I'm not complaining about people using the word. I'm not even complaining about labels in general. I'm just trying to figure out why someone is trying to insult me with a word I don't find negative at all. I just think I don't see it as the "nasty" word that apparently you do. By the definition of neo-conservative or "new conservative" I guess that would be me. I wouldn't call myself an "ultra-conservative" or "radical-conservative" and that's the problem with the people using the word. Apparently a lot of them don't know the difference in the two. Someone might as well insult me by telling me I support traditional values. Yes, I'll laugh and point out that I don't think it's a bad thing. Then someone like David will come along and call me a hypocrite for using a word that actually is loaded with negative contentions.

I happen to think that socialism is indeed a negative thing. You may not, but there's nothing ironic about that–And there's certainly no double standard. Are liberals going to regulate my thoughts next? I have to have a balanced opinion of all things liberal and all things conservative or it's a hideous double standard?

Also, because I think neo-conservative by definition isn't a negative thing I'm not allowed to think that any classification or political slur is? How about communist? No? How about Nazi?

Yes, I agree. So as an act of contrition I will now insert this carnivorous earwig into my brain.

Apparently the n clarifications did not suffice! :rolleyes: I mean, I realize that you don't want to trudge through the long thread, but if you're going to say things like that you could at least make an effort. :smile:

Runter's post said all he really needed.

Runter does not believe Neo-Conservatism to have negative connotations.

Irony is a "subjective truth", not an objective measurement.

I touched on this earlier, but you skipped it. For you to find "irony" or "hypocrisy" in deciding whether Socialism should be considered negative while Neo-Conservatism was not (while you were finding Neo-Conservatism negative), you had to either believe that Socialism was as negative as neo-Conservatism, or that Socialism was not as negative as Neo-Conservatism. You could not find irony, in your subjective view, if you believed that Socialism was more negative then Neo-Conservatism.

If Runter believes that Socialism is more negative then Neo-Conservatism (which he has stated) then in his subjective view there is no irony.

If I state I love carrots, and later state I detest spinach, it is not ironic. Not to me. Someone that loves spinach, someone that hates both equally, or someone that likes spinach more then carrots, may find irony between the statements. That would be their subjective view.

I am starting to wonder how much people actually read things. At the risk of being extremely repetitive,

So, uh, yeah. I can make the relevant parts extra-large, bold, underlined and italic if need be because it would seem that so far they didn't exactly come through.


This analogy is completely flawed. It would be much more appropriate if you it were somebody who loved carrots who complained about being told carrots are nasty, and then went around telling people that spinach is nasty. Why I even bother with this anymore is a total mystery to me so maybe I should stop my end of this ridiculous discussion now.

I think the correct analogy would be more appropriate if I were someone who thought carrots were orange and was being told carrots are red, and then went around telling people spinach is green. By definition, the way people choose to use neo-conservative doesn't fit the actual definition. By definition, the way I choose to use socialist, in fact, does.

Maybe you can explain why the three example governments I gave are all considered "socialist" while being extremely different. That would help clear up what the hell the word actually means these days. Well, err, actually, I don't really want to hear the likely-to-be-lengthy answer: my only point is that the word is so diluted as to be all but meaningless.

Is this were you selectively quote me out of context again?

Let's look at where our little discussion began:

Now I know you can say that you find neither term to have any meaning, you would be wrong but could assert that.

We can also look at the actual text, and see the punctuation difference again on "nasty words". In the case of your statement you placed quotes around one set of "nasty words", but not around the other.

During the previous campaign much ado was made over McCain doing "air quotes" when saying the words "womens health" during a debate. Why is that? Because placing quotes meant to some people that he believed them to be untrue, or fictitious.

In written language we have the words, their accepted definitions, their context and the punctuation to guide us to the writer's meaning. Would you not agree?

If I take the punctuation to mean how it is accepted (just as in the McCain "womens health" incident) then the second usage of "nasty words" is stating you do not believe Socialism to be a "nasty word", then the fact that the first usage of "nasty words" being without quotes would go to point out that you do believe Neo-Conservatism to be negative.


These are not mere labels, and hardly meaningless. They are both political and economic philosophies about which much has been written.


Perhaps if you did not continue to attempt to defend your subjective view as some objective accusation, and stopped posting defenses in agreement that some "hypocrisy" has taken place, then I could believe this is how you really feel.

Eat your spinach.

I simply cannot believe how much hay is being made of this trivial and ridiculous issue. I think I've said all that I need to say, several times to boot. I feel it only courteous to let you know that I will ignore this particular topic from now on.

I'll give you an easy answer for what the socialist pallet is.

A socialist supports socialism either directly or indirectly.

Socialism is an economic system characterized by public ownership and centralized planning of all major industries (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, and medical facilities.

Socialism isn't some mythical undefined creature. It's a platform that is real and tangible. It's something that people can disagree with without being told that the word doesn't actually mean anything. It means something as much as the world capitalist does.

OK Runter, we can work with that. Let's start by talking about why the recent nationalizations in the USA don't qualify as socialist measures.

And incidentally, I think the world "capitalist" means just as little because it is used to describe countries as varied as the US, the UK, France and China (to some bizarre extent).

(To be clear, my previous comment was in response to Mabus, not Runter)

Haha. I've said it 100 times that I think this is the United Socialist States of America, more and more ever since FDR.

So I think those measures *do* qualify as socialist measures. I don't support them.

