Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum

You admitted that you're not actually a socialist, but a social democrat, earlier in this thread. And being a "socialist" but not a "leftist" is oxymoronic. More accurate to say that you're a leftist but not a liberal.

Much of this would apply to the USSR under Stalin or North Korea too.

No, she doesn't. The National Rally advocate mixed market economics, they're not looking for collective ownership of the means of production.

I claim to be a socialist, because I'm a social democrat, who is opposed to Blairism. I support nationalisation of public utilities and natural resources. Bernie Sanders claims to be a socialist, despite being a social democrat. The ruling party of Spain is called the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, despite being a social democratic party.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 332
Reply with quote  #32 
Claiming to be something you are fully aware that you are not because other people claim to be something they are not is retarded. The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party is called that because historically it has actually been a socialist party, and the name predates its rightward drift in policy. Bernie Sanders may actually be a socialist advocating social democratic policies for pragmatic reasons, or he may not really know what socialism is like most Americans. You apparently both understand the distinction between socialism and social democracy and have no interest in actual socialism in the present or as a long term policy goal, so there is no good reason for you to call yourself a socialist. 
__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,605
Reply with quote  #33 
Sanders is certainly a socialist. He has clearly shown the over his adult life, and has shown no attempt to disavow it. The man honeymooned in the Soviet Union.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 332
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Sanders is certainly a socialist. He has clearly shown the over his adult life, and has shown no attempt to disavow it. The man honeymooned in the Soviet Union.

Regardless, he is not running on a socialist platform.

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
Claiming to be something you are fully aware that you are not because other people claim to be something they are not is retarded. The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party is called that because historically it has actually been a socialist party, and the name predates its rightward drift in policy. Bernie Sanders may actually be a socialist advocating social democratic policies for pragmatic reasons, or he may not really know what socialism is like most Americans. You apparently both understand the distinction between socialism and social democracy and have no interest in actual socialism in the present or as a long term policy goal, so there is no good reason for you to call yourself a socialist. 

I want to make it clear that I'm opposed to the Third Way (Blairism).
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 332
Reply with quote  #36 
You don't want to be mistaken for something that you're not, so you... Claim to be something that you're not? Interesting logic there.
__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
You don't want to be mistaken for something that you're not, so you... Claim to be something that you're not? Interesting logic there.

The term social democracy is associated with Blairism.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 332
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

The term social democracy is associated with Blairism.

And the term socialism is associated with socialism.

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum

And the term socialism is associated with socialism.

Socialism is a catch-all term for social democracy, Communism and regimes, which nationalise large enterprises, while allowing small and medium-sized enterprises to remain privately owned, such as the regimes of Hugo Chavez, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Hafez al-Assad. 
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 332
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Socialism is a catch-all term for social democracy, Communism and regimes, which nationalise large enterprises, while allowing small and medium-sized enterprises to remain privately owned, such as the regimes of Hugo Chavez, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Hafez al-Assad. 

No it's bloody well not. Social democracies are still capitalist, it's not socialism if you still have private ownership of the means of production. Socialism has a specific definition- it doesn't mean whatever you want it to.

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,605
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum

Regardless, he is not running on a socialist platform.

True, although he also hasn't disavowed just about anything from his past, including his support for Castro and the like. He had these views for decades. Not being a Republican, he doesn't get pressed on it by the media, though. But things may change a little if (probably when at this stage) he becomes the nominee.

Personally, I'm just disappointed that we don't get to see Trump-Biden debates. Trump-Sanders will be quite funny, but Trump-Biden would have been hilarious. Trump, the master of eloquence himself, versus Uncle Joe, who seems to be entering the middle stages of dementia. We could have had whole debates where no one watching understood a full sentence either of them said.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,078
Reply with quote  #42 
The Epoch Times suggests the USA is heading to a British or Canadian-like three-party system:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/americas-coming-three-party-system_3224966.html
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
The Epoch Times suggests the USA is heading to a British or Canadian-like three-party system:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/americas-coming-three-party-system_3224966.html

Hugo Chavez wasn't a dictator. He was elected and re-elected in free elections.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,605
Reply with quote  #44 
Wikipedia is far from perfect for political and other controversial topics, but it tends to lean left, and it suggests that Chavez was guilty of "democratic backsliding":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

What that means in context, as they mention, is he certainly did take anti-democratic actions. Whether he reached the level of a dictator is a matter of judgment, I suppose. A dictator can theoretically be popular. Putin would probably still win in free and fair elections, but he is still a dictator.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 474
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum

And the term socialism is associated with socialism.


The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club!

Seriously, Azadi, how do you not get this point? If someone calls themselves a socialist, people listening should assume they mean socialist.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.