Democrats are More Divisive

[CowboyX]

Please support or retract your statement that "makers and takers" is commonly used among the members of the GOP.

Fox News Resurrects “Makers vs. Takers” Narrative To Predict Civil War

Fox News is again using its own bogus narrative to stoke fears of a civil war in the U.S. between “makers” and “takers,” after repeatedly pushing the argument that people who receive government benefits are “takers” and pitting them against “makers.”

But the concept of society being divided into “makers” and “takers” is a manufactured distinction, one that Fox has pushed aggressively.

The following support traces it back to Romney, the republican presidential nominee, and how it was picked up by right wing media - the GOP's propoganda arm. That doesn't mean it didn't come from somewhere else - I already provided another example.

There's a whole page of examples here.

Here too:

---------

Just for info here's my original statement from post 43:

Ok, not yours. The conservative propaganda arm. "Makers" and "takers" is commonly used.

No mention of the GOP...which I said. I've provided it's origins in the popular media nonetheless following from the highest ranks of the GOP. My original statement is supported above.

[Ibelsd]

I would say that socialism can occur with a wide variety of underlying ideologies so there is no one underlying ideology of socialism. There certainly was not one mentioned in the definition I provided. If you want to argue that there is a central underlying ideology to socialism, you will need to support it with a link to a definition of socialism.





Nope. My argument is that socialism is not inherently divisive nor requires there to be out-groups. The definition I provided, which is the ONLY definition that has been provided in our debate, doesn't indicate that out groups must exist. It seems to indicate that everyone is on the same level, in fact. Here it is again.

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."






Which has no relevance to whether socialism itself requires a transition.





Of course it is possible. Except for that which is impossible, anything is possible. So unless you can support that the hypothetical scenario I forwarded is impossible, it MUST be considered possible. Since you refrained from addressing it directly in favor of a general statement, I will re-paste it.

Hypothetically there's an area of land where no one lives. A group of people arrive and decide to form a community. They all agree that a socialist economic system would be best so they set up a socialist society. So there you go - a socialist society can arise without transitioning from a different society. This fits the ONLY definition of socialism provided in this debate and there is nothing forwarded in this debate that supports that this cannot happen of if it did, it would not technically qualify as a socialist society.

So I have supported that it's possible for a socialist society to arise without transitioning from a different society.




First off, you are moving the goal post. The argument I was addressing is that the THEORY of socialism requires out-groups. I have supported that this is not so. If you want to accept this and move on to another point, fine. In fact, I'll operate on the notion that you have conceded this particular point and have moved on from whether socialism is inherently divisive to whether Democrats are more divisive.

If you don't continue to argue about the theory of socialism, I will consider this point conceded.

So moving on.

First off, don't bother throwing the word "Marxist" around. When someone attacks Democrats or Socialists from a right-wing perspective using the word "Marxist" I don't trust their understanding of Marxism well enough to make a solid argument with it.

And the goal of social justice is not inherently wrong, especially when it's needed. I mean freeing the slaves during the civil war was social justice. Granting women the right to vote is social justice. Legalizing gay marriage is social justice. And yes, in all instances there WERE groups that were oppressed on some level and granting them social justice was clearly the right reaction to a real problem. And there is no proposal from Bernie etc. to move the US to an entirely socialist system. They are proposing Universal Health Care, which practically every Western Nation already has. So are they all Marxist regimes? If they aren't, then how is the US moving towards being more like them "Marxist"? Again, I do not trust you or really any right-winger to accurately use the word "marxism" in debate. If you want to criticize Universal Health Care or any particular proposal that Bernie etc. is forwarding, then tell me exactly what you find worrisome about it (like what bad thing do you think will happen). Vaguely referring to Marxism is a non-starter. If they are bad, you should be able to describe actual harm that should occur.

And beyond that "More divisive" is a relative term. The argument is not that Democrats are divisive but that they are more divisive than Republicans and such an argument is completely unsupportable. I mean I can argue that Republicans are more divisive and point to a bunch of Trump's speeches and connect the El Paso shooting to his speeches and pull out some other examples and then you can point to whatever you think might make your case regarding the Democrats but how on Earth are we going to judge who provided "more" than the other person? The number of things you and I can point to is virtually endless and then how do we score each event for how divisive it is? And whose to judge to determine that one of us did a better job than the other?

Really, I was here to point out that socialism, in theory, is not divisive and has no out-groups. That, I believe, I have done. Trying to argue which side is more divisive and possibly win a debate on the matter is a fool's errand.

No, I get it, you are making this semantic argument which is really a waste of time. Why? First, because the U.S. is not a socialist society. Therefore, any attempt to make it socialist would require a transition. Therefore, any presupposition that a Utopian socialist society could occur is not applicable. Since the horse has already left the barn, we have an existing society with an existing economy, then we must utilize a definition and theory of socialism which takes this into account. Your definition does not and the idea of Utopian socialism does not apply. What we have left is scientific socialism which is a Marxist claim. As from my source, transitioning from capitalism to socialism, this is a process which very much uses in-groups and out-groups. I am not moving the goal posts. This has been my claim the entire time. You have attempted to move the field to an imaginary place where your single-sentence definition of socialism somehow fits. When Democratic politicians are demanding socialism, they are doing so in a capitalist nation. Therefore, the only definition and theory of socialism which matters is one which takes this into account. That happens to be Marxist (or an offshoot of Marxism) which we can generally call neo-Marxism. After all, I have never claimed Democrats are making strictly class based claims as Marx did. They have added all sorts of oppressed groups under their umbrella. If you have an oppressed group, then you must have someone or something doing the oppressing. This is the very foundation of dialecticism.

Now, as to your second point, whether the Dems are more divisive than the GOP, you have a point which I do not entirely disagree with you about. However, under the current climate I look at it like this. The GOP, at its most right, tends towards nationalism and fascism. But, at the current time, the GOP isn't claiming some Americans don't belong here. They have placed decent limits on themselves. I know certain members will hollar about Trump's comments, but 1) he isn't the entire GOP and 2) nothing in the GOP platform suggests they'd follow anything close to the kind of nationalism which Americans need to fear. Consider true nationalist regimes where those who were deemed unpatriotic were exiled, jailed, or executed. Nothing the GOP has done suggests policies anywhere near this. They are not running on policies which demonize groups of Americans. At least I am not seeing it. The Dems, though, are doing this. Evil bankers. Evil pharma. They need to be locked up. THeir businesses need to be nationalized. This is the basis for my claim right now.

[mican333]

No, I get it, you are making this semantic argument which is really a waste of time.

No, it's not a semantic argument. It has been directly stated in this debate that socialism inherently contains in-groups and out-groups as if socialism is inherently divisive. And you yourself have attempted to support that position with the article from that Marxism book. So this was a very relevant aspect to the debate and I have SUPPORTED that the original argument is incorrect - that socialism is not inherently divisive.

So you are moving of from what we were arguing and saying, in essence, "Okay, you were right that socialism is not inherently divisive but Democrats are trying to transition us from Capitalism to Socialism so let's move on to that".

So I will proceed as if that's our understanding.

First, because the U.S. is not a socialist society. Therefore, any attempt to make it socialist would require a transition.

And you seem to be forwarding the premise that Democratic party is trying to make the US a socialist country. I disagree with that premise and therefore reject all arguments that have that as a premise.

More on that below.

Since the horse has already left the barn, we have an existing society with an existing economy, then we must utilize a definition and theory of socialism which takes this into account. Your definition does not and the idea of Utopian socialism does not apply. What we have left is scientific socialism which is a Marxist claim. As from my source, transitioning from capitalism to socialism, this is a process which very much uses in-groups and out-groups. I am not moving the goal posts. This has been my claim the entire time. You have attempted to move the field to an imaginary place where your single-sentence definition of socialism somehow fits.

No I was directly rebutting an argument that MT forwarded and you attempted to support.

And I agree that we aren't discussing a utopian socialist state but then your argument is not accurate either as we are not transitioning from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society. I dot not think that that is Democratic agenda nor have you supported that it is.

When Democratic politicians are demanding socialism, they are doing so in a capitalist nation.

I disagree on both accounts. I disagree that we are a entirely Capitalist nation (some aspects of our society is paid for with tax dollars, which seem to be how we are defining socialism so we aren't entirely Capitalist) nor do I agree that any Democrat is proposing that we go full socialist.

I see the Progressive Democrats moving a society with some socialism already intertwined to a society with more socialism (such as having healthcare taxpayer funded instead of privately funded). A fully socialist society would, by definition, be one where ALL industry is government-owned. That has not be proposed and therefore I disagree that Democrats are trying to move us from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society.

I also don't see how any of the actual proposals that the Democrats propose, if implemented would create "out-groups".

Therefore, the only definition and theory of socialism which matters is one which takes this into account. That happens to be Marxist (or an offshoot of Marxism) which we can generally call neo-Marxism. After all, I have never claimed Democrats are making strictly class based claims as Marx did. They have added all sorts of oppressed groups under their umbrella. If you have an oppressed group, then you must have someone or something doing the oppressing. This is the very foundation of dialecticism.

And as I said in my last post and you entirely ignored, I don't trust your understanding of Marxism and therefore reject all arguments that forward Marxism by you.

And as I said, I don't see the US becoming a socialist state even if we elect the most progressive Democratic Candidate we have. Bernie isn't suggesting that we give all private industry to the government.

Now, as to your second point, whether the Dems are more divisive than the GOP, you have a point which I do not entirely disagree with you about. However, under the current climate I look at it like this. The GOP, at its most right, tends towards nationalism and fascism. But, at the current time, the GOP isn't claiming some Americans don't belong here. They have placed decent limits on themselves. I know certain members will hollar about Trump's comments, but 1) he isn't the entire GOP and 2) nothing in the GOP platform suggests they'd follow anything close to the kind of nationalism which Americans need to fear. Consider true nationalist regimes where those who were deemed unpatriotic were exiled, jailed, or executed. Nothing the GOP has done suggests policies anywhere near this. They are not running on policies which demonize groups of Americans. At least I am not seeing it. The Dems, though, are doing this. Evil bankers. Evil pharma. They need to be locked up. THeir businesses need to be nationalized. This is the basis for my claim right now.

First off, you are subjectively explaining away very divisive language from The President and his base ("Send her back!). I consider this very divisive and don't choose to not count that as very divisive.

And what you are contributing to he Dems, I have not heard. They may complain about specific things that bankers and pharma are doing but I've not heard the narrative that they are all evil and I've certainly never heard any prominent Democrat forward that businesses should be nationalized.

So your basis, from my perspective, it to downplay things that the Republicans ARE saying and forwarding tings that Democrats generally aren't saying as their platform.

In short, it appears your judgement is heavily influenced by political bias. And I won't say it's any different for me, BTW.

But since political bias is subjective, then our respective arguments are likewise subjective and therefore primarily opinion.

Okay, so I have your OPINION that Democrats are more divisive. But do you know of any way that we can objectively determine who is more divisive? No? Okay then, so all we have is opinion-based criteria and that's not valid criteria.

So again, there is no way for either side to win the debate so my ultimate response to your opinion is "Your opinion is noted". And you may say the same for my opinion. If you have any way to provide a supported argument, let me know.

[Ibelsd]

No, it's not a semantic argument. It has been directly stated in this debate that socialism inherently contains in-groups and out-groups as if socialism is inherently divisive. And you yourself have attempted to support that position with the article from that Marxism book. So this was a very relevant aspect to the debate and I have SUPPORTED that the original argument is incorrect - that socialism is not inherently divisive.

So you are moving of from what we were arguing and saying, in essence, "Okay, you were right that socialism is not inherently divisive but Democrats are trying to transition us from Capitalism to Socialism so let's move on to that".

So I will proceed as if that's our understanding.






And you seem to be forwarding the premise that Democratic party is trying to make the US a socialist country. I disagree with that premise and therefore reject all arguments that have that as a premise.

More on that below.



No I was directly rebutting an argument that MT forwarded and you attempted to support.

And I agree that we aren't discussing a utopian socialist state but then your argument is not accurate either as we are not transitioning from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society. I dot not think that that is Democratic agenda nor have you supported that it is.






I disagree on both accounts. I disagree that we are a entirely Capitalist nation (some aspects of our society is paid for with tax dollars, which seem to be how we are defining socialism so we aren't entirely Capitalist) nor do I agree that any Democrat is proposing that we go full socialist.

I see the Progressive Democrats moving a society with some socialism already intertwined to a society with more socialism (such as having healthcare taxpayer funded instead of privately funded). A fully socialist society would, by definition, be one where ALL industry is government-owned. That has not be proposed and therefore I disagree that Democrats are trying to move us from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society.

I also don't see how any of the actual proposals that the Democrats propose, if implemented would create "out-groups".



And as I said in my last post and you entirely ignored, I don't trust your understanding of Marxism and therefore reject all arguments that forward Marxism by you.

And as I said, I don't see the US becoming a socialist state even if we elect the most progressive Democratic Candidate we have. Bernie isn't suggesting that we give all private industry to the government.



And your view is apparently based on heavy political bias and, it seems, ignoring certain things.

You said Republicans aren't saying that some Americans don't belong here. Trump made a tweet telling four American women (the Squad) to go back to the countries they came from. And his crowd yelled "Send her back" over and over again while Trump just smiled. And I've seen plenty of videos of MAGA folk telling hispanic people to leave the country even though some of the people are American Citizens.

And I don't see Democrats saying that bankers and pharma execs need to be locked up (beyond those who actually committed crimes like Skreli) and there certainly has not been any wide-spread call to nationalize all of their businesses. So the basis of your claim seems to be pretty fictional.

And again, THERE IS NO WAY for this portion of the debate to be settled. There is no objective, or agreed-upon, standard for judging the quantity or quality of whatever "evidence" that we may forward.

I could subjectively say that what I forwarded is worth a million points and what you forwarded pretty much doesn't count and whatever do you forward in the future will count, like, single digit points so there is no way you will reach a million points so I win. And of course you can do the same and give yourself a million points and me ten point and then you win. And of course both of our respective "victories" mean absolutely nothing since our scoring is subjective.

So until a system is created for scoring that we both agree upon, there is no way for either of us to win the debate.

So I'll just say it's my opinion that Republicans are more divisive and it's your opinion that Republicans are more divisive and if you want to state your opinion some more, I will note that you voiced your opinion.

That's cute I guess. Perhaps cute by half as they say. I specifically explained how Trump's rhetoric isn't emblematic of the entire party. For instance, did Trump propose a policy whereby the 'Squad' should be forced to relocate? Obviously, his rhetoric can be divisive. I am certainly not arguing the GOP (nor Trump) is divisiveness free. Their platform and policies, though, aren't doing anything remotely suggesting the rhetoric you described. On the other hand, the Dems put forth legislation, the Green New Deal, which is outright soclialism. Per Chakrabarti:

“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,”

Change it into what? Well, his vision is apparently
The proposal also

calls for

“social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership.”

This is the very thing you are claiming Democrats are not attempting to achieve. This legislation is backed by every single Democratic nominee.

https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-2020-candidates-support-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-1325775

In other words, every Democratic Presidential nominee is back legislation which is aimed at creating a socialist society. And just going back to the GND noted above, their motivation is based on the concept/idea that under capitalism, various groups are oppressed. I think the nomenclature for this is social/economic justice. And this brings about ideas such as that healthcare should be run by the government. That pharma companies should be controlled by the government. That various industries are immoral (see those that the GND wishes to eliminate). And this isn't a new story in the world. We have seen this sort of thing play out all over the world and it always produces violence and that violence is always justified by blaming the oppression on various others. It is no different than nationalism which points foreigners as impure or undeserving of citizenship. And I'm not referring to mere immigration laws, but to laws which seek to import those who are already citizens based on various immutable characteristics. This is something you have hinted Trump is guilty of and a long time ago, I was very candid in saying we should be absolutely on-guard against Trump's rhetoric as it could lead to very bad things. However, outside of Trump, the GOP is still relatively restrained and seemingly has limits it isn't willing to cross. For example, just about every noteworthy member of the GOP has denounced white supremist movements. However, do we see the Democratic party denounce Marxists, socialists, or anyone associated with those groups? I don't think so. And that is why the dems are simply more decisive right now than the GOP.

[mican333]

That's cute I guess. Perhaps cute by half as they say. I specifically explained how Trump's rhetoric isn't emblematic of the entire party. For instance, did Trump propose a policy whereby the 'Squad' should be forced to relocate? Obviously, his rhetoric can be divisive. I am certainly not arguing the GOP (nor Trump) is divisiveness free. Their platform and policies, though, aren't doing anything remotely suggesting the rhetoric you described. On the other hand, the Dems put forth legislation, the Green New Deal, which is outright soclialism. Per Chakrabarti:

“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,”

Change it into what? Well, his vision is apparently
The proposal also

calls for

“social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership.”

This is the very thing you are claiming Democrats are not attempting to achieve. This legislation is backed by every single Democratic nominee.

https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-2020-candidates-support-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-1325775

In other words, every Democratic Presidential nominee is back legislation which is aimed at creating a socialist society. And just going back to the GND noted above, their motivation is based on the concept/idea that under capitalism, various groups are oppressed. I think the nomenclature for this is social/economic justice. And this brings about ideas such as that healthcare should be run by the government. That pharma companies should be controlled by the government. That various industries are immoral (see those that the GND wishes to eliminate). And this isn't a new story in the world. We have seen this sort of thing play out all over the world and it always produces violence and that violence is always justified by blaming the oppression on various others. It is no different than nationalism which points foreigners as impure or undeserving of citizenship. And I'm not referring to mere immigration laws, but to laws which seek to import those who are already citizens based on various immutable characteristics.

Well, that's an interesting theory but I'm not buying it.

I disagree that the GND is aimed a creating a socialist society (can you point to the part of the part of the document which states that the government should control ALL US industries?) nor do I find any of the proposals to be inherently divisive. If you want to slippery-slope theory what is proposed to a future of violence and oppression, you may but I'm not buying into it.

I don't think it proposes that government run healthcare but that government fund healthcare. And I don't think there's a proposal to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry.

Also from the article you used regarding candidate support of the GND

"And, in fact, the majority of Republicans and Democratic voters support the proposal, according to a December poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. The survey showed that 64 percent of Republicans backed the Green New Deal, as did the overwhelming majority – 92 percent – of Democrats."

And a majority of the public supports a government health care plan.

Proposing policies that people generally support is not "divisive".

This is something you have hinted Trump is guilty of and a long time ago, I was very candid in saying we should be absolutely on-guard against Trump's rhetoric as it could lead to very bad things. However, outside of Trump, the GOP is still relatively restrained and seemingly has limits it isn't willing to cross. For example, just about every noteworthy member of the GOP has denounced white supremist movements. However, do we see the Democratic party denounce Marxists, socialists, or anyone associated with those groups? I don't think so. And that is why the dems are simply more decisive right now than the GOP.

That's because Marxism and Socialism are not divisive forces in our country. I agree that Marxism, by definition, is conflict-oriented but there's not a bunch of Marxists causing problems in the US so there's no need to address them. But we definitely have a White Nationalist problem.

And I find the denunciation of Trump's rhetortic from Republicans to be tepid at best. The only ones who really stand up to him and let him have it are those who are leaving office. Nor does the fact still remove the fact that Trump, the party leader, IS engaging in divisive rhetoric and many of his supporters cheer him on. Again, he told fellow congresswomen to leave the country and his rallygoers chanted "Send her back" about one of them. If you want to try to explain it away with "Well, others in his party don't agree" doesn't change the fact that this happened and is part of Republican divisiveness. Your decision to downplay it is subjective. Okay, that's the way you see it but I am under no obligation to see it your way and therefore I can, and do, hold that this is a very bid deal.

And likewise I see little wrong with the GND.

QUESTION - Do you understand that we will always having to end up agreeing to disagree here and that this debate on who is more divisive is unwinnable by either of us?

[Ibelsd]

Well, that's an interesting theory but I'm not buying it.

I disagree that the GND is aimed a creating a socialist society (can you point to the part of the part of the document which states that the government should control ALL US industries?) nor do I find any of the proposals to be inherently divisive. If you want to slippery-slope theory what is proposed to a future of violence and oppression, you may but I'm not buying into it.

I don't think it proposes that government run healthcare but that government fund healthcare. And I don't think there's a proposal to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry.

Also from the article you used regarding candidate support of the GND

"And, in fact, the majority of Republicans and Democratic voters support the proposal, according to a December poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. The survey showed that 64 percent of Republicans backed the Green New Deal, as did the overwhelming majority – 92 percent – of Democrats."

And a majority of the public supports a government health care plan.

Proposing policies that people generally support is not "divisive".






That's because Marxism and Socialism are not divisive forces in our country. I agree that Marxism, by definition, is conflict-oriented but there's not a bunch of Marxists causing problems in the US so there's no need to address them. But we definitely have a White Nationalist problem.

And I find the denunciation of Trump's rhetortic from Republicans to be tepid at best. The only ones who really stand up to him and let him have it are those who are leaving office. Nor does the fact still remove the fact that Trump, the party leader, IS engaging in divisive rhetoric and many of his supporters cheer him on. Again, he told fellow congresswomen to leave the country and his rallygoers chanted "Send her back" about one of them. If you want to try to explain it away with "Well, others in his party don't agree" doesn't change the fact that this happened and is part of Republican divisiveness. Your decision to downplay it is subjective. Okay, that's the way you see it but I am under no obligation to see it your way and therefore I can, and do, hold that this is a very bid deal.

And likewise I see little wrong with the GND.

QUESTION - Do you understand that we will always having to end up agreeing to disagree here and that this debate on who is more divisive is unwinnable by either of us?

You can disagree with me about the GND all you want. One of the principle authors of it, and that I quoted in the previous post, basically said as much.

"Chakrabarti led the Ocasio-Cortez staff and several progressive groups in writing the

Green New Deal

resolution"

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

I am not asking for your personal opinion of the GND. Whether you love it or hate, it was not written with environmentalism in mind. It was written with socialism in mind.


I'd like to point out this quote from AOC (short for the least intelligent member of the U.S. Congress)

"I can't name a single issue with roots in race that doesn't have economic implications, and I cannot think of a single economic issue that doesn't have racial implications. The idea that we have to separate them out and choose one is a con.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-quotes"

Now, while nearly braindead, she is influential. I want to point something out here. She makes it very clear that her economic views are tied to her racial views. This is on par with the dialectic argument I have described. No serious politician is going to come out and say they are a Marxist (or neo-Marxist). However, their rhetoric is very much in line with Marxism. Meaning her motivation for socialism is based on the strongly held belief that under capitalism, various people are being oppressed. Now, it is one thing to claim that under capitalism, there are people who are winners and losers. I think we can all agree on that to some extent. It is certainly an argument that another type of economic system could provide fewer losers. However, this isn't exactly AOC's argument. Nor is it the argument we typically hear from progressives today. Rather, we are hearing that under capitalism, the losers are being oppressed by the winners. The system is there to lock the winners and losers in their place. Furthermore, the losers are such because of various immutable characteristics such as color and gender (among other things). This is the dangerous part. This is where the in-groups and out-groups form. And, as best as I can tell, the Democratic party has no idea where to draw any sort of line. It was not Al Sharpton and his race baiting. It was Hugo Chavez who is still admired by progressives. It wasn't even Castro. For instance, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, after learning of Fidel Castro's death said the following:
"

“I was very sad for the Cuban people.

He led a revolution in Cuba that led social improvements for his people.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/26/congresswoman-barbara-lee-castro-should-be-mourned/

It is estimated that Castro killed about 15000 of his own people. Pelosi had no issue with inviting Lee to a campaign event. Meaning, to the Dems, Castro isn't too far left. Isn't too extreme or horrific. So, where do Dems draw the line?

I could give more examples, but there is no threshold which will leave you convinced or which will even give you pause to think. Yes, I am biased. I believe in capitalism, especially when contrasted with socialism. If you can tell me where Dems draw the line, that'd be a great start. However, simply claiming not all socialism is Marxism when the Dems are making absolutely Marxist arguments in regards to why we need socialism is silly.

And, yeah, no one wins arguments on the internet. I don't really care. It is the conversation. If you don't want it, not sure why you jumped in to begin with.

[mican333]

You can disagree with me about the GND all you want. One of the principle authors of it, and that I quoted in the previous post, basically said as much.

"Chakrabarti led the Ocasio-Cortez staff and several progressive groups in writing the

Green New Deal

resolution"

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saikat_Chakrabarti

I am not asking for your personal opinion of the GND. Whether you love it or hate, it was not written with environmentalism in mind. It was written with socialism in mind.

I agree that the progressive wing of the DNC want to move more towards socialism. Universal Health Care is more socialistic than our current system so moving towards that makes the US more socialist. But so what? If you are saying that this will eventually lead to something horrific, like a completely socialist society, or dragging insurance executives into the streets to be slaughtered or imprisoned, then I hold that you just engaging in a slippery-slope fallacy.

I'd like to point out this quote from AOC (short for the least intelligent member of the U.S. Congress)

"I can't name a single issue with roots in race that doesn't have economic implications, and I cannot think of a single economic issue that doesn't have racial implications. The idea that we have to separate them out and choose one is a con.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-quotes"

Now, while nearly braindead, she is influential. I want to point something out here. She makes it very clear that her economic views are tied to her racial views. This is on par with the dialectic argument I have described. No serious politician is going to come out and say they are a Marxist (or neo-Marxist). However, their rhetoric is very much in line with Marxism. Meaning her motivation for socialism is based on the strongly held belief that under capitalism, various people are being oppressed. Now, it is one thing to claim that under capitalism, there are people who are winners and losers. I think we can all agree on that to some extent. It is certainly an argument that another type of economic system could provide fewer losers. However, this isn't exactly AOC's argument. Nor is it the argument we typically hear from progressives today. Rather, we are hearing that under capitalism, the losers are being oppressed by the winners. The system is there to lock the winners and losers in their place. Furthermore, the losers are such because of various immutable characteristics such as color and gender (among other things). This is the dangerous part. This is where the in-groups and out-groups form. And, as best as I can tell, the Democratic party has no idea where to draw any sort of line. It was not Al Sharpton and his race baiting. It was Hugo Chavez who is still admired by progressives. It wasn't even Castro. For instance, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, after learning of Fidel Castro's death said the following:
"

“I was very sad for the Cuban people.

He led a revolution in Cuba that led social improvements for his people.”

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/26/congresswoman-barbara-lee-castro-should-be-mourned/

[LEFT][COLOR=#333333][FONT=helvetica neue]It is estimated that Castro killed about 15000 of his own people. Pelosi had no issue with inviting Lee to a campaign event. Meaning, to the Dems, Castro isn't too far left. Isn't too extreme or horrific. So, where do Dems draw the line?

I could give more examples, but there is no threshold which will leave you convinced or which will even give you pause to think. Yes, I am biased. I believe in capitalism, especially when contrasted with socialism. If you can tell me where Dems draw the line, that'd be a great start. However, simply claiming not all socialism is Marxism when the Dems are making absolutely Marxist arguments in regards to why we need socialism is silly.

I don't claim that not all socialism is Marxism. But I don't accept that all socialism IS Marxism nor do I trust that you have a particularly good grasp of the definition of Socialism or Marxism as IMO right-wingers tend to equivocate when they use those terms and they end up meaning whatever they need to mean in order to back up a particular argument at a particular time.

It's sort of like this exchange (which isn't real but makes my point)

Conservative: Socialism is evil and destructive
Liberal: What about Norway? That's a socialist country and they are doing alright
C: Technically, Norway isn't Socialistic
L: Okay, but they have Universal Health Care and we should do the same.
C: No! Universal Health Care is socialist!


As far as where Dems draw the line, I do have an answer. They will draw it somewhere. I don't know exactly where (but I would guess it's when we resemble most other Western Countries and/or have similar policies that existed in America's past such as a higher tax rate of the wealthy) but then neither do you. So the notion that they will not draw the line until it reaches something truly disastrous is classic slippery-slope fallacy. If you are going to support that the line will not be drawn until we've crossed a horrible threshold, you will need to support that with something other than just ominously hinting that they will take it too far.

And it seems that "who speaks for the party" is just based on political bias. Trump says "Go back ro your country" and you essentially say "Meh, he's not speaking for all Republicans" and when AOC says something and you essentially say "THAT'S WHERE THE PARTY IS HEADED" despite the fact that Trump CLEARLY has more power within his party than AOC has within her.

But here's the real difference between our two arguments. You are implying that Democrats are being divisive with "connect the dots" logic (this indicates socialism which indicates racial animosity which indicates...) while I pointed out something that was specifically said that was divisive (Go back to your own country and Send her back). We don't need to read between the lines to see Republican divisiveness.

So while we can debate what you are forwarding there is no debate that Trump said what he said and that it was divisive. I mean if we want to play connect the dots, I will connect the shooter in El Paso to what Trump said (which is not an unreasonable connection considering his manifesto apparently contained Trump talking points).

So you do need to provide something more concrete than unconvincing slippery-slope and connect the dots arguments.

[Ibelsd]

I agree that the progressive wing of the DNC want to move more towards socialism. Universal Health Care is more socialistic than our current system so moving towards that makes the US more socialist. But so what? If you are saying that this will eventually lead to something horrific, like a completely socialist society, or dragging insurance executives into the streets to be slaughtered or imprisoned, then I hold that you just engaging in a slippery-slope fallacy.




I don't claim that not all socialism is Marxism. But I don't accept that all socialism IS Marxism nor do I trust that you have a particularly good grasp of the definition of Socialism or Marxism as IMO right-wingers tend to equivocate when they use those terms and they end up meaning whatever they need to mean in order to back up a particular argument at a particular time.

It's sort of like this exchange (which isn't real but makes my point)

Conservative: Socialism is evil and destructive
Liberal: What about Norway? That's a socialist country and they are doing alright
C: Technically, Norway isn't Socialistic
L: Okay, but they have Universal Health Care and we should do the same.
C: No! Universal Health Care is socialist!


As far as where Dems draw the line, I do have an answer. They will draw it somewhere. I don't know exactly where (but I would guess it's when we resemble most other Western Countries and/or have similar policies that existed in America's past such as a higher tax rate of the wealthy) but then neither do you. So the notion that they will not draw the line until it reaches something truly disastrous is classic slippery-slope fallacy. If you are going to support that the line will not be drawn until we've crossed a horrible threshold, you will need to support that with something other than just ominously hinting that they will take it too far.

And it seems that "who speaks for the party" is just based on political bias. Trump says "Go back ro your country" and you essentially say "Meh, he's not speaking for all Republicans" and when AOC says something and you essentially say "THAT'S WHERE THE PARTY IS HEADED" despite the fact that Trump CLEARLY has more power within his party than AOC has within her.

But here's the real difference between our two arguments. You are implying that Democrats are being divisive with "connect the dots" logic (this indicates socialism which indicates racial animosity which indicates...) while I pointed out something that was specifically said that was divisive (Go back to your own country and Send her back). We don't need to read between the lines to see Republican divisiveness.

So while we can debate what you are forwarding there is no debate that Trump said what he said and that it was divisive. I mean if we want to play connect the dots, I will connect the shooter in El Paso to what Trump said (which is not an unreasonable connection considering his manifesto apparently contained Trump talking points).

So you do need to provide something more concrete than unconvincing slippery-slope and connect the dots arguments.

"As far as where Dems draw the line, I do have an answer."
Your answer is basically, they'll draw it somewhere. However, in concrete, neither of us have the faintest clue where. It isn't Farakkan, a virulent anti-Semite. It was not at Maduro or Chavez, staunch autocratic socialists who had no problem putting an end to basic human rights when it suited them. It isn't Castro who some Dems have openly supported without pushback. We have heard the anti-Semitic rantings of some members of Congress which basically went ignored by DNC leadership. So, where is too far? Where is the line they won't cross? If it exists, no one has quite found it. Glad to know you feel so confident that a line exists at all.

