Posted on 02/11/2016 12:02:09 PM PST by Torcert
The point is to set out the various ideologies relative to each other.
“The point is to set out the various ideologies relative to each other.”
I know the subject. My point is the terms have been destroyed for practical usage, by misuse.
You might consider using some other terminology like “mixed economy” which would encompass both Sweden and the US.
left wing anarchists?
left wing: the part of a political group that consists of people who support liberal or socialist ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Left
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/left%20wing
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
First Known Use of SOCIALISM
1837
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Does that sound like there could be an absence of government in that scenario?
Why? It would seem like that scale does it quite well.
What is the point in driving deeper into a Tower of babel situation where words are made even more meaningless?
What are you referring to by the term mixed economy?
Maybe if people saw that they have basically two choices, freedom or tyranny, they would pick political freedom and learn about the Constitution as the legal basis and protection of their political freedom the alternative being slavery to the tyranny of the feds.
That reminds me of the quote Mark Levine had for his book liberty and tyranny
We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny.
Abraham Lincoln
Source:April 18, 1864 - Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland
The problem is many people have forgotten the danger of socialism and they have been taught definitions for words that make no sense.
“What are you referring to by the term mixed economy? “
Google it. Also google a series available on youtube (which played on PBS) from Dr. Milton Friedman called “Free to Choose” and a book by the same title.
Anybody calling themselves a conservative, should be knowledgable about this subject.
Friedman made the case for Free Market Capitalism. Right in time for Reagan.
Your personal assignment, is to compare and contrast the level of knowledge held by so called conservatives then, and now, on economics.
If you aren’t disappointed you are not well informed.
Few conservatives make or even can make the case for Free Market Conservatism.
It's certainly a (l)ibertarian definition, and one I generally subscribe to.
But we are far, far from a majority.
In the interim I intend to vote for the candidate I think will do their best to take care of the Republic. Once preservation is assured, I'll be on your side.
If 10% is Good Enough for Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQc_WPUCE-o
I will tell you what I tell everyone else - I don’t go in for the ‘wild goose chase’ gambit.
You used the term, you have to define it and explain it to the class.
Perfect!!
On a side note - why is it that the government can never do with less?
When the subject comes about a tax cut the refrain is always - how will we pay for it?
Why can’t the people rise up when a Tax INCREASE is mentioned and ask the same question?
I’ll take any marginal improvement toward that end.
By which, no GOPe / RINO can possibly assist. They’ve proved they will merely rubber stamp absolutely anything 0bama comes up with.
Thanks Torcert. We just need to try to influence and really, educate, as many as we can. With God’s help, and by his grace, I think we can go far.
You’re welcome, I am very hopeful that things will work out..
I would like to know where on this scale ‘democratic socialism’ falls on. Bernie bots are throwing that term around like it should make it all okay. Bernie was supposed to educate us all what the term means, but I must have missed that lesson. Has anyone figured out what it is that convinces lv folks that ‘democratic socialism’ is not so different than what we have right now ... or ... IS it what we have right now? Thanks for any clarification. I never can understand the Left.
bkmk
You seem to not understand I'm the professor here - you are the student.
If you are going to toss of terms like mixed economy then it is incumbent on you to define the bloody phrase based on EXCERPTS and Links from authentic reference sites.
Definition of democratic socialism
noun
A form of socialism pursued by democratic rather than autocratic or revolutionary means, especially by respecting a democratically elected legislature as the source of political change; (also more generally) moderate or centrist socialism.
Origin
Mid 19th cent.; earliest use found in The Athenaeum. From democratic + socialism.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/democratic-socialism?
Definition of socialism
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. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism
But the best answer is straight from the horse's month - this is a quote from the Principles of Communism- written in the 1840's:
Principles of Communism - How do communists differ from socialists?
[ Democratic Socialists: ]
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.
These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them - provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.
It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11347493-the-principles-of-communism
“I’m still eagerly awaiting your explanation of that term and the other assignments you gave yourself.
You seem to not understand I’m the professor here - you are the student.”
No participation from me, due to your superior and dismissive attitude.
truth_seeker Google it. Also google a series available on youtube (which played on PBS) from Dr. Milton Friedman called "Free to Chooseâ" and a book by the same title.
Anybody calling themselves a conservative, should be knowledgable about this subject.
Friedman made the case for Free Market Capitalism. Right in time for Reagan.
Your personal assignment, is to compare and contrast the level of knowledge held by so called conservatives then, and now, on economics.
If you aren't disappointed you are not well informed.
Few conservatives make or even can make the case for Free Market Conservatism.
No, Your participation is required if you want to issue personal assignment(s) such as you have.
Do you understand that You have to prove your own points?
I have gone through the effort to back up my assertions with Excerpts and links, the least you could do is extend the same courtesy to others.
And speak for yourself with regard to a superior and dismissive attitude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.