I don't support plans in any country that has a socialist element to it. I would prefer if we find a free market approach and keep government out of the business of business.

Oh. I suppose that puts some things into perspective then. So presumably you were very unhappy with McCain's views on all of this bailout stuff as well, then. For that matter, the US government has been intervening in the economy for quite a while all across the board; for example, there was a fair bit of noise about government intervention in steel tariffs during the earlier years of the Bush administration. (GWB, that is)

I'm not convinced that there is a single instance of a truly free market economy in the entire world. For that matter, I'm not sure there's a single instance of a purely communist state, either.

Yes, I was very unhappy with McCain's view on a great many things. He liked to support the democrats far too often in the senate.

Yes, I haven't liked the way the US government has handled the economy since I can remember. I don't like the way the market is regulated into the ground. I don't like the way that George W Bush has handled things. I was outraged by the "economic stimulus package."

If I get another one I'm going to spend the whole thing in Japan next year.


I agree that a purely socialist state would be doomed to failure, but there are instances around the world of socialist systems on the rise–Stuff people are pushing for here–that people like me disagree with whole-heartedly. Such as government ran healthcare systems. Banning private practice doctors. Forcing people to own insurance. These are things that I am against.

Why thank you! Good to clarify after the fact, but a clarification is a clarification.

Have a great day, even though "great day" may be "meaningless" to you. :lol:

I think there's a considerable difference between socialist programs and a socialist government. I hardly consider the US to be socialist, and yet it has several programs that one could consider socialist (e.g. Medicare/Medicaid). (This is another reason why I am very unhappy about using the word "socialism" without being extraordinarily careful, because it makes little sense to say that a non-socialist government has socialist programs.)

I think that if you (general you, not Runter in particular) are going to disagree with programs like government healthcare, it is far more productive to just talk about the programs rather than throwing about these labels. The labels are laden with all kinds of connotations that are simply not useful. Presumably, if the argument against the program in question has any strength whatsoever, it will stand just fine on its own without using a label.

I would normally think that this should be obvious, but as a preemptive strike (and just in case…) I will add that the exact same applies to any other label or program. It is dumb to criticize something merely because neoconservatives propose/run it.

If they are socialist programs then they are socialist programs. People can make up their own mind if they want to employ socialist systems.

When I identify that something is socialist (Like Obama, in his own words, idea to "spread the wealth" with taxes) I cringe. I don't have to give to a fair shot at that point because I don't like socialism in any form. There's always a better answer that doesn't involve the government spending our money better than we can.

If someone wants to claim something isn't socialist that is their job and people in between can decide on the merits if it is or isn't socialist. Then they can decide if they want to support something that is socialist.

But the fact is, when people can't defend a socialist policy they're usually the people who try to really nuance the debate into parsing words and insisting that people are taking things out of context instead of just stating what their policy is clearly and if they support exactly what their opponent claims they do or not.

And if not then they should explain exactly why they believe government ran health care isn't a socialist plan. I have a feeling they'll be hard pressed to.

I think that this question is inherently mal-posed: attributing a label to something should never [1] conclude an argument "just because". There should be a reason why something is wrong beyond a vague label.

For example, in your entire post, you spent a lot of time talking about the label and only one sentence talking about your actual problem with it (government choosing how to spend the people's money). All of the rest is just noise: I don't give a hoot what label you attribute to something; the only important (and useful) point of debate is what your actual problem is.

We could run in circles for ages trying to label all of the world's ideas with some category, but we'd make absolutely no progress as to actually evaluating those ideas.

[1] I recognize that in some cases, a very well-defined category that has been analyzed to exhaustion may be used as shorthand for the analysis. But frankly, I do not think that the world has reached that point when it comes to the labels of socialism vs. capitalism, so we need to continue discussing the idea. :wink:

If, of course, your stance is that your position is right without question, and there's really no point discussing it, then I think the logical conclusion that there's not much point discussing it follows trivially. Please note that this is not a criticism, but merely an attempt to not waste anybody's time.

Do you think that government run police departments are socialist?

I was talking with someone about "universal health care" and it occurred to
me that we actually already have it. That is, emergency rooms can't turn
people away if they're really ill or injured. If you're poor, you might have to
let your illness get so bad you need full blown hospitalization you
can't pay for. Someone pays for that…and it might have been cheaper just
to dispense the meds for free.

I think maybe the debate should be about how to fix the universal health
care system we already have…whether that's socialist or not.

If we *do* refuse to admit a person with a life threatening condition
on the basis of inability to pay, is that right? Is that the society
we should strive for?

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Yes, the government building a bureaucracy layer between me and health care is in fact socialism.

People like you should just come out and say that it is, and that you support it. Instead of trying to play both sides towards the middle. You know, that you won't admit that it is a socialist style plan and if it just so happens it is, you still fall back upon if you disagree you are immoral. (Or often racist, or dumb)



That's pretty funny coming from you. The person making the claim that using a label is wrong in itself.

Instead of just beating around the bush you should just come out and say it. You think that not all socialist plans are bad. That's the truth about many people today. Instead of disputing if what I am calling is socialist is socialist or not then just tell me why you agree with it and I'll tell you what it's wrong. If I want to call something socialist, or wrong, or any other word I am free to do that. I'm sorry if it isn't in line with your political views. I guess people will have to get over it.

Instead of calling it a socialist program I can start calling it a welfare state-democratic handout instead.