Maybe because we are almost 100 years past the New Deal and 60 years past the Civil Right movements era. I think history is vitally important, but at what point do people quit looking at the sins of the past to explain the failures of the present? I should add: I'm not convinced about the "evils" of the New Deal thesis that AOC is putting forth.
A lot of people arguing with me here haven't read up in this thread or they are ignoring the truth that I am imparting. Socialism isn't really a thing because humans screw it up. Thus, the Nazis area great example of socialism and where it leads. They were socialists and born of the left. The far left. They did what all good little power hungry politicians do when they get power: they don't implement it. Period. Yes, the Nazis were socialists. Then they weren't. How many times do I have to explain to people here that socialism is a con. It is a bait and switch on the lazy, weak, meek, the emotional, the trusting, and politically uneducated. So basically the majority. The mobs. It creates mob rule to accomplish its power grab. Socialism is a tool, don't you realize? It will not be implemented properly and still no one can show me a good example of this turning out well for the people involved. Hitler was a socialist. Accept it. Own it. Realize that I am not saying his policies implemented socialism. I am saying he was a socialist politician until he took full control and then threw it out the window to accomplish his political aims. So at one point, the important point when he was taking power and winning over supporters, he was a socialist. These politicians do not care about us and the magic socialist government fairy is not real and will not be granting our wishes.
No, he wasn't. Your only proof of that was misattributed quotes of a man he later had killed. There is no proof that Hitler was ever a socialist or ever liked socialism. The Nazi party before Hitler took party had two wings in it, a left wing part and a right wing part, the latter was Hitler, Himmler and the crew...The right wing part of course won out and Hitler proceeded to hunt down and kill any socialist/communist he could find... You'll have a lot of trouble finding a historian that agrees with you. I'm not going to accept it because it just wasn't true. He was never a socialist politician. He took over a party that had some socialist ideas, but he was never a socialist and when he took over the party he went on to prove that. By the term then he wasn't a socialist (Especially with Stalin around...) and by modern times his government wouldn't be considered socialist. As for this point that "You can never have socialism and it is only used for power grabs." I just don't understand the argument honestly. Clearly there are socialist policies and there are capitalist policies etc etc...and it's not like these things don't exist and haven't had varying degrees of success and failure. Hitler never really tried socialism though, nor, from what we know at least, did he ever really want to.
Politicians rarely do. Trump claimed Mexico would pay for a wall and it looks like he's not getting it. Obama claimed that you could choose your doctor... But you know what? At least those two TRIED to follow through... The idea that Hitler was a socialist because he never delivered on something he never even promised is a pretty huge stretch. He never promised socialism, never advocated for it, and never attempted it.
I heard you, I just didn't address it. It seems to me you have your own definition of a socialist that fits into your political paradigm (I'm guessing it's that pretty matrix you see with economic freedom on one axis and social freedom on the other axis that puts libertarianism in that coveted top-right corner of being the most freedom-loving philosophy in the world?) and just go about applying it to historical examples with no regard for their contexts or the historiographical debate they've engendered since they were around. You start with the presumption that socialism is only a pretext for a power grab and not any sort of sincere approach to organizing an economy. With a worldview like that, it is pretty easy to look at any usurpation of power in the world and call it socialism. But, I don't share your worldview. I don't think socialism is an insincere convenient pretext. So your whole argument for how Nazis were socialists falls apart in my hands. I totally reject it.
First of all, we have AOC to thank for sparking this discussion. Thanks, congresswoman. The evolving definition of the word 'socialism' in conservative culture Once upon a time, things were simpler. There was good and bad. There was the Freedom, and Communism. There was America and Everything Else. Every single idea that took one step left of the conservative idea of freedom was on a slippery slope to Communism. The End. Socialism is/was one of those things that, being difficult to define in a 10-second sound byte, was best described as one of those creepy scary things just a short slide down the slippery slope to communist dystopia. A further in-depth discussion would likely involve some liberal egghead university professor anyway. Reagan on Medicare: Bill O'Reilly discussing the top marginal tax rate going back up too 39 from 36? Socialism. Democrats introducing legislation using regulation to increase market competition for cable providers? Socialism. Conservative media discussing any proposed regulation or taxation from democrats? Socialism. Socialism was everywhere! It was easy to point to its phantom lurking anywhere, because any government action could be described as such. Financial regulation? Telecom regulation? Food regulation? Social Security? Government-run healthcare? Government run anything? SOCIALISM. And due to the truth of slippery slopes, we all know where that leads, eventually: communism and enslavement. Along Came a Bernie Conservatives for a generation had successfully turned 'liberal' and 'socialism' into bad words. Hurrah! But then in 2015 America met an old man who actually dared called himself a socialist, (and his devotees keep splitting hairs about 'democratic socialism', but kids, remember our lesson of the slippery slope? Right.) and he was extremely popular! Like, he's talking about using the government to make college affordable, provide healthcare, strictly regulate the financial markets... and Americans liked it, a lot! Now a twenty-something congresswoman is talking about a marginal tax rate of 70% on Americans earning over 10mil, and already a majority of Americans and 45% of republicans are in favor! What are concerned conservatives supposed to do? Heft those goalposts, fellas Back in simpler times, we could just say that Norway was a socialist hell and our listeners would believe it. Well, who are we kidding, they still will. But we have a larger audience at stake in this media war, and for some reason, the previous narrative isn't sticking (cough cough failure of trickle-down and conservative fiscal policy cough). So, here's the new narrative: nevermind that conservatives have been calling everything from seatbelt regulations to Glass-Steagall 'socialism' for generations now, all these European and Nordic nