they are voting for, not what some organization states on their website. And from all indication, Sanders and Cortez and other viable DS candidates are an indication of the direction the Democratic Party is heading and since I don't believe they are forwarding anything extremist, I do not consider the Democratic acceptance of SOME DS to be moving towards extremist. Is it possible for the Democrats to adopt these reasonable DS policies and then move beyond them into extremist territory? It's possible. Has there been anything resembling support that that is what WILL happen due to their current acceptance of SOME DS? Not even close. If the DS actually proposed a policy to end private profit, it's a certainty that they would lose significant support from the Democrats. So even if there is some Dr. Evil nefarious hidden agenda behind it all (which has not been supported), it seems ridiculous to forward that the Democrats would go along with it after. The Democrats are more accepting of DS because CURRENTLY DS is forwarding some good policy positions (in the eyes of many Democrats as well as independents).
    It is because you do not believe the DSA is an extremist organization that they have been the center of debate. Here is a question. If you walk into a DNC convention wearing a Stalin shirt (a shirt with Stalin's face), what would the reaction be? Would you be thrown out? How about if you wore a Fidel Castro shirt? A Che Guevarra shirt? A Mao shirt? How would you be received?

    Now, put yourself into a GOP convention. What would happen if you wore a Hitler shirt? A Mussolini shirt (assuming people recognized him)? A Tito shirt (again assuming he'd be recognized)?

    I think, at the GOP convention, certainly wearing the Hitler shirt, you'd be asked to leave. At the very least no one would talk to you. You'd be shunned. I think at the DNC convention, you'd be accepted and treated fairly normally. Meaning, I don't think anyone would think twice about associating with you. What this implies is that the two parties respective to their own extremes, have very different limits. The GOP has a fairly clear limit here. The Dems do not. Hence, when a group like DSA has members openly accepted by the party leadership, if you accept that the DSA is a Socialist organization (which they claim to be), then I think a rational person would worry a bit. Certainly it is reason to take notice. That is really all I've been saying this whole time.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. #137
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'll keep repeating the claim which I have supported multiple times through multiple quotes from their website. Your response is a combination of lack of belief in what they are stating plus looking at some of their policy goals and claiming that represents the entirety of their agenda. Which it clearly does not.
    My respond is that I'm challenging you to show me where on their website they say that they want to eliminate the profit motive and I've directly challenged you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that assertion.

    Saying that you already provided support is not support. So either show where the website actually says that or retract the claim (and not repeating it suffices as a retraction). Either way, since you have not supported it when challenged to, it will not be accepted as true in this debate until it is supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    They claim to be Socialists. I am not adding interpretation here. I am taking them at their word.
    Which indicates an inconsistent standard for when determining when it's "socialism". European Socialists call themselves socialists and you don't take them at their word but instead look at their policies and compare them to you own understanding of what socialism is.

    And DS candidates like Sanders and Cortez forward a European Socialist vision for the US and the DSA policies likewise suggest a move towards that kind of socialism.

    So if the DS candidates are not actually advocating "real" socialism and instead are advocating European Socialism which you say isn't really socialism at all, I'm not sure you can say the DSA is socialist just because they call themselves "socialist".

    I'm sure you'll agree that actions speak louder than words and therefore first and foremost we should look at what these people are actually doing or trying to do instead of looking at a mission statement. I'm not saying the mission statement is irrelevant but if they are not going to enact extreme policies then even if the mission statement is worrisome, we don't really have to worry about something extreme taking place.

    And again, DS calls for a decentralized economy. If you take them at their word CONSISTENTLY, then they cannot lead to a Stalinist regime as Stalin had a very centralized economic system where the few controlled pretty much the whole economy. In fact, can you find a decentralized economy that lead to the kind of disastrous outcomes that you have been using as an example of the historical dangers of Socialism/Marxism?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We have already established an organization isn't just their policy statements. It is why organizations have mission statements. Apple used to build PC's. Their mission statement.

