Quote:
|
Originally Posted by miraja2
I assume you realize that the answers to all of your questions is actually, "NO."
By your definition, basically every Western Democratic government in the past 200 years has been socialist. At that point the word has lost all meaning. What steps has the administration taken to transfer real power in terms of transforming who owns the means of production? None. That pretty much means they aren't socialists.
I think your point is simply that the Bush administration has grown the size of the welfare state considerably, rather than cut it as conservatives proposed to do in the late 70s and 80s. In that sense you are correct, but that hardly makes them marxists. I guess it all comes down to how you define the word socialist, but your definition seems extremely broad.
This thread has spun wildly out of control. Why are we talking about socialism at all? Can we please get back to talking about how Sarah Palin is completely nuts?
|
As for socialism, what i have bolded would show that we have a different definition of the term "socialism". How can you say the answers to those questions are "no"? I suggest you read up on socialism. Start with Wikipedia's definition here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
It was posted above by Cajungator. It reads:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. [1] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[2][3]
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; libertarian socialists advocate co-operative worker ownership of the means of production; most Marxists (some inspired by the Soviet economic model), advocate centrally-planned economies. By contrast, Social-Anarchists, Luxemburgists, the U.S. New Left and various forms of libertarian socialism favor decentralized ownership via co-operative workers' councils and participatory planning.
Now how would many of Bush's policies not fit the term Socialism? ALL of the questions presented should be answered "yes". Do you realize that in Washington many conservatives call Bush "Red George"?
Bush is a socialist as is Obama. Definitely not a total socialist but certainly not a pure capitalist either. Thank God.