Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dalakhani
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. |
First of all, you are off to a very bad start in using wikipedia as your source. It has zero credibility. Secondly, I assure you that no serious academic would ever categorize George W. Bush as a socialist. He's not even close.
If you just want to use pop-culture definitions of serious terms and quote sources like wikipedia instead of analyzing legitimate sources I guess that's okay.....but trust me, anybody that actually HAS "read up on socialism" understands that there is a HUGE difference between neoliberalism and socialism.
Am I shocked to hear that some Republicans in Washington call Bush "red George." Not at all. Since when do they understand anything about political philosophies?
Again he has unquestionably grown the welfare state considerably, but trust me, that doesn't make him a socialist.