    Mission statement from the 1980's of Apple Inc. Hmmm, does not specifically state they plan on making the IPhone, the Ipod, apple OS, et al. They were just making computers back then. I guess, per you, it'd have been impossible to predict Apple would expand their products within their mission of providing innovative hardware, software, etc. Per you, their mission statement is irrelevant. They are just a company that builds boxes. But, of course, this is ridiculous. Their mission clearly expressed their intention to do more than offer personal computers. Just like the DSA mission is very clear that they intend much more than free health care.
    I already said it's reasonable to hold that the DSA may have unstated policy goals so your assessment of my argument (that I'm saying that the stated policy goals are the only goals they will ever have) is wrong (as you often seem to be when you try to tell me what my argument is).

    So yes, the DSA may have unstated policy goals (or will in the future). But what are those goals? I don't know and from all evidence, you don't know either.

    If you are going to argue that those unstated goals are or will be extreme, you will need to support that. Otherwise, the only relevant goals to this discussion are the stated goals. Imaginary goals are not an issue (for me, anyway).


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, they proclaim themselves to be Socialists. I am unaware of some other definition which exists and that does not seek to eliminate the profit motive and free markets.
    Then I'll provide one:

    "Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market socialist, participatory or decentralized planned economy."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

    I don't see any mention of eliminating the profit motive or free market in that definition. In fact, it seems to allow for a market which means that it allows for profit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You're the one reading between the lines. Not me. I'm just reading what they say and choosing to believe them.
    No, you are reading between the lines.

    They say they reject a system based on profits and you "read between the lines" and say what they mean is they want to eliminate the profit motive. They didn't say that.

    They say they don't see the Capitalist system ending soon and you "read between the lines" and say what they mean is they want to eliminate Capitalism. They didn't say that.

    Can you show me where they ACTUALLY SAY that they want to eliminate the profit motive and eliminate Capitalism entirely. That's a rhetorical question. I know you can't.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We know the DSA's goals from their mission statement. Furthermore, they are extremist because, first and foremost, they wish to implement Socialism based on a dialectic world view.
    I'll stop you here. Support or Retract that they wish to implement Socialism based on a dialectic world view.

    And please don't tell me that you already did support it. Again, claims of prior support is not support.

    And assuming you do support that, then support that a dialectic view is extreme.

    Here's what I found for a description of the dialectic view:

    Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ; related to dialogue), also known as the dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

    Yeah, that viewpoint doesn't exactly scare me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You'd like some simple definition, but it is a economic and sociological explanation for how humans behave and is defined within a dialectic world view. I linked to an academic paper which offers some explanation. You can read the Communist Manifesto if you're interested. I broke Marxism down into a very set of two fundamental requirements. You didn't like it. Ok. Offer something better.
    I don't need to offer something better. You need to offer valid support for your conclusion. It's not an issue of whether I like or don't like the fact that you aren't forwarding a valid definition. It's an issue that you can't support that the DSA is Marxist without providing a valid definition of Marxism and then showing the the DSA fits that definition. And likewise you cannot support that Marxism is an extremist ideal without providing a definition and showing how any group that fits that definition is extremist.

    As far as I know all you've provided is "dialectic worldview" and "promotes socialism". I don't see any support that those things combined is a valid definition of Marxism (you seem to be saying that but I don't see any support for it). I don't see any support that those two things, individually or combined, are extremist. Nor has it been supported that the DSA has a dialectic worldview.

    And no, I'm not interested in exploring Marxism or figuring this out for myself. It's YOUR argument and if you want to know what I would like, I would like you to drop the Marxism argument as it seems to be going nowhere. But of course you are free to pursue if you want. But again, it's YOUR argument and I have no burden (or interest) in mounting a counter-argument until you offer valid support for your conclusion.


    And whether it is your intention or not, your invocation of Marxism and refusal to give a simple definition looks like an attempt to equivocate. It looks like you are intentionally keeping the definition vague so you can argue that Marxism, by definition, is extremist and that it also applies to the DSA (because you probably could not do both of those if you settled on a definition). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that that is not at all your intention but now that you are aware of how it looks like an engagement in that fallacy, you will hopefully cease forwarding a vague definition of Marxism in your arguments. Further vagueness of definition will be considered either as intent to equivocate or not caring if it appears that you are equivocating.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is just some odd obsession you have with point counting.
    Sigh. Wrong again. I didn't say that you can't or shouldn't skip point-by-point nor am I even saying that you need to address every point I make. But to be clear, if you don't address a point of mine because you skipped addressing all of my points, then the unaddressed argument stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am more interested in honest discussion. Yes, I provide facts and support for my claims. But, if I am not rebutting something, it is probably because I didn't feel it merited a rebuttal.
    And that's fine. If you think a point that I made is not particularly relevant and you're fine letting it stand for you feel it doesn't really counter any point that you want to forward, then don't address it. But if my point rebuts an argument of yours, then you should not blow by my rebuttal and repeat your argument as if I never rebutted it. That's my only complaint here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It is because you do not believe the DSA is an extremist organization that they have been the center of debate. Here is a question. If you walk into a DNC convention wearing a Stalin shirt (a shirt with Stalin's face), what would the reaction be? Would you be thrown out? How about if you wore a Fidel Castro shirt? A Che Guevarra shirt? A Mao shirt? How would you be received?

    Now, put yourself into a GOP convention. What would happen if you wore a Hitler shirt? A Mussolini shirt (assuming people recognized him)? A Tito shirt (again assuming he'd be recognized)?
    And that hypothetical does not prove much about either party. Hitler is clearly the most well-known and despised person (by a large margin) of all of the figures you mentioned and therefore one cannot compare the reaction to Hitler compared to all of the other figures. So if we remove Hitler from the equation and keep the figures who are at equal fame level (for example, Stalin vs Mussolini), I think the odds of being kicked out of either convention is about equal (which would be very low).


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Hence, when a group like DSA has members openly accepted by the party leadership, if you accept that the DSA is a Socialist organization (which they claim to be), then I think a rational person would worry a bit. Certainly it is reason to take notice. That is really all I've been saying this whole time.
    If we are looking at the most "extreme" members of each side that run for office and win primaries, I'm much, much more concerned about the GOP electees.

    I see absolutely no reason to be concerned about Sanders and Cortez. There is nothing in their platform or rhetoric that sounds particularly extreme and it would really take some "reading between the line" and slippery-sqlopism to mount an argument that they have an extreme agenda. I mean your argument about the DSA platform is basically worrying about policy positions that aren't stated.

    On the other side, there are actual White Supremacists and Nazis running for GOP office. Of course the Washington GOP establishment don't support such candidates (although arguably their opposition to them is rather tepid) but obviously some of the voters do support them (or else they wouldn't win any primaries). And you have include the party's voters as part of the party (so we don't just look at the establishment and ignore the rest of the GOP member.)

    So I don't see any extremist candidates in the Democrat ranks but I see them in the Republican ranks. And if we polled Nazis and their ilk on which party they are more likely to vote for, it's safe to say that they are much more likely to vote GOP. And while that certainly cannot be called a GOP embrace of such people, a party is partially defined by their base. And the current GOPs president rhetoric has been much more appealing to the extreme right than any presidential rhetoric, Democrat or GOP, has in the past. Trump has shown far more tolerance for the extreme right than any prior Republican president and his support amongst the base remains quite high. I find that much more frightening than the Democrats embrace of Sanders and Cortez (who I think are moving us away from extremism - away from the increasingly extreme income inequality that the GOP seem intent on escalating).
    Last edited by mican333; August 19th, 2018 at 06:50 AM.

  19. #138
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My respond is that I'm challenging you to show me where on their website they say that they want to eliminate the profit motive and I've directly challenged you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that assertion.