Connect the dots would be attributing behaviors or thoughts which have not been pronounced. However, when the author of the Green New Deal expressly states that the proposed legislation isn't about the environment, I am not connecting dots to when I claim it is a plan to enact socialism. When I attribute socialism in the DNC to neo-Marxism it is because that is the type of argument they are making in support of their selected ideology and because of the groups they represent (such as the Democratic Socialists of America). What you would like to do is obfuscate the discussion by pronouncing arcane ideological beliefs not a single Democrat has stated. The idea of Utopian socialism is a canard in that it would predicate a society which starts from scratch and America isn't such a society. You also ignore the very neo-Marxist arguments being made by the DNC has made social justice, environmental justice, etc. key components of their arguments and these arguments, at their essence are claims that one group is involved in oppressing another group. This dialectic approach is Marxist inherited and is the exact reason DNC members give for supporting their socialist policies. Again, it isn't an argument we need more or less government. It is the why and the ends. The why is their neo-Marxist arguments matter and why the groups they support matter. You'd like to think they will know when to say when. How far is too far. However, as you acknowledged, that is an unknown. Not known to you, me, or them.

[mican333]

[LEFT][COLOR=#222222][FONT=Verdana]"As far as where Dems draw the line, I do have an answer."
Your answer is basically, they'll draw it somewhere. However, in concrete, neither of us have the faintest clue where. It isn't Farakkan, a virulent anti-Semite. It was not at Maduro or Chavez, staunch autocratic socialists who had no problem putting an end to basic human rights when it suited them. It isn't Castro who some Dems have openly supported without pushback. We have heard the anti-Semitic rantings of some members of Congress which basically went ignored by DNC leadership. So, where is too far? Where is the line they won't cross? If it exists, no one has quite found it. Glad to know you feel so confident that a line exists at all.

And I'm glad you admit that you don't have a clue of where the line would be drawn and therefore have no support that they won't stop until they've made the US like Cuba or whatever.

In the meantime I have provided direct examples of divisive rhetoric from Republicans.

Connect the dots would be attributing behaviors or thoughts which have not been pronounced.

Connecting the dots is also taking ONE person and indicating that what he says is pretty much what the whole of the Democratic party wants and intends to do. For example:

However, when the author of the Green New Deal expressly states that the proposed legislation isn't about the environment, I am not connecting dots to when I claim it is a plan to enact socialism.

It depends on what you mean by "enact socialism". If you mean to make us Cuba, you will need to show:

!. He actually said that he wants to make us Cuba
2. He has the kind of influence to make the whole of the Democratic party go there.

To get there, one does indeed to connect a lot of dots.

When I attribute socialism in the DNC to neo-Marxism it is because that is the type of argument they are making in support of their selected ideology and because of the groups they represent (such as the Democratic Socialists of America). What you would like to do is obfuscate the discussion by pronouncing arcane ideological beliefs not a single Democrat has stated. The idea of Utopian socialism is a canard in that it would predicate a society which starts from scratch and America isn't such a society. You also ignore the very neo-Marxist arguments being made by the DNC has made social justice, environmental justice, etc. key components of their arguments and these arguments, at their essence are claims that one group is involved in oppressing another group.

So we are going from they are against one group oppressing another to...dot dot dot dot...they want to make us Cuba. Connect the dots.

And I'm not ignoring what they are saying. I'm not just freaking out because somehow one can apply the term "Neo-marxist" to them, especially when I believe the right-wingers have such an imprecise definition of marxism, the word has little meaning.

This dialectic approach is Marxist inherited and is the exact reason DNC members give for supporting their socialist policies. Again, it isn't an argument we need more or less government. It is the why and the ends. The why is their neo-Marxist arguments matter and why the groups they support matter. You'd like to think they will know when to say when. How far is too far. However, as you acknowledged, that is an unknown. Not known to you, me, or them.

Right. So I have little reason to agree with your argument that they won't stop until we are Cuba. You admit that you don't know if they will or will not. And the notion that they will, to me, sounds like tin-foil-hat material.

So you really need to provide something of substance here. Otherwise, all I can say is that I hear what you are saying but I find it utterly unconvincing and will not accept it for debate until I see something concrete. "Who knows where it will stop" is basically nothing at all. I do have my own beliefs on what their goal is but since forwarding it would likely shift the burden to me, I choose to not share it (but I will say I think their goal is to make us more like Norway, not Cuba). And I see absolutely nothing from you that gives me reason to think where you think they want to go or will take us has any real merit.

[Ibelsd]

And I'm glad you admit that you don't have a clue of where the line would be drawn and therefore have no support that they won't stop until they've made the US like Cuba or whatever.

Admit it??? That is kinda an odd thing to point out considering it has been my stance the entire time. That is why it is worrying. We do not know where they may or may not draw the line. If we knew, then, at the least, we could say, well, they'll only take it so far. We don't and we can't.

In the meantime I have provided direct examples of divisive rhetoric from Republicans.

Can you tell me where I've claimed Republicans are not divisive? My son drinks more milk than I do. This does not mean I don't drink milk.

Connecting the dots is also taking ONE person and indicating that what he says is pretty much what the whole of the Democratic party wants and intends to do. For example:

It depends on what you mean by "enact socialism". If you mean to make us Cuba, you will need to show:

!. He actually said that he wants to make us Cuba
2. He has the kind of influence to make the whole of the Democratic party go there.

To get there, one does indeed to connect a lot of dots.



So we are going from they are against one group oppressing another to...dot dot dot dot...they want to make us Cuba. Connect the dots.


And I'm not ignoring what they are saying. I'm not just freaking out because somehow one can apply the term "Neo-marxist" to them, especially when I believe the right-wingers have such an imprecise definition of marxism, the word has little meaning.

1. I don't know what he/they want because they/them have not made it clear what they want. This goes to the whole draw the line argument. You don't know. I don't know.
2. I am not taking an outlier and trying to attribute that to the entire party. I have listed a series of events/issues which have occurred among multiple mainstream Democrats, including their most viable Presidential nominee contenders. Bernie Sanders, the #2 contender in 2016 and currently #2 or #3 right now, is a self-avowed socialist. We don't know how far he'll go because he gets prickly and defensive whenever someone asks him what socialism means to him. We know Occasional-Cortex (AOC) among the most influential members of the Dems is a Democratic Socialist member. We know the green new deal she introduced was written in order to move the nation towards socialism. We know every single Democratic nominee (maybe other than Biden?) raised their hands in support of the GND when asked. How far will they go?
3. Every single nominee has described their motivation as one of achieving some sort of social justice. Every single nominee has made oppression of minorities, women, gays, et al. as a cornerstone of their campaigns. This is key because it undermines your hope that they merely want to achieve some sort of Nordic vision. I

In terms of the Nordic vision you have mentioned, they are highly capitalistic. Their economy is largely unregulated by government. They aren't providing subsidies for specific companies to prosper. They do tax their citizens at higher rates. However, this is done in an egalitarian manner rather than a progressive one. Their goals are, in general, not based on some sort of neo-Marxist concept of oppression and justice. Rather, their goals are generally based on the idea of smoothing out the highs and lows that capitalism can sometimes cause. For example, in Nordic countries, companies are free to hire and fire as they please. Understanding that this results in some amount of uncertainty for the employee, the government provides citizens with job training and help to relocate. The key point here is that Nordic people (especially govt leaders) would generally scoff at the idea that they are socialist countries. Now, I am not trying to nor desire to engage in a debate on the pros and cons of Nordic government. I am just making the point that Democrats are not arguing for a Nordic style government. Warren's Consumer Protection Bureau isn't based on any type of Nordic model. The Democrats desire for a highly progressive tax system isn't based on the Nordic model. Most importantly, their motivations are couched in Marxist descriptors which is anything but based on the Nordic model.

Really, it is this idea of oppression being perpetuated by the Democrats which is the key divisive issue. It is what makes their ideas not just insipid, but divisive. Consider that in Nordic countries, they have a much higher labor union participation rate then we do in the U.S.. Now, we could argue whether it is a good or bad policy generally promoted by the Nordic governments to varying degrees. The Democrats could argue on behalf of a Nordic-like policy which seeks to increase the participation rate. In the Nordic countries, they'd argue that such participation is needed because it prevents having to regulate companies and gives workers better options. They present this as a means for workers and employers to cooperate. However, in the U.S. the Democrats are essentially arguing that we need these sort of policies not just to put some sort of certainty into the marketplace for workers. Democrats are arguing that we need unions because employers want to oppress and take advantage of workers. It is a subtle but important difference. Every Democrat proposal is based on this idea that some group needs to be protected from some other group. This is, by its very nature divisive. It is very Marxian. It is problematic in its divisiveness. And worst of all, we really don't know where they will draw the line.

Finally, this idea that I am freaking out... please. I am just answering a debate OP.

[mican333]

Admit it??? That is kinda an odd thing to point out considering it has been my stance the entire time. That is why it is worrying. We do not know where they may or may not draw the line. If we knew, then, at the least, we could say, well, they'll only take it so far. We don't and we can't.

I was under the impression that you were making the argument that the Democrats WERE more divisive because their agenda WOULD lead to something horrible. So I will consider that argument either withdrawn or never made in the first place.

So you've provided nothing to support that the Democrats are more divisive.

Can you tell me where I've claimed Republicans are not divisive? My son drinks more milk than I do. This does not mean I don't drink milk.

Right. But it's a comparative argument. One side is MORE divisive than the other. I've provided examples of Republican divisiveness and you've provided some trend that you think might eventually lead somewhere horrible which does not support anything at all.

1. I don't know what he/they want because they/them have not made it clear what they want. This goes to the whole draw the line argument. You don't know. I don't know.

Actually, I think I have a pretty good idea of what they want. Right now there is a Democratic primary going on so they are all talking quite a bit about their respective agendas. I see nothing forwarded that seems particularly disturbing.

2. I am not taking an outlier and trying to attribute that to the entire party. I have listed a series of events/issues which have occurred among multiple mainstream Democrats, including their most viable Presidential nominee contenders. Bernie Sanders, the #2 contender in 2016 and currently #2 or #3 right now, is a self-avowed socialist. We don't know how far he'll go because he gets prickly and defensive whenever someone asks him what socialism means to him. We know Occasional-Cortex (AOC) among the most influential members of the Dems is a Democratic Socialist member. We know the green new deal she introduced was written in order to move the nation towards socialism. We know every single Democratic nominee (maybe other than Biden?) raised their hands in support of the GND when asked. How far will they go?

Since you don't know how far they will go, that question in no way provides anything towards the debate. Now, if you want to forward something they DID say they wanted to do, we can discuss that.

3. Every single nominee has described their motivation as one of achieving some sort of social justice. Every single nominee has made oppression of minorities, women, gays, et al. as a cornerstone of their campaigns. This is key because it undermines your hope that they merely want to achieve some sort of Nordic vision.

Actually, I'm for social justice and against oppressing minorities, women, and gays. I'd say those who are for oppressing them is the one with the divisive message.

In terms of the Nordic vision you have mentioned, they are highly capitalistic. Their economy is largely unregulated by government. They aren't providing subsidies for specific companies to prosper. They do tax their citizens at higher rates. However, this is done in an egalitarian manner rather than a progressive one. Their goals are, in general, not based on some sort of neo-Marxist concept of oppression and justice. Rather, their goals are generally based on the idea of smoothing out the highs and lows that capitalism can sometimes cause. For example, in Nordic countries, companies are free to hire and fire as they please. Understanding that this results in some amount of uncertainty for the employee, the government provides citizens with job training and help to relocate.

And Nordic countries have Universal Health care, paid maternity leave, guaranteed vacation days, a strong safety net - the kinds of things that the Democrats are trying to get here.

I'm not saying that they intend to make us exactly like Norway but the actual proposals seem to intend to make us more like European Countries.

The key point here is that Nordic people (especially govt leaders) would generally scoff at the idea that they are socialist countries. Now, I am not trying to nor desire to engage in a debate on the pros and cons of Nordic government. I am just making the point that Democrats are not arguing for a Nordic style government. Warren's Consumer Protection Bureau isn't based on any type of Nordic model. The Democrats desire for a highly progressive tax system isn't based on the Nordic model. Most importantly, their motivations are couched in Marxist descriptors which is anything but based on the Nordic model.

As I've said numerous time, since the definition of "socialism" and "marxism" is so imprecise, it has no meaning for me in this debate and therefore I reject any argument that forwards that.

And I'm not saying that they are proposing that we be exactly like Norway, just that their vision seems more like Norway than Cuba.

Really, it is this idea of oppression being perpetuated by the Democrats which is the key divisive issue. It is what makes their ideas not just insipid, but divisive.

You don't like it because you think oppression doesn't actually exist or because it shouldn't be opposed if it does?

I'd say if anything is causing division, it's the oppression itself, not the attempt to remedy it.

Consider that in Nordic countries, they have a much higher labor union participation rate then we do in the U.S.. Now, we could argue whether it is a good or bad policy generally promoted by the Nordic governments to varying degrees. The Democrats could argue on behalf of a Nordic-like policy which seeks to increase the participation rate. In the Nordic countries, they'd argue that such participation is needed because it prevents having to regulate companies and gives workers better options. They present this as a means for workers and employers to cooperate. However, in the U.S. the Democrats are essentially arguing that we need these sort of policies not just to put some sort of certainty into the marketplace for workers. Democrats are arguing that we need unions because employers want to oppress and take advantage of workers. It is a subtle but important difference. Every Democrat proposal is based on this idea that some group needs to be protected from some other group. This is, by its very nature divisive. It is very Marxian. It is problematic in its divisiveness. And worst of all, we really don't know where they will draw the line.

Well, I see no reason to be particularly worried about it. While I don't know exactly where it will end, I see absolutely no reason to think that it won't end until we arrive at a very horrible place and the mere suggestion that it will end there sounds pretty ridiculous to me. One reason I believe it won't go that far is because NOTHING can really happen if the people aren't on board with it. So unless the population in general is fine living in "Cuba", it won't happen. The primary reason the "socialist" notion of Universal Health Care is a viable position in the current election cycle is because it's popular now.

So I'd say unless you are going to support that we WILL end up being like Cuba, that issue is pretty irrelevant to the debate. If you're worried about, then I guess that's what you think. If you want me to worry about it, then you need to make some kind of argument that will support that it's a less-than-ridiculous notion that deserves consideration. Otherwise, it's nothing and has no merit in this debate.

Again, in the "who's divisive" debate, I've provided something that is definitely divisive. If you are going to support that Democrats are more divisive than Republicans, you need to provide something that IS indeed divisive and not in a read-between-the-lines-connect-the-dots kind of way. Again, I don't think fighting oppression is inherently divisive and is something that SHOULD be done if there's actual oppression.

Finally, this idea that I am freaking out... please. I am just answering a debate OP.

What I mean is that you are, IMO, being overly alarmist about this. And you could likewise argue that I'm being too chill about this.

[Ibelsd]

I was under the impression that you were making the argument that the Democrats WERE more divisive because their agenda WOULD lead to something horrible. So I will consider that argument either withdrawn or never made in the first place.

So you've provided nothing to support that the Democrats are more divisive.

My argument is that the Democrats have based their policy on the neo-Marxist argument of oppressed classes. The fact that no one knows where they draw the line adds to the divisiveness. If I tell you group X is bad and is oppressing group Y, naturally anyone in group X is going to feel targeted. The argument divides the people in groups X and Y. Furthermore, if the people in group X have no idea how far the Democrats will go, then the feeling of divisiveness is heightened. You may feel this is irrational or without merit. You are certainly free to believe the people in group X are worried for no particular reason. However, it is the Democrat's own vagueness that helps drive the concern. Certainly, you can see how insisting a group is oppressing other people is a divisive argument. In the context of socialism which seems to be the current ideology of the Democrats, you can see, I'd think, how this relates to Marxism. So, where they draw the line becomes an important question aside from how divisive the mere accusation of oppression is.

Right. But it's a comparative argument. One side is MORE divisive than the other. I've provided examples of Republican divisiveness and you've provided some trend that you think might eventually lead somewhere horrible which does not support anything at all.

Not a trend. You have cited a few examples, but nothing which indicate that those examples are more than side remarks. Trump's ramblings notwithstanding, what do you have? Nothing in the GOP platform insists that one group should be demonized.

Actually, I think I have a pretty good idea of what they want. Right now there is a Democratic primary going on so they are all talking quite a bit about their respective agendas. I see nothing forwarded that seems particularly disturbing.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Since you don't know how far they will go, that question in no way provides anything towards the debate. Now, if you want to forward something they DID say they wanted to do, we can discuss that.

It does matter. If the GOP was proposing a nationalist agenda, which arguably they are, then we'd be right in comparing their nationalist agenda to other nationalist states. However, we know the GOP draws the line at overt white nationalism. No GOP member of any consequence would be willingly associated with a white nationalist leader, for example. So, this should remove some of the divisiveness from their nationalist agenda (for thinking and reasonable people anyhow). McConnel isn't hanging out with KKK leaders. When a GOP member started sounding too much like a white nationalist, they stripped him of his Congressional assignments (see Congressman King from NY). We have not seen similar behavior from Democrats when Omar was spouting anti-semitic statements or for members who openly associated with Nation of Islam leaders. So, when the claim large groups of Americans are oppressing other Americans, it is a bit more concerning.

Actually, I'm for social justice and against oppressing minorities, women, and gays. I'd say those who are for oppressing them is the one with the divisive message.

Who is oppressing these people? The implication is that if you aren't for social justice then you are for oppressing people which is an interesting claim. One might claim it is a Hegelian dialectic argument.

And Nordic countries have Universal Health care, paid maternity leave, guaranteed vacation days, a strong safety net - the kinds of things that the Democrats are trying to get here.

I'm not saying that they intend to make us exactly like Norway but the actual proposals seem to intend to make us more like European Countries.

A lot of seems and you think and your opinion, but nothing really concrete. Again, I am simply explaining how the underlying reasons for Nordic leaders and Democrats differ. It isn't necessarily the policies which differ greatly. It is the motivations.

As I've said numerous time, since the definition of "socialism" and "marxism" is so imprecise, it has no meaning for me in this debate and therefore I reject any argument that forwards that.

And I'm not saying that they are proposing that we be exactly like Norway, just that their vision seems more like Norway than Cuba.

And yet their arguments for making us more like Norway sound a lot more those that come from Castro in Cuba.

You don't like it because you think oppression doesn't actually exist or because it shouldn't be opposed if it does?

I'd say if anything is causing division, it's the oppression itself, not the attempt to remedy it.

All I am saying is that its a divisive argument. If you want to start a separate thread about whether it exists, then we can certainly have that discussion.

Well, I see no reason to be particularly worried about it. While I don't know exactly where it will end, I see absolutely no reason to think that it won't end until we arrive at a very horrible place and the mere suggestion that it will end there sounds pretty ridiculous to me. One reason I believe it won't go that far is because NOTHING can really happen if the people aren't on board with it. So unless the population in general is fine living in "Cuba", it won't happen. The primary reason the "socialist" notion of Universal Health Care is a viable position in the current election cycle is because it's popular now.

So I'd say unless you are going to support that we WILL end up being like Cuba, that issue is pretty irrelevant to the debate. If you're worried about, then I guess that's what you think. If you want me to worry about it, then you need to make some kind of argument that will support that it's a less-than-ridiculous notion that deserves consideration. Otherwise, it's nothing and has no merit in this debate.

Again, in the "who's divisive" debate, I've provided something that is definitely divisive. If you are going to support that Democrats are more divisive than Republicans, you need to provide something that IS indeed divisive and not in a read-between-the-lines-connect-the-dots kind of way. Again, I don't think fighting oppression is inherently divisive and is something that SHOULD be done if there's actual oppression.

The question is not whether Democrats will make us like Cuba. The question is, how far will Democrats go to remove/stop groups or people they believe are oppressive? If you are in a group cited by Democrats as being oppressive, such a question as where they draw the line is kinda important, no? Will they encourage mobs to come to your house? Call on businesses to stop serving you? Will they support violent groups to disrupt your rallies or other peaceful actions? Will they demand boycotts of your business? At what point do we say they have gone to far? At what point do Democrats believe they have taken it too far?

[mican333]

My argument is that the Democrats have based their policy on the neo-Marxist argument of oppressed classes.

And tha argument is unsupported. I disagree that that is their primary, or even a significant, motivation and therefore do not accept that just because you are saying it.

The fact that no one knows where they draw the line adds to the divisiveness.

But if one is not too concerned that the line won't be drawn until we reach something terrible, this doesn't really add anything particularly negative.

I personally find this kind of reasoning (We don't know where the line will be drawn so we have to worry) to be rather paranoid and is not something the common person is concerned with. I mean the concern that "the left" won't stop until we are Cuba or wherever seems restricted to the most far-out paranoid contingent of the right and I think such people are pretty irrational and would likely be freaking out about the "leftist agenda" no matter what it happened to be.

Now to be clear, that is just how this one person (me) sees it and is not forwarded as a hard fact or whatever. But regardless, from my perspective, this kind of concern is not rooted in anything the Democrats are actually doing but in the dysfunction of the people who engage in this kind of irrational thinking. So I don't think this concern really says anything about the Democrats and therefore does not show any divisiveness on their part as the people who would be worried about this kind of stuff would be worried about this kind of stuff no matter what the Democrats did or did not do.

And of course one can engage in this kind of thinking about the right as well. Conservatives tend to be deregulation and "how far will THAT go?" Children in sweatshops? People living in polluted hellholes because of no regulations on pollution and no ability to afford to live anywhere but areas where the cancer rate is near 100%? People literally starving to death in the streets because wages are incredibly low and there is no safety net? And I find this kind of thinking just as ridiculous as the hypothetical line you are forwarding. So one can use this kind of logic for both the left and right and therefore this kind of reasoning does not show the Democrats are more divisive because this kind of reasoning can be used equally on both ideologies.

If I tell you group X is bad and is oppressing group Y, naturally anyone in group X is going to feel targeted. The argument divides the people in groups X and Y. Furthermore, if the people in group X have no idea how far the Democrats will go, then the feeling of divisiveness is heightened. You may feel this is irrational or without merit. You are certainly free to believe the people in group X are worried for no particular reason. However, it is the Democrat's own vagueness that helps drive the concern.

Which does not save it from being irrational. I mean from that perspective, there is NO WAY that Democrats could be specific enough to get past it. The Democrats could lay out a specific agenda for the next ten years and it would still be "vague" because one could say "But what about after that?". So one can ALWAYS be worried about "what next" no matter how much detail is given.

And again, I don't see such concerns as particularly rational and therefore the "divisiveness" seems to come from someone's irrationality more than something the Dems are doing or on an agenda that they definitely have.

Certainly, you can see how insisting a group is oppressing other people is a divisive argument. In the context of socialism which seems to be the current ideology of the Democrats, you can see, I'd think, how this relates to Marxism. So, where they draw the line becomes an important question aside from how divisive the mere accusation of oppression is.

For those particular individuals who are concerned about "the line". But I see it as a bunch of needless worry and you have not supported that I shouldn't see it that way.

Not a trend. You have cited a few examples, but nothing which indicate that those examples are more than side remarks. Trump's ramblings notwithstanding, what do you have? Nothing in the GOP platform insists that one group should be demonized.

And you haven't shown anything in the Democrat platform that insists that any group be demonized. "I don't know what they will draw the line" is hardly the same as "Demonize those people".

And Trump's divisive rhetoric is the only concrete example of divisiveness provided in this debate. Again, such rhetoric was included in the El Paso shooter's manifesto and it takes a lot fewer dots to connect the shooting to Trump's rhetoric than it takes to connect Democratic "vagueness" to a legitimate concern about turning the US into Cuba.

Your opinion is duly noted.

That's just it. If it's my opinion that the Dem platform is not a cause for concern, then it's likewise an opinion of yours that it is.

So do you have something to forward that doesn't rely on your opinion for validity?

It does matter. If the GOP was proposing a nationalist agenda, which arguably they are, then we'd be right in comparing their nationalist agenda to other nationalist states. However, we know the GOP draws the line at overt white nationalism. No GOP member of any consequence would be willingly associated with a white nationalist leader, for example. So, this should remove some of the divisiveness from their nationalist agenda (for thinking and reasonable people anyhow). McConnel isn't hanging out with KKK leaders. When a GOP member started sounding too much like a white nationalist, they stripped him of his Congressional assignments (see Congressman King from NY). We have not seen similar behavior from Democrats when Omar was spouting anti-semitic statements or for members who openly associated with Nation of Islam leaders. So, when the claim large groups of Americans are oppressing other Americans, it is a bit more concerning.

Your opinion is noted.

And I see plenty of tolerance for white supremacy in the GOP. Such as Trump saying "very fine people" and the GOP's general unwillingness of call him out on it.

So yeah, opinions.

Who is oppressing these people? The implication is that if you aren't for social justice then you are for oppressing people which is an interesting claim.

If you aren't for social justice when people are being oppressed, then you are at least tolerant of oppression.

And it's your argument that Dems are being divisive because they are for social justice which means, by implication, that they are fighting against oppression that isn't happening. If that's your position, then you need to support it. Otherwise, the notion that Dems are being unnecessarily divisive because they are for social justice and against oppression is unfounded.

A lot of seems and you think and your opinion, but nothing really concrete. Again, I am simply explaining how the underlying reasons for Nordic leaders and Democrats differ. It isn't necessarily the policies which differ greatly. It is the motivations.

And again, I'm not saying they are the same. I'm saying the vision and policies that the Dems are forwarding seem to be leading us to be more like Norway than they are leading us to be more like Cuba. You are nit-picking by pointing out various difference because I never said they were exactly the same.

And yet their arguments for making us more like Norway sound a lot more those that come from Castro in Cuba.

When you support that, I will consider responding.

All I am saying is that its a divisive argument. If you want to start a separate thread about whether it exists, then we can certainly have that discussion.

So it's divisive to point out that oppression is going on and saying it should stop? What is one suppose to do in the face of oppression?

The question is not whether Democrats will make us like Cuba. The question is, how far will Democrats go to remove/stop groups or people they believe are oppressive? If you are in a group cited by Democrats as being oppressive, such a question as where they draw the line is kinda important, no? Will they encourage mobs to come to your house? Call on businesses to stop serving you? Will they support violent groups to disrupt your rallies or other peaceful actions? Will they demand boycotts of your business? At what point do we say they have gone to far? At what point do Democrats believe they have taken it too far?

Well, the rational side of me says that there's no need to worry about such extreme actions.

Again, if one is paranoid enough, then of course it's a concern but then it's more their paranoia that is causing them distress instead of something wrong that the Dems are doing. And again, one can go just a crazy over Republican rhetoric? Are they going to kill us all with pollution? Are they going to starve a significant portion of the population by depressing wages and eliminating all safety nets? etc etc etc.

[Ibelsd]

And tha argument is unsupported. I disagree that that is their primary, or even a significant, motivation and therefore do not accept that just because you are saying it.

We have just spent the last umpteen posts discussing how Democrats are campaigning on the idea of opposing oppression (which you said you agreed with) and now you are saying this is unsupported and you disagree it is happening. If you disagree, please explain where I am getting it wrong.

But if one is not too concerned that the line won't be drawn until we reach something terrible, this doesn't really add anything particularly negative.

Who says no one is too concerned? We will address this later though.

I personally find this kind of reasoning (We don't know where the line will be drawn so we have to worry) to be rather paranoid and is not something the common person is concerned with. I mean the concern that "the left" won't stop until we are Cuba or wherever seems restricted to the most far-out paranoid contingent of the right and I think such people are pretty irrational and would likely be freaking out about the "leftist agenda" no matter what it happened to be.

Now to be clear, that is just how this one person (me) sees it and is not forwarded as a hard fact or whatever. But regardless, from my perspective, this kind of concern is not rooted in anything the Democrats are actually doing but in the dysfunction of the people who engage in this kind of irrational thinking. So I don't think this concern really says anything about the Democrats and therefore does not show any divisiveness on their part as the people who would be worried about this kind of stuff would be worried about this kind of stuff no matter what the Democrats did or did not do.

And of course one can engage in this kind of thinking about the right as well. Conservatives tend to be deregulation and "how far will THAT go?" Children in sweatshops? People living in polluted hellholes because of no regulations on pollution and no ability to afford to live anywhere but areas where the cancer rate is near 100%? People literally starving to death in the streets because wages are incredibly low and there is no safety net? And I find this kind of thinking just as ridiculous as the hypothetical line you are forwarding. So one can use this kind of logic for both the left and right and therefore this kind of reasoning does not show the Democrats are more divisive because this kind of reasoning can be used equally on both ideologies.

When the people in power (or who hope to be in power) are labeling you an oppressor, it seems kinda irrational not to worry. In particular, when those people have no shown indication where they draw any sort of line as to how far they are wiling to go in order to eradicate oppression why would you not be a little worried?

Which does not save it from being irrational. I mean from that perspective, there is NO WAY that Democrats could be specific enough to get past it. The Democrats could lay out a specific agenda for the next ten years and it would still be "vague" because one could say "But what about after that?". So one can ALWAYS be worried about "what next" no matter how much detail is given.

And again, I don't see such concerns as particularly rational and therefore the "divisiveness" seems to come from someone's irrationality more than something the Dems are doing or on an agenda that they definitely have.

You are kinda side-stepping my argument and offering a red herring. It isn't about some particular set of policies. I made that clear in an earlier post. It is their motivation for achieving those policies. Again, if they were not calling people oppressors, then I'd probably agree with you. On its face, saying you want a bigger government safety net, isn't Marxist at all. It has socialist elements, but isn't, per se, socialism. Again, the leaders in Nordic countries bristle at the idea that they are socialist. Yet, they have large government programs to help people that may not benefit from open markets. Again, we could argue whether such policies are useful without the introduction of Marxist ideology. In other words, we could have policy discussions which do not involve social justice as a central concern and that do not paint groups as oppressed and oppressor. However, the Democrats are not having this policy discussion outside of the realm of social justice. They are using the language of Marx to make their case as to why we need their proposed policies. That is, any way you slice it, divisive.

For those particular individuals who are concerned about "the line". But I see it as a bunch of needless worry and you have not supported that I shouldn't see it that way.

Are you asking me to convince you to be worried? I think that's above my pay grade. You either are or are not. I don't blame people who are. I am amused by people who are not. As an analogy. People here in ODN noted we should be vigilant when Trump uses nationalism to push his agenda. I am not saying one should be worried. One should be open-eyed and cautious though. And it is a credit to the GOP that we do not need to be overly worried by Trump's nationalist tendencies. Why? Because we know that they draw the line well short of extreme nationalism such as that offered by white power groups. The GOP just isn't that receptive to those sorts of ideologies. The Congressman King example demonstrates the reason why. On the other hand, we do not see the same sort of response by the DNC when its members cozy up with anti-Semites and Marxists and black nationalists.

And you haven't shown anything in the Democrat platform that insists that any group be demonized. "I don't know what they will draw the line" is hardly the same as "Demonize those people".

If you are claiming groups of people are being oppressed, then someone is doing the oppressing, right? I mean, they aren't oppressing themselves are they?

And Trump's divisive rhetoric is the only concrete example of divisiveness provided in this debate. Again, such rhetoric was included in the El Paso shooter's manifesto and it takes a lot fewer dots to connect the shooting to Trump's rhetoric than it takes to connect Democratic "vagueness" to a legitimate concern about turning the US into Cuba.

What? So, a murderer's manifesto is evidence of divisiveness? So, the guy who shot Steve Scalise demonstrates DNC divisive rhetoric? Trump says plenty of divisive things. No one is claiming he nor the GOP are innocent. All politics involves divisiveness. Not all politics involves calling your political opponents oppressors.

That's just it. If it's my opinion that the Dem platform is not a cause for concern, then it's likewise an opinion of yours that it is.

So do you have something to forward that doesn't rely on your opinion for validity?




Your opinion is noted.

And I see plenty of tolerance for white supremacy in the GOP. Such as Trump saying "very fine people" and the GOP's general unwillingness of call him out on it.

So yeah, opinions.

If you want to debate the white supremacy of that incident, start a new thread on it. Either way, plenty of GOP members called him out for it. So, not just opinions. I am offering a structured argument which you have consistently tried to twist into something else.

If you aren't for social justice when people are being oppressed, then you are at least tolerant of oppression.

So, if I interpret the problem and solutions differently than you do, then I am, at best merely tolerant to oppression. Where do you think this view of oppression comes from?

And it's your argument that Dems are being divisive because they are for social justice which means, by implication, that they are fighting against oppression that isn't happening. If that's your position, then you need to support it. Otherwise, the notion that Dems are being unnecessarily divisive because they are for social justice and against oppression is unfounded.

I need to prove oppression doesn't exist or I am, at best tolerant of oppression? Is that your argument? Again, this very language you are using is rooted in a very particular ideology. Perhaps, I am simply not prone to viewing society through that lens. But, I get it. You do use that lens to view society. And so do Democrats, including their Presidential candidates and people in Congress. And making this sort of argument is divisive. And it is divisive beyond customary political disagreement. After all, if you truly believe people are being oppressed, what wouldn't you do to end it? I mean, if you truly believe in social justice, the idea that groups of people are being and have been systematically oppressed by the majority culture, then golly, if you are willing to simply rely on some politicians to fix it over the course of years or decades, then I'd say you are part of the problem. You, yourself, in your meek actions promote oppression to continue. Where do you draw the line when attempting to crush oppression? Why isn't violence acceptable? Why should we confine ourselves to the limits imposed by the Constitution? I mean, paper and elections are no excuse to allow people to remain oppressed. Am I right?

And again, I'm not saying they are the same. I'm saying the vision and policies that the Dems are forwarding seem to be leading us to be more like Norway than they are leading us to be more like Cuba. You are nit-picking by pointing out various difference because I never said they were exactly the same.

The policies and comparisons to those in Northern Europe are a red herring. I thought I had made that clear.

So it's divisive to point out that oppression is going on and saying it should stop? What is one suppose to do in the face of oppression?

Interesting box you have painted Democrats into indeed.

Well, the rational side of me says that there's no need to worry about such extreme actions.

Again, if one is paranoid enough, then of course it's a concern but then it's more their paranoia that is causing them distress instead of something wrong that the Dems are doing. And again, one can go just a crazy over Republican rhetoric? Are they going to kill us all with pollution? Are they going to starve a significant portion of the population by depressing wages and eliminating all safety nets? etc etc etc.

There is a distinct difference here. On the one hand, we are talking about how Democrats are using the words of oppression to define themselves and their opponents. On the other, you are discussing policy disagreements. That is normal politics and contains the normal amount of divisiveness. You like option A and I like option B and people are divided between the two options. Whoever wins gets to pick the option, but neither option contains inherent animus to the defenders or promoters of the other option. You like coal. I hate coal. Elect me and I'll eliminate coal. Whoever wins, there will be losers and winners, but in neither case is either side explicitly called out as being bad or evil. Democrats aren't saying coal miners are evil people who deserve to lose their jobs. Republicans don't hate soy farmers. Of course we can disagree on policy and this provides some built-in divisiveness. At the end of the day (or election), everyone is an American and no one feels targeted. However, if you start introducing concepts like social justice into your campaign. If your central ideology is based on social justice and the idea of oppression, then, it seems, there is a lot more at stake. Certainly, if you are in the oppressed group you feel there is a lot to lose if your side doesn't win. However, you still feel a good deal of animus for the loser, which is not the usual way of American politics. After all, even if the social justice candidate wins, the oppressors are still out there. Something still needs to be done about them. And if they win... well... what do you do if oppressors take power? Language matters. And if you are going to adopt Marxist language in your party platform, it means something. Even if you aren't particularly paranoid or irrational, language still matters.

[mican333]

We have just spent the last umpteen posts discussing how Democrats are campaigning on the idea of opposing oppression (which you said you agreed with) and now you are saying this is unsupported and you disagree it is happening. If you disagree, please explain where I am getting it wrong.

I agree that Democrats are against oppression (because what decent human being isn't?). I disagree that, as you forward, that "the Democrats have based their policy on the neo-Marxist argument of oppressed classes."

When the people in power (or who hope to be in power) are labeling you an oppressor, it seems kinda irrational not to worry. In particular, when those people have no shown indication where they draw any sort of line as to how far they are wiling to go in order to eradicate oppression why would you not be a little worried?

Who exactly was labeled an "oppressor"? Please be specific. Name names. Which specific Democrat said that which specific person is an "oppressor"?

And no moving the goal post. You said "labeling you an oppressor" which means specifically calling someone an "oppressor". Referring to some vague indication that there are oppressed classes and such is, again, moving the goalpost.

If no one was specifically called an "oppressor" by a significant power base of the Democratic party, then no, there is no need for anyone to worry about being labeled an oppressor.

You are kinda side-stepping my argument and offering a red herring. It isn't about some particular set of policies. I made that clear in an earlier post. It is their motivation for achieving those policies

No, it's more than that.

I am referring to the concern that Democrats are "after" certain groups and since no one can prove how far they will go, the notion that they will go really far and do things so bad that we should be really concerned. And again, I do not find that a rational concern and you have not supported that I should find it rational.

Again, if they were not calling people oppressors, then I'd probably agree with you. On its face, saying you want a bigger government safety net, isn't Marxist at all. It has socialist elements, but isn't, per se, socialism. Again, the leaders in Nordic countries bristle at the idea that they are socialist. Yet, they have large government programs to help people that may not benefit from open markets. Again, we could argue whether such policies are useful without the introduction of Marxist ideology. In other words, we could have policy discussions which do not involve social justice as a central concern and that do not paint groups as oppressed and oppressor. However, the Democrats are not having this policy discussion outside of the realm of social justice. They are using the language of Marx to make their case as to why we need their proposed policies. That is, any way you slice it, divisive.

Well, I find this argument completely unconvincing and since you have not supported it with anything other than just saying it is so, I see no need to more than acknowledge that that is apparently what you believe.

Again, I see things differently and until I see support that your position is correct, we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Are you asking me to convince you to be worried?

No. I'm asking you to support that there's a rational reason for the common person to be worried.

I honestly don't know anyone who holds the kind of view of Democrats that you are forwarding. Now, I'm not saying that no one else disagrees with you but I am saying that many people do and I see no reason why they should not continue holding on to their view of Democratic party instead of yours.

A good supported argument WOULD give one a reason to change their viewpoint. And you haven't provided one. You seem to be doing little more than just telling me what you think. Okay, so that's what you think. And I think something else.

I don't blame people who are. I am amused by people who are not. As an analogy. People here in ODN noted we should be vigilant when Trump uses nationalism to push his agenda. I am not saying one should be worried. One should be open-eyed and cautious though. And it is a credit to the GOP that we do not need to be overly worried by Trump's nationalist tendencies. Why? Because we know that they draw the line well short of extreme nationalism such as that offered by white power groups. The GOP just isn't that receptive to those sorts of ideologies. The Congressman King example demonstrates the reason why. On the other hand, we do not see the same sort of response by the DNC when its members cozy up with anti-Semites and Marxists and black nationalists.

But then I see your view of where one side draws the line and the other doesn't to be heavily based on your own political bias.

Because I don't see where the Republicans have drawn the line regarding racists. You mentioned King. Did he get drummed out the GDP? No. So that shows that there is tolerance. Did Trump get GDP defection when he said some White Supremacists are "very fine people"? No. Some perfunctory tsk tsk is about as bad as it got and could easily be explained as some members just wanting to appear to disapprove to appease some of the public.

So again, you see it as you see it. But I see it another way and you've given me no reason to agree with you.

If you are claiming groups of people are being oppressed, then someone is doing the oppressing, right? I mean, they aren't oppressing themselves are they?

I'm not making an argument about anyone being oppressed either way. This is YOUR argument that we are referring to.

You said the Democrats are "demonizing" certain people. I'll consider this argument to be dropped until it's supported.

What? So, a murderer's manifesto is evidence of divisiveness? So, the guy who shot Steve Scalise demonstrates DNC divisive rhetoric? Trump says plenty of divisive things. No one is claiming he nor the GOP are innocent. All politics involves divisiveness. Not all politics involves calling your political opponents oppressors.

Well, it's reasonable to consider a manifesto complaining about certain groups of people "invading" our country before going and targeting those people for death to be a manifesto with very divisive language. And some of the language of the manifesto was some of the same stuff that Trump said (like about the "Invaders").

So your other examples don't apply. The guy who shot Scales had no noticeable connection to any Democratic rhetoric. If Scalise had been the subject of heavy criticism by Democrats and it could be shown that the rhetoric may have influenced the shooter, then it would be similar (and you would likewise have a case that the shooting was motivated by DNC divisive language).

If you want to debate the white supremacy of that incident, start a new thread on it.

Are you claiming that it's not relevant to this thread? Come on! It's a debate about divisiveness and language favorable about White Supremacy is about as relevant as it gets.

Either way, plenty of GOP members called him out for it. So, not just opinions. I am offering a structured argument which you have consistently tried to twist into something else.

Your opinion about my debating is noted.

So, if I interpret the problem and solutions differently than you do, then I am, at best merely tolerant to oppression. Where do you think this view of oppression comes from?

That's not what I said. I said if you against social justice when oppression is present, you are tolerant of oppression. That argument assumes that you recognize that oppression is occurring so if you don't recognize something as oppression, then it can't be said you are tolerating oppression because you don't oppose it.

I need to prove oppression doesn't exist or I am, at best tolerant of oppression? Is that your argument?

No, it's not. Please note that the term "tolerant of oppression" was nowhere to be found in the argument you are responding to.

Again, this very language you are using is rooted in a very particular ideology. Perhaps, I am simply not prone to viewing society through that lens. But, I get it. You do use that lens to view society. And so do Democrats, including their Presidential candidates and people in Congress. And making this sort of argument is divisive. And it is divisive beyond customary political disagreement. After all, if you truly believe people are being oppressed, what wouldn't you do to end it? I mean, if you truly believe in social justice, the idea that groups of people are being and have been systematically oppressed by the majority culture, then golly, if you are willing to simply rely on some politicians to fix it over the course of years or decades, then I'd say you are part of the problem. You, yourself, in your meek actions promote oppression to continue. Where do you draw the line when attempting to crush oppression? Why isn't violence acceptable? Why should we confine ourselves to the limits imposed by the Constitution? I mean, paper and elections are no excuse to allow people to remain oppressed. Am I right?

I think it's irrational to worry that the opposition of oppression would reach a level where something horrific would happen.

Let me put it this way. It's not impossible that next time I step outside I could hit by a meteor and killed. It's extremely unlikely to happen but it's not impossible that it will happen. And therefore I see little reason to worry about getting hit by a meteor. Yes, it could happen but "could" does not equate a rational reason to worry. And I view your concern about the Dems going waaaaaayyyyy too far in pursuit of social justice to be along those lines of concern. No, I can't say it's impossible that something like that will happen but I judge the odds to be so slim that it really is not something that's rational to worry about.

So I'll refer to what you are referring to as a "meteor's chance". If you are going to argue that it's something that warrants significant concern, you will need to come up with something stronger than what amounts to "it's possible".

The policies and comparisons to those in Northern Europe are a red herring. I thought I had made that clear.

No. It's relevant to my argument. I'm using those policies as examples of what the Democrats are seeking.

Interesting box you have painted Democrats into indeed.

I was not referring to the Democrats per se but referring to the general concept of opposing oppression.

There is a distinct difference here. On the one hand, we are talking about how Democrats are using the words of oppression to define themselves and their opponents.

You haven't even supported that that is happening. So that's pretty much begging the question.

On the other, you are discussing policy disagreements. That is normal politics and contains the normal amount of divisiveness. You like option A and I like option B and people are divided between the two options. Whoever wins gets to pick the option, but neither option contains inherent animus to the defenders or promoters of the other option. You like coal. I hate coal. Elect me and I'll eliminate coal. Whoever wins, there will be losers and winners, but in neither case is either side explicitly called out as being bad or evil. Democrats aren't saying coal miners are evil people who deserve to lose their jobs. Republicans don't hate soy farmers. Of course we can disagree on policy and this provides some built-in divisiveness. At the end of the day (or election), everyone is an American and no one feels targeted. However, if you start introducing concepts like social justice into your campaign. If your central ideology is based on social justice and the idea of oppression, then, it seems, there is a lot more at stake.

But then I don't agree that the Democrats central ideology is based on social justice and oppression. I'd say the central ideology in regards to those issues is fairness and justice. There is absolutely no need to concern oneself with oppression if it doesn't exist to such an extent that it becomes an injustice and there is not need for social justice if there is no social injustice. So oppression and social justice are responses to certain conditions which may or may not exist. If the conditions don't exist. then the Dems will have little concern about oppression or social justice, which would not be the case if those things were central to their platform.

Certainly, if you are in the oppressed group you feel there is a lot to lose if your side doesn't win. However, you still feel a good deal of animus for the loser, which is not the usual way of American politics. After all, even if the social justice candidate wins, the oppressors are still out there. Something still needs to be done about them. And if they win... well... what do you do if oppressors take power? Language matters. And if you are going to adopt Marxist language in your party platform, it means something. Even if you aren't particularly paranoid or irrational, language still matters.

But then saying that Marxist language is being used is begging the question. I believe I have said multiple times that I find the use of the word "Marxism" to be so imprecise that it effectively has no meaning to me. So if you want to call it "Marxist" go ahead but since that word has no distinct meaning its use does not support that Democrats are divisive or anything.

And as far as what will happen to the oppressors if the oppression is effectively stopped, I expect that it would be something appropriate and not go too far. If you want to think that maybe it will go to far, go ahead and think that. If you want to argue that it WILL go too far and therefore opposing oppression has inherent problems, you will need to support that.

But I have to say, wouldn't you agree that opposing oppression should happen even if afterwards, there might be a risk to the oppressors. I mean as an extreme example, should we have not stopped the Holocaust out of fear of what might happen to the Nazis after we ended the oppression of their victims?

[Ibelsd]

I agree that Democrats are against oppression (because what decent human being isn't?). I disagree that, as you forward, that "the Democrats have based their policy on the neo-Marxist argument of oppressed classes."





Who exactly was labeled an "oppressor"? Please be specific. Name names. Which specific Democrat said that which specific person is an "oppressor"?

And no moving the goal post. You said "labeling you an oppressor" which means specifically calling someone an "oppressor". Referring to some vague indication that there are oppressed classes and such is, again, moving the goalpost.

If no one was specifically called an "oppressor" by a significant power base of the Democratic party, then no, there is no need for anyone to worry about being labeled an oppressor.

So, you are arguing that Democrats are against oppression. They are campaigning on the concept of social justice, among other language. If they didn't believe oppression existed, then why would they make this a campaign issue?

We have been having this conversation about socialism and Democratic Socialism supported by the Democrat party (or by many of its members including Bernie Sanders). You have tried to call this merely an attempt to achieve the Nordic model... Yet, any reading of the DSA goals on their website, indicates how misguided you are. Indeed, in
https://socialistcall.com/2018/09/26...tic-socialism/

the author explains how wrong you are. Who is doing the oppressing?
"This reflects another key problem under capitalism: not only do capitalists exploit workers on the job and hoard all the wealth they steal from us, but they have the power to determine whether or not we have jobs and thus the ability to provide for ourselves."

Gosh, this sounds very much like something Marx would say.. The exploited worker. Steal from us. The whole us v. them mentality. In groups and out groups. What is the author suggesting Democratic Socialists really want? Well, in theory, the author says they want to "elect a socialist government." I say, in theory, because history tells us it never quite works out like that. When you demonize certain groups of people, you eventually create the conditions that give us things the author says he does not want, such as the road to Cuba or Russia. I should point out here, he specifically states he does not want to recreate the Nordic model her in the U.S. Why? Exactly the reason I mentioned in an earlier post. Those are highly capitalist societies. They do not offer the type of government the author wants. I should note, he specifically thanks Sanders (a leading Dem presidential candidate) and Occasional-Cortext (among the more influential Dems) for their DSA work.

So, let's be very clear, Dems believe they are fighting against those who are exploiting/oppressing others. So, to what lengths will they go to end this sort of oppression? Now, you can play word games and insist they will not go too far. They won't become violent. Whatever. You can play semantic games with socialism and insist this does not mean they are Marxists or are using Marxist language. The author of the article is
Neal Meyer is an editor for The Call and on the Citywide Leadership Committee of NYC-DSA.

So, while your opinions of what you think Dems mean is absolutely your right to have, the greater authority disagrees with you.

[mican333]

So, you are arguing that Democrats are against oppression. They are campaigning on the concept of social justice, among other language. If they didn't believe oppression existed, then why would they make this a campaign issue?

I'm not sure which instance of oppression you are referring to but I would forward that if the Democrats have an agenda of social justice and fighting oppression it's probably because there is social justice and oppression that needs to be opposed.

We have been having this conversation about socialism and Democratic Socialism supported by the Democrat party (or by many of its members including Bernie Sanders). You have tried to call this merely an attempt to achieve the Nordic model

I did not say that.

I'm saying that the proposals that they forward are similar to the ones that have been enacted in Nordic countries and therefore where they intend to take us looks more like Norway than Cuba.

Challenging the argument that they intend to make us like Norway in general is a straw-man argument. I did not say that nor is that my argument.

The author explains how wrong you are. Who is doing the oppressing?
"This reflects another key problem under capitalism: not only do capitalists exploit workers on the job and hoard all the wealth they steal from us, but they have the power to determine whether or not we have jobs and thus the ability to provide for ourselves."

I don't see the word "oppression" there. And I would say that the author is pretty much correct and that such a thing should be remedied. And viable solutions would be the kinds of things that most Democratic candidates forward, like a progressive income tax and raising the minimum wage.

Whether those are a good idea is another debate entirely but the criticism forwarded does not require something horrific to remedy. Again, progressive taxation is a valid remedy. So the notion that this means something troubling, like advocating taking the owners into the streets and hanging them is without merit.

So my response is pretty much "so what?"

Gosh, this sounds very much like something Marx would say.. The exploited worker. Steal from us. The whole us v. them mentality. In groups and out groups. What is the author suggesting Democratic Socialists really want? Well, in theory, the author says they want to "elect a socialist government." I say, in theory, because history tells us it never quite works out like that. When you demonize certain groups of people, you eventually create the conditions that give us things the author says he does not want, such as the road to Cuba or Russia. I should point out here, he specifically states he does not want to recreate the Nordic model her in the U.S. Why? Exactly the reason I mentioned in an earlier post. Those are highly capitalist societies. They do not offer the type of government the author wants. I should note, he specifically thanks Sanders (a leading Dem presidential candidate) and Occasional-Cortext (among the more influential Dems) for their DSA work.

Gotcha. So you discard what they say they actually want and ask me to "connect the dots" to see what they "really want".

So, let's be very clear, Dems believe they are fighting against those who are exploiting/oppressing others. So, to what lengths will they go to end this sort of oppression?

So you're asking me? Here's my answer. Nothing particularly worrisome. Considering that the Democratic primary season is happening, there's no shortage of them stating exactly what they want to achieve and I don't see anything like hanging bankers in the streets in their.

If you have a different answer and want to forward that they won't stop until they achieve something truly concerning, then SUPPORT THAT. Saying that there is no evidence that they won't stop until X is basically an argument from ignorance fallacy. There is no good reason to concern myself with what they DIDN'T say. I mean Trump didn't say that he won't start World War 3 and I don't know for a fact that he won't do it anyway but until someone gives me a reason to concern myself with the notion than he will do that with something more than "how do you know he won't?", it's not something that I will concern myself with let alone accept as a legitimate concern in a debate. And it's the same principle here. No, I don't know that the Democrats won't eventually hang Capitalists in the streets but until I see a rational reason to be concerned that they might, this notion is irrelevant to the debate.

Now, you can play word games and insist they will not go too far. They won't become violent. Whatever. You can play semantic games with socialism and insist this does not mean they are Marxists or are using Marxist language.

Actually, that's what you are doing which is why your argument is entirely unconvincing.

Your use of Marxism, IMO, is the epitome of a semantic game.

The author of the article is
Neal Meyer is an editor for The Call and on the Citywide Leadership Committee of NYC-DSA.

So, while your opinions of what you think Dems mean is absolutely your right to have, the greater authority disagrees with you.

Disagrees with me about advocating violence? I read Neal's entire article and THERE IS NO MENTION OF USING VIOLENCE AS A SOLUTION. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.

We seem to be going in circle here with you continuously making these "Marxist, connect the dots, be concerned with what they didn't say" arguments which fall flat every time and me just pointing out how unconvincing it is with the same rebuttals to essentially the same arguments.

So unless you have a new approach, I think I'm done here.

[eye4magic]

Disagrees with me about advocating violence? I read Neal's entire article and THERE IS NO MENTION OF USING VIOLENCE AS A SOLUTION. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.

So do you discourage, disagree with violence as a tactic and condemn violence (which is highly divisive) when Democrats resort to violence and/or encourage it toward their political opponents?

[mican333]

So do you discourage, disagree with violence as a tactic and condemn violence (which is highly divisive) when Democrats resort to violence and/or encourage it toward their political opponents?

I condemn it when either side commits or encourages violence.

And while I have to acknowledge a person bias on the matter, I don't see anything from the Democrats that is as bad as what Trump says about immigrants, Mexicans, journalist, and protesters. For example, I haven't seen anything from the Democrats that approaches Trump saying that he would pay the legal bills for someone who beats up a protester at his rallies.