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 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6
Results 101 to 112 of 112
  1. #101
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    You are offering examples of specific political tactics, not changes in underlying principles.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. #102
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,979
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This post is difficult to parse and refute because you are all over the place and have made gross generalizations leading to incorrect conclusions and false premises leading to faulty logic.
    And your arguments are...blah blah blah blah.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    As an example, your whole take on the DSA and Marxism. Marxism is essentially two components. The problem statement: dialecticism. The solution: Socialism (short-term). The DSA expresses a dialectic world view and they propose a socialist solution. Period.
    And I pointed out a direct difference between socialism and Marxism in my last post. But of course instead of rebutting my argument, you ignore it. Ignoring my rebuttals does not invalidate them. So I've supported that they are different. period.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Regarding lines, I am not asking you to judge the line or even agree with the line I think should exist. If you don't think Marxism is a good line to draw, fine. Ultimately, it is Democrats/liberals who need to offer up their own line.
    sigh. I addressed this issue in my last post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Where is the liberal (left wing) ideology which is extreme? I'd suggest it should be Marxism (at the very least), but I am not insisting on that as the line.
    Also addressed in my last post. As I said, no ideology is inherently extreme. I'm not saying Marxism is good but a little Marxism, just like a little racism or even a little evil is not extreme. EXTREME marxism/racism/evil is what's extreme.

    And I'm not going to go on repeating all of the arguments from my last post here. It's clear that you are generally ignoring all of my rebuttals to your argument and basically repeating your arguments as if I never offered a rebuttal and making some lame excuse about why you won't address them.

    So I'm finished responding to this post and hold that I have already effectively rebutted your entire argument in my last post, which you have essentially just ignored.

    So if you want to continue the debate, go back to my last post and actually rebut my arguments. If you don't want to, I don't really care to hear your excuse for not doing so.

  3. #103
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You are offering examples of specific political tactics, not changes in underlying principles.
    Then your argument falls apart since you're talking about the party that gave us social security, the wagner act, all manner and types of job programs, etc.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #104
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And your arguments are...blah blah blah blah.




    And I pointed out a direct difference between socialism and Marxism in my last post. But of course instead of rebutting my argument, you ignore it. Ignoring my rebuttals does not invalidate them. So I've supported that they are different. period.






    sigh. I addressed this issue in my last post.



    Also addressed in my last post. As I said, no ideology is inherently extreme. I'm not saying Marxism is good but a little Marxism, just like a little racism or even a little evil is not extreme. EXTREME marxism/racism/evil is what's extreme.

    And I'm not going to go on repeating all of the arguments from my last post here. It's clear that you are generally ignoring all of my rebuttals to your argument and basically repeating your arguments as if I never offered a rebuttal and making some lame excuse about why you won't address them.

    So I'm finished responding to this post and hold that I have already effectively rebutted your entire argument in my last post, which you have essentially just ignored.

    So if you want to continue the debate, go back to my last post and actually rebut my arguments. If you don't want to, I don't really care to hear your excuse for not doing so.
    You are hilarious. I rebutted your points. So, I guess go pretend you've addressed them and feel smug or whatever. For example, you made some comparison between Marxism and the DSA which I clearly refuted by breaking down Marxism into its essential components. You can ignore my rebuttal, but please don't claim I didn't offer one. You claimed Marxism isn't extreme if not taken to the extreme. I refuted this assessment by asking how one can implement Marxism partially. You offered a rebuttal about the GOP having a line. I demonstrated how your examples were rubbish. So, if you want to pretend you've rebutted my argument, feel free. Far be it for me to ruin your Pollyanna view of your own arguments.

    ---------- Post added at 08:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    And I think there are far more than you suspect, and the rest would just need a little persuading.
    You base this on??? To me, you're just sort of pulling this from your butt. If that's your opinion, ok, but it is not really a persuasive argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I didn't claim it was a counter-balance. I meant the D never-ending push left is in contrast with R being relatively stationary.
    Again, you are conflating the GOP desire for tradition with being stationary. The culture is being pushed and pulled. If the GOP was stationary, then the pendulum would always just keep moving left.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    And I think you're wrong. The fact that there is absolutely no push back from within the D party against Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez, and a rush towards their positions rather than away, with no effort to draw any kind of red line, suggests there won't be a line because they are at heart mostly communists, including several leftists posting on this forum.
    You offered an equation x=y=z etc. You conceded that not all liberals are Marxists or even socialists. You've simply insisted that there are more than I suspect. Still that implies your equation is simply wrong. If I claim birds = dinosaurs = lizards and you show me one lizard without wings, then my equation is wrong. Period. If you are going to make a logical proposition, then make sure it is valid.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  5. #105
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,979
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You are hilarious. I rebutted your points. So, I guess go pretend you've addressed them and feel smug or whatever. For example, you made some comparison between Marxism and the DSA which I clearly refuted by breaking down Marxism into its essential components.
    Well, here's my argument.

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

    And that is a significant difference between the two."


    And I personally do disagree with not being able to own private property (like a TV) so that is where adopting Marxism would concern me. So let's see your "rebuttal" to my point.

    Ibelsd: "As an example, your whole take on the DSA and Marxism. Marxism is essentially two components. The problem statement: dialecticism. The solution: Socialism (short-term). The DSA expresses a dialectic world view and they propose a socialist solution."

    That does not rebut my argument at all.

    Quite simply, if DS does not have, as part of its platform, banning private ownership of property (so i cannot own a TV if I want), then it's not Marxism - even if there is some common ground (such as socialism).





    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You claimed Marxism isn't extreme if not taken to the extreme. I refuted this assessment by asking how one can implement Marxism partially.
    I do not see such a question asked of me.

    Please copy and paste the specific question you asked of me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You offered a rebuttal about the GOP having a line. I demonstrated how your examples were rubbish. So, if you want to pretend you've rebutted my argument, feel free. Far be it for me to ruin your Pollyanna view of your own arguments.
    Look who's talking. Instead of addressing my arguments, you just tell me what you think the argument is and what happened. I don't care what you think happened or didn't happen. The only rebuttals to my arguments are the ones that directly address points I made. Your summation of what you think happened doesn't count.

  6. #106
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, here's my argument.

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

    And that is a significant difference between the two."


    And I personally do disagree with not being able to own private property (like a TV) so that is where adopting Marxism would concern me. So let's see your "rebuttal" to my point.

    Ibelsd: "As an example, your whole take on the DSA and Marxism. Marxism is essentially two components. The problem statement: dialecticism. The solution: Socialism (short-term). The DSA expresses a dialectic world view and they propose a socialist solution."

    That does not rebut my argument at all.
    Of course it rebuts your argument. They are proposing socialism. The reason for the disconnect is because you've actually just invented this supposed DSA policy position. They are Socialists. They state this all over their websites. Any distinction between socialism and what DSA is proposing as socialism is invented in your head. If you believe the DSA has invented a new strain of socialism, please support this position.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Quite simply, if DS does not have, as part of its platform, banning private ownership of property (so i cannot own a TV if I want), then it's not Marxism - even if there is some common ground (such as socialism).
    Marxism proposes socialism as the means of changing the economy. It is the solution for Marxists and members of the DSA. Your sidetrack onto some imaginary socialist derivation is irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I do not see such a question asked of me.

    Please copy and paste the specific question you asked of me.

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

    Again, this is an issue of ideology. One cannot be a partial Marxist. Such a thing does not exist. Either you believe the system is rigged and you want to fix it by imposing socialism or you do not. If you don't believe the system is rigged, you aren't a Marxist. If you don't want to replace capitalism with socialism, you aren't a Marxist. So, if I didn't ask before, I'll ask now. How can someone be a partial Marxist?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Look who's talking. Instead of addressing my arguments, you just tell me what you think the argument is and what happened. I don't care what you think happened or didn't happen. The only rebuttals to my arguments are the ones that directly address points I made. Your summation of what you think happened doesn't count.
    Ok Col Jessup. Slow your roll. I've rebutted your arguments and I cannot be held accountable if you want to dodge them. I take it you've conceded the point that the GOP has done a decent job of setting its own line.

    As a clarification, you directly quoted me and you are referring to the OP. But, I've never supported the OP's position. I am not defending the OP and don't think the question of defining extreme ever occurred in a meaningful way. So, I attempted to define extreme as it related to the two major parties. But, rather than simply saying X position is extreme, I've attempted to introduce a little nuance and prevent this from becoming a left wing v right wing pissing match (which this thread had devolved into). Your basic rebuttal has been extreme is only defined when a position is carried out absolutely (i.e. to its extreme). This, though, ignores a point I've tried to make here which is that certain ideologies would require a drastic transformation of America to be implemented. Fascism and Marxism are two such ideologies and there is no such thing as being a little fascist or a little Marxist. Either one ascribes to that ideology or they do not. Either the ideology is allowed to exist within the larger group or it is not. In reality, if you disagree with this basic premise, then please point out a group which claims to hold a Marxist ideology, but not entirely. Show me how this works. As I see it Marxism requires two conditions (a basic premise you have not refuted) which are 1) dialecticism 2) socialism. If either condition is missing, then it ain't Marxism. If one has a dialectic world view and they believe the solution is socialism, it is downright hard to imagine they'd be willing to settle for imposing the solution without actually solving the problem (i.e. imposing the solution partially). And if one does not hold a dialectic world view, then they aren't Marxist to begin with. To date, you have not refuted this basic construction of Marxism. All you've done is added a condition which is already baked into the meaning of socialism and then pretended the condition has not been met because it was not specifically addressed. I think I challenged you to support this claim above. If not, I am challenging you to do it now.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. #107
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,979
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Of course it rebuts your argument. They are proposing socialism. The reason for the disconnect is because you've actually just invented this supposed DSA policy position. They are Socialists. They state this all over their websites. Any distinction between socialism and what DSA is proposing as socialism is invented in your head. If you believe the DSA has invented a new strain of socialism, please support this position.
    I didn't say they aren't socialist. I said they aren't Marxists. And I've supported that they aren't Marxist by showing that they have not adopted all of the positions of Marxism, such as banning the ownership of private property.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, this is an issue of ideology. One cannot be a partial Marxist. Such a thing does not exist. Either you believe the system is rigged and you want to fix it by imposing socialism or you do not. If you don't believe the system is rigged, you aren't a Marxist. If you don't want to replace capitalism with socialism, you aren't a Marxist. So, if I didn't ask before, I'll ask now. How can someone be a partial Marxist?
    By wanting more Marxism practiced within the US but not wanting complete Marxism in the US. I'm not so familiar with Marxism that I forward really good examples so let me use Socialism instead.

    Since I support most of the ways the US currently practices socialism (publicly funded schools and police) and likewise would like more socialism than we have in some areas (implementing universal health care), I am for moving the US in a more socialist direction in some respects and therefore want some socialism but I don't want us to be completely socialist. So I advocate some socialism but I would not consider my position to be extremist which I would be if socialism itself is extremist.

    And for that matter, the debate is about Democratic Socialism and not Marxism so I have provided an example of how Socialism is not inherently extremist (which would apply to Democratic Socialism). So given that, either socialism is indeed different than Marxism (because if Marxism is inherently extremist but socialism is not then they are different in that way) or Marxism is not extremist because it's the same as socialism which isn't extremist.





    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Ok Col Jessup. Slow your roll. I've rebutted your arguments and I cannot be held accountable if you want to dodge them. I take it you've conceded the point that the GOP has done a decent job of setting its own line.
    No. I directly rebutted your claim that they have (post 97, third comment) and you have not directly responded to my rebuttal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Your basic rebuttal has been extreme is only defined when a position is carried out absolutely (i.e. to its extreme). This, though, ignores a point I've tried to make here which is that certain ideologies would require a drastic transformation of America to be implemented. Fascism and Marxism are two such ideologies and there is no such thing as being a little fascist or a little Marxist.
    And I disagree and therefore ask that you support that position.

    I
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    n reality, if you disagree with this basic premise, then please point out a group which claims to hold a Marxist ideology, but not entirely.
    Shifting the burden. You need to support your claim before I need to rebut it.

    And I have shown how one can be a little socialist and don't see why one cannot be a little Marxist by the same reasoning. So I don't know about groups but I think a person can think that we need to move more towards Marxism but not move there entirely. just like I think we should move more toward socialism. In fact, you seem to be using Marxism and Socialism interchangeably so perhaps I'm advocating more Marxism without going to extremes.
    Last edited by mican333; July 19th, 2018 at 06:12 AM.

  8. #108
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't say they aren't socialist. I said they aren't Marxists. And I've supported that they aren't Marxist by showing that they have not adopted all of the positions of Marxism, such as banning the ownership of private property.
    No. You have not and I explained why you have not done this.
    1) You have not supported your claim that the DSA actually supports private property rights in the long-term.
    2) Marxism is not entirely clear on this point. It is complex and one cannot merely say all property rights in a Marxist society are banned. It depends on who is making the claim to the property within the socio-economic and legal framework. This goes back to Hegal and dialecticism.

    So, you have made an unsupported claim and it is based on a misunderstanding of socialism under Marxism which brings me to the third point.
    3) The mechanism (system) Marxism utilizes to alter property rights is socialism. So, you cannot look at DSA which proclaims itself as Socialists and then claim that they differ from Marxism on the counter-claim that they are not really Socialists.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    By wanting more Marxism practiced within the US but not wanting complete Marxism in the US. I'm not so familiar with Marxism that I forward really good examples so let me use Socialism instead.
    How does one want more Marxism? There just seems like a lot to unpack in this statement.
    Marxism does not equal Socialism. This is especially true when you are using socialism as you do in your examples. Yes, I can be for and against differing levels of socialism as a non-Marxist. However, a key component of Marxism which is not a necessary condition of socialism, is a dialectic view. Marxism isn't just an economic or political ideology. It is a socio-political ideology. It isn't merely some set of proposals to make the world a better place. It is a set of proposals based on a dialectic foundation.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And for that matter, the debate is about Democratic Socialism and not Marxism so I have provided an example of how Socialism is not inherently extremist (which would apply to Democratic Socialism). So given that, either socialism is indeed different than Marxism (because if Marxism is inherently extremist but socialism is not then they are different in that way) or Marxism is not extremist because it's the same as socialism which isn't extremist.
    The debate is about extremism and where to draw the line for each party. Democratic Socialism as defined by the DSA (the group which both Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are paying members) describes themselves as Socialists and also promote a dialectic world view. They use Marxist terminology to describe their intentions. They even have a planned symposium on Marxism. They may not be calling themselves Marxists, but this seems like a rather trivial distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. I directly rebutted your claim that they have (post 97, third comment) and you have not directly responded to my rebuttal.
    I actually did in post 98 which you completely ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I disagree and therefore ask that you support that position.
    Fine. Disagree. However, I am awaiting your explanation of partial-Marxism.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Shifting the burden. You need to support your claim before I need to rebut it.
    No. You are claiming something can exist which I do not believe is possible. If it exists, then demonstrate it to be so. I cannot prove a negative.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I have shown how one can be a little socialist and don't see why one cannot be a little Marxist by the same reasoning. So I don't know about groups but I think a person can think that we need to move more towards Marxism but not move there entirely. just like I think we should move more toward socialism. In fact, you seem to be using Marxism and Socialism interchangeably so perhaps I'm advocating more Marxism without going to extremes.
    And I have shown why your comparison fails. There is no such thing as moving a little towards Marxism. It does not make sense and in my previous post I explained why.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. #109
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    How does one want more Marxism? There just seems like a lot to unpack in this statement.
    Marxism does not equal Socialism. This is especially true when you are using socialism as you do in your examples. Yes, I can be for and against differing levels of socialism as a non-Marxist. However, a key component of Marxism which is not a necessary condition of socialism, is a dialectic view. Marxism isn't just an economic or political ideology. It is a socio-political ideology. It isn't merely some set of proposals to make the world a better place. It is a set of proposals based on a dialectic foundation.
    Capitalism isn't?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #110
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,979
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    First off, I would like you to support that Marxism is inherently extremist. I'm not really offering a challenge but for the sake of your argument, what exactly is extremist must be identified. What SPECIFICALLY about Marxism makes it extremist? I originally agreed that Marxism is extremist because it wants to ban all ownership or private property but below you have said that that is not necessarily their position so I guess that's not is. So now I don't know what is supposedly extremist about then in terms of the debate. If you can't identify what is extremist about them, then you can't argue the DSA is extremist by tying them to Marxism.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No. You have not and I explained why you have not done this.
    1) You have not supported your claim that the DSA actually supports private property rights in the long-term.
    Shifting the burden. It's your claim that their agendas are the same so it's your burden to show that DSA has the same agenda, including the issue of property rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    2) Marxism is not entirely clear on this point. It is complex and one cannot merely say all property rights in a Marxist society are banned. It depends on who is making the claim to the property within the socio-economic and legal framework.
    Then I would say that the term Marxism is too vague for one to make any credible argument that DSA has the same agenda. Obviously to make the case that their agendas are essentially the same, one has to lay out the Marxist agenda in its entirety and show that the DSA agrees on all, or a significant number of points on the agenda to be considered essentially the same.

    So instead of taking the positive position that there are differences in their agendas, I will change tactic and say that the claim that their agendas are the same has not been supported and reject your argument on that basis.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, you have made an unsupported claim and it is based on a misunderstanding of socialism under Marxism which brings me to the third point.
    3) The mechanism (system) Marxism utilizes to alter property rights is socialism. So, you cannot look at DSA which proclaims itself as Socialists and then claim that they differ from Marxism on the counter-claim that they are not really Socialists.
    I don't. Instead I challenge you to support that they are the same. If you want to say that the use the same goals to get where they are going, go ahead. But that does not at all support that their end goals are the same.

    In fact, I've stated that I support Universal Health Care and therefore am advocating using socialism to give US citizens better Health care. Since that doesn't make me a Marxist (my goal is entirely different), I have supported that "using socialism" does not make one a Marxist. And unless you are going to call me an extremist, I have also supported that wanting to direct the US towards more socialism than it currently practices does not make one an extremist either. So okay, DCA wants to use socialism to achieve its goals. That doesn't make them Marxist or Extremist any more than it makes me a Marxist/extremist for supporting UHC.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    How does one want more Marxism? There just seems like a lot to unpack in this statement.
    Marxism does not equal Socialism. This is especially true when you are using socialism as you do in your examples. Yes, I can be for and against differing levels of socialism as a non-Marxist. However, a key component of Marxism which is not a necessary condition of socialism, is a dialectic view.
    Please support this. I'm not so much offering a challenge but asking for more detail.

    For starters explain what you mean by Marxism having a dialectic view and why that's an extremist position. I have not necessarily concede dthat Marxism itself is extremist (which should not be construed as taking the position that it's OK) so you do need to explain what specifically is "extreme" about Marxism before you an tie another group to Extremism by invoking similarities to Marxism.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The debate is about extremism and where to draw the line for each party. Democratic Socialism as defined by the DSA (the group which both Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are paying members) describes themselves as Socialists and also promote a dialectic world view.
    Which, so far, does not support that they are Marxist or Extremist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    They use Marxist terminology to describe their intentions. They even have a planned symposium on Marxism. They may not be calling themselves Marxists, but this seems like a rather trivial distinction.
    I would say it seems like a huge reach. Talking about Marxism does not make one a Marxist.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I actually did in post 98 which you completely ignored.
    There is nothing in post 98 the countered my statement. You did address it, but you did not back up your position that a good line was made.
    Last edited by mican333; July 20th, 2018 at 06:25 AM.

  11. #111
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    @ Ibelsd

    How is this statement of purpose functionally different than communism?

    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.

    https://www.dsausa.org/constitution

    Rejection of private profit.
    Popular (government) control of resources and production.
    Centralized planning.
    Struggle to eliminate class structure.

    Sounds like Marxism-Communism to me, but is just euphemistically called Democratic Socialism.

    And membership is "surging" as Democrats flock to join: https://apnews.com/a1770fd620d94bf58d0ff1035d3e0eea
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  12. #112
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,979
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Since there seems to be a certain level of argument from ignorance in equating socialism and communism, essentially arguing that because one does not understand the difference between the two, there is no difference, I'll explain the difference.

    "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/

 

 
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6

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
  •