    Saying that you already provided support is not support. So either show where the website actually says that or retract the claim (and not repeating it suffices as a retraction). Either way, since you have not supported it when challenged to, it will not be accepted as true in this debate until it is supported.




    Which indicates an inconsistent standard for when determining when it's "socialism". European Socialists call themselves socialists and you don't take them at their word but instead look at their policies and compare them to you own understanding of what socialism is.

    And DS candidates like Sanders and Cortez forward a European Socialist vision for the US and the DSA policies likewise suggest a move towards that kind of socialism.

    So if the DS candidates are not actually advocating "real" socialism and instead are advocating European Socialism which you say isn't really socialism at all, I'm not sure you can say the DSA is socialist just because they call themselves "socialist".

    I'm sure you'll agree that actions speak louder than words and therefore first and foremost we should look at what these people are actually doing or trying to do instead of looking at a mission statement. I'm not saying the mission statement is irrelevant but if they are not going to enact extreme policies then even if the mission statement is worrisome, we don't really have to worry about something extreme taking place.

    And again, DS calls for a decentralized economy. If you take them at their word CONSISTENTLY, then they cannot lead to a Stalinist regime as Stalin had a very centralized economic system where the few controlled pretty much the whole economy. In fact, can you find a decentralized economy that lead to the kind of disastrous outcomes that you have been using as an example of the historical dangers of Socialism/Marxism?





    I already said it's reasonable to hold that the DSA may have unstated policy goals so your assessment of my argument (that I'm saying that the stated policy goals are the only goals they will ever have) is wrong (as you often seem to be when you try to tell me what my argument is).

    So yes, the DSA may have unstated policy goals (or will in the future). But what are those goals? I don't know and from all evidence, you don't know either.

    If you are going to argue that those unstated goals are or will be extreme, you will need to support that. Otherwise, the only relevant goals to this discussion are the stated goals. Imaginary goals are not an issue (for me, anyway).




    Then I'll provide one:

    "Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market socialist, participatory or decentralized planned economy."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

    I don't see any mention of eliminating the profit motive or free market in that definition. In fact, it seems to allow for a market which means that it allows for profit.




    No, you are reading between the lines.

    They say they reject a system based on profits and you "read between the lines" and say what they mean is they want to eliminate the profit motive. They didn't say that.

    They say they don't see the Capitalist system ending soon and you "read between the lines" and say what they mean is they want to eliminate Capitalism. They didn't say that.

    Can you show me where they ACTUALLY SAY that they want to eliminate the profit motive and eliminate Capitalism entirely. That's a rhetorical question. I know you can't.





    I'll stop you here. Support or Retract that they wish to implement Socialism based on a dialectic world view.

    And please don't tell me that you already did support it. Again, claims of prior support is not support.

    And assuming you do support that, then support that a dialectic view is extreme.

    Here's what I found for a description of the dialectic view:

    Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ; related to dialogue), also known as the dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

    Yeah, that viewpoint doesn't exactly scare me.




    I don't need to offer something better. You need to offer valid support for your conclusion. It's not an issue of whether I like or don't like the fact that you aren't forwarding a valid definition. It's an issue that you can't support that the DSA is Marxist without providing a valid definition of Marxism and then showing the the DSA fits that definition. And likewise you cannot support that Marxism is an extremist ideal without providing a definition and showing how any group that fits that definition is extremist.

    As far as I know all you've provided is "dialectic worldview" and "promotes socialism". I don't see any support that those things combined is a valid definition of Marxism (you seem to be saying that but I don't see any support for it). I don't see any support that those two things, individually or combined, are extremist. Nor has it been supported that the DSA has a dialectic worldview.

    And no, I'm not interested in exploring Marxism or figuring this out for myself. It's YOUR argument and if you want to know what I would like, I would like you to drop the Marxism argument as it seems to be going nowhere. But of course you are free to pursue if you want. But again, it's YOUR argument and I have no burden (or interest) in mounting a counter-argument until you offer valid support for your conclusion.


    And whether it is your intention or not, your invocation of Marxism and refusal to give a simple definition looks like an attempt to equivocate. It looks like you are intentionally keeping the definition vague so you can argue that Marxism, by definition, is extremist and that it also applies to the DSA (because you probably could not do both of those if you settled on a definition). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that that is not at all your intention but now that you are aware of how it looks like an engagement in that fallacy, you will hopefully cease forwarding a vague definition of Marxism in your arguments. Further vagueness of definition will be considered either as intent to equivocate or not caring if it appears that you are equivocating.




    Sigh. Wrong again. I didn't say that you can't or shouldn't skip point-by-point nor am I even saying that you need to address every point I make. But to be clear, if you don't address a point of mine because you skipped addressing all of my points, then the unaddressed argument stands.



    And that's fine. If you think a point that I made is not particularly relevant and you're fine letting it stand for you feel it doesn't really counter any point that you want to forward, then don't address it. But if my point rebuts an argument of yours, then you should not blow by my rebuttal and repeat your argument as if I never rebutted it. That's my only complaint here.



    And that hypothetical does not prove much about either party. Hitler is clearly the most well-known and despised person (by a large margin) of all of the figures you mentioned and therefore one cannot compare the reaction to Hitler compared to all of the other figures. So if we remove Hitler from the equation and keep the figures who are at equal fame level (for example, Stalin vs Mussolini), I think the odds of being kicked out of either convention is about equal (which would be very low).




    If we are looking at the most "extreme" members of each side that run for office and win primaries, I'm much, much more concerned about the GOP electees.

    I see absolutely no reason to be concerned about Sanders and Cortez. There is nothing in their platform or rhetoric that sounds particularly extreme and it would really take some "reading between the line" and slippery-sqlopism to mount an argument that they have an extreme agenda. I mean your argument about the DSA platform is basically worrying about policy positions that aren't stated.

    On the other side, there are actual White Supremacists and Nazis running for GOP office. Of course the Washington GOP establishment don't support such candidates (although arguably their opposition to them is rather tepid) but obviously some of the voters do support them (or else they wouldn't win any primaries). And you have include the party's voters as part of the party (so we don't just look at the establishment and ignore the rest of the GOP member.)

    So I don't see any extremist candidates in the Democrat ranks but I see them in the Republican ranks. And if we polled Nazis and their ilk on which party they are more likely to vote for, it's safe to say that they are much more likely to vote GOP. And while that certainly cannot be called a GOP embrace of such people, a party is partially defined by their base. And the current GOPs president rhetoric has been much more appealing to the extreme right than any presidential rhetoric, Democrat or GOP, has in the past. Trump has shown far more tolerance for the extreme right than any prior Republican president and his support amongst the base remains quite high. I find that much more frightening than the Democrats embrace of Sanders and Cortez (who I think are moving us away from extremism - away from the increasingly extreme income inequality that the GOP seem intent on escalating).
    Let's see if this can be made more obvious regarding the DSA's agenda:
    "I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a member of DSA, and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism. And we want to do that by pursuing a reform agenda today in an effort to revive a politics focused on class hierarchy and inequality in the United States. The eventual goal is to transform the world to promote everyone’s needs rather than to produce massive profits for a small handful of citizens."

    "So why are democratic socialists not demanding an NHS right now? Because we currently don’t have the support to push for and win such an ambitious program. Social democratic reforms like Medicare-for-all are, in the eyes of DSA, part of the long, uneven process of building that support, and eventually overthrowing capitalism."
    https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/8/1/17637028/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cynthia-nixon-democratic-socialism-jacobin-dsa


    So, can we agree now? The DSA is not a group which is looking to exapnd the New Deal or to bring us a European style socialism. They are not looking to simply create a public health care market. They are looking to eliminate all private markets. As I have maintained from the beginning, their policy goals are merely short-term strategies to get them to their goal. And in America, overthrowing capitalism is an extreme goal. They are Socialists and are looking to end all private markets. Hence, they are looking to end all private capital. In other words, they are looking to end the profit motive which drives capitalist markets.

    So, my point is, and has always been, where do the parties draw the line? We know the GOP has a firm line against Nazis. However, the line for Democrats is much more unclear. Mao? Lenin? Stalin? Marxism? Castro? The DSA is looking to impose the same policies as Stalin or Castro and using the same Marxist premises based around class and power. Not to steal from Newt Gingrich, but I read an article where he referenced the Vox article I quoted. He noted the associated between the DSA and the Jacobin magazine. Who were the Jacobins?
    "a member of a democratic club established in Paris in 1789. The Jacobins were the most radical and ruthless of the political groups formed in the wake of the French Revolution, and in association with Robespierre they instituted the Terror of 1793–4. "
    https://www.google.com/search?q=Jaco...hrome&ie=UTF-8

    I don't find this an accident or a coincidence. These DSA members have openly sided with the Democratic party, are using Democratic party resources, and are being allowed by the Democrats to be associated with them. Seeing as I do not see anything remotely equivalent to this on the right at the current time, I'd say the Democrats are, right now, the more extremist party.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #139
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, can we agree now?
    No, we can't. What you quoted was not from the DSA's mission statement but from ONE member. If you can show that he was indeed speaking for the entirety of the group, then I'd be more inclined to consider that a smoking gun. But I went back and re-read the DSA page and there was no mention of ending Capitalism.

    But besides that, I don't think wanting to eliminate Capitalism makes on an extremist. It's a philosophical/economic position and besides that which advocates something truly horrible (like killing half of the population to conserve resources), I don't think any such position is inherently extremist. Who knows, maybe a pure Democratic Socialist country would be great and those who want such a thing are wiser than the rest of us. Or maybe not. I agree that actually taking such a position all the way in actuality would indeed be a radical change in this country (maybe for the better but a radical change nonetheless) but thinking it should be done is not the same thing as actually doing it.

    And keep in mind that I'm referring to merely holding that position in one's mind - thinking it and saying it. What actions one proposes to take due to their philosophy is more worthy of judgment. So I think DS actions and policy proposals are a much better indicator of whether a group is extremist or not.

    And I see nothing in DSAs policy proposals that strike me as extreme.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The DSA is not a group which is looking to exapnd the New Deal or to bring us a European style socialism. They are not looking to simply create a public health care market. They are looking to eliminate all private markets.
    First off, you have not supported that they are looking to eliminate all private markets - you only get there by "reading between the lines" of what they actually say.

    But besides that, they aren't proposing that we actually eliminate all private markets, are they? It's certainly not one of their policy proposals.

    Again, we are talking about the Democratic party here, not necessarily the DSA. If the DSA actually wants to eliminate private market but such a proposal never, ever makes it into the Democratic platform, then the issue is irrelevant to how extremist the Democratic party is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    As I have maintained from the beginning, their policy goals are merely short-term strategies to get them to their goal. And in America, overthrowing capitalism is an extreme goal. They are Socialists and are looking to end all private markets. Hence, they are looking to end all private capital. In other words, they are looking to end the profit motive which drives capitalist markets.
    That's what you've said from the beginning alright. And it's also what you've never supported.

    I'm not saying that they don't have goals beyond their current stated policy goals. I'm saying that IF they do, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE and to offer that it's anything in particular is nothing more than guesswork. So you guess that they want to do something much more extreme than Universal Health Care and so on. I'm not interested in your guesses but what you can support.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, my point is, and has always been, where do the parties draw the line? We know the GOP has a firm line against Nazis.
    We certainly do not know that. In fact, I made a very clear argument that they don't in my last post which you completely ignored when you decided to blow off addressing my arguments point-by-point. Seriously, I would have no problem with you not addressing my arguments point by point if you would at least address them (or the ones that are worth addressing) instead of blowing some of them off and making arguments as is if they weren't made. So I'm just going to re-post the part of my argument that you ignored.


    There are actual White Supremacists and Nazis running for GOP office. Of course the Washington GOP establishment don't support such candidates (although arguably their opposition to them is rather tepid) but obviously some of the voters do support them (or else they wouldn't win any primaries). And you have include the party's voters as part of the party (so we don't just look at the establishment and ignore the rest of the GOP member). In fact, the DSA inroads to the Democratic Party is pretty much based on voter support. I very much doubt that the DSA would have any influence in the Democratic party if it wasn't for the voter support that they've been getting.

    On top of that Trump said some of the Charlottesville White Supremacists are "very fine people" and refused to single them out for criticism but lumped them with the counter-protesters in his negative comments. And the GOP didn't really take him to task for essentially condoning them. And the Nazis and WSs generally think Trump is on their side. You'd think if there was a solid line between the GOP and the WSs, the WS would recognize such a line instead of thinking the president is pretty much on their side.

    So no, I vehemently disagree that the GOP has drawn a solid line on Nazis and White Supremacists. And while you can blow all of this off if you want, I do not blow if off and therefore do not agree with the position that the GOP has adequately drawn a line between them and White Supremacists and likewise will not accept that as a given in this debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, the line for Democrats is much more unclear. Mao? Lenin? Stalin? Marxism? Castro?
    None of them? That sounds about right considering that much of the DSA mission statement is in direct contradiction from any of those leaders.

    From their website:

    "We are activists committed to democracy as not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives."

    https://www.dsausa.org/about_dsa

    Now, if we take them at their word, which you say that you do, they want people to have a significant voice in their society which means that we cannot have a dictatorial ruler who can do what he wants to his subjects. None of the people you listed ran a society that resembled what I've quoted above from the DSAs website. So no Stalin. No Castro. Etc.

    If we are going to make an educated guess of where the limits will be, we look at what the limits are now and how those limits were set and can use the same formula to predict future limits.

    And the reason the DSA has made some inroads into the Democratic party is because their policies and message are popular with a significant amount of the Democratic base with the Democratic Establishment rather reluctantly giving them some credence once it became clear that they had plenty of popular support. So the key is popular support and likewise the limits will be largely set by popular support.

    So if the DSA proposes something extreme (like eliminating all private markets), it's safe to assume that the proposition will not have much popular support and therefore will not be implemented (or forwarded nor, most likely, even suggested).

    And again, the debate is about the Democrats, not the DSA, so even if the DSA proposed something truly extreme, if the Democratic party as a whole rejects it, then even extremism from the DSA won't lead to extremism in the Democratic party because the proposal will lack popular support and therefore will be rejected.


    And to some extent, future limits are off-topic. The issue is which party is more extreme NOW (titles say Democrats ARE more extreme, not Democrats will be more extreme in the future). So even if some Stalinist nightmare awaits the Democrats, that has nothing to do with who's more extreme right now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    These DSA members have openly sided with the Democratic party, are using Democratic party resources, and are being allowed by the Democrats to be associated with them. Seeing as I do not see anything remotely equivalent to this on the right at the current time, I'd say the Democrats are, right now, the more extremist party.
    Well, I agree that the Democrats are chummier with the DSA than the GOP is with the Nazis. But here's the difference. The Nazis are undeniably an extremist group whose agenda is appalling to most Americans. The DSA is not an extremist group and their stated policy goals (Universal Health Care, etc.) are quite popular with many US citizens.


    You have pointed to absolutely no policy positions or directly stated DSA mission statement that would qualify as extremist. Everything that you said is extremist is basically stuff you thought up and to some extent not even identifies (such as the unspoken extremist policy positions the DSA will forward after their spoken policy positions are met).
    Last edited by mican333; Yesterday at 07:00 AM.

  21. Likes CowboyX liked this post
 

 
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7

Similar Threads

  1. An Extreme Choice
    By LookAtTheStars in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 20th, 2012, 04:48 PM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: August 21st, 2009, 07:41 AM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 20th, 2007, 08:07 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 12th, 2006, 10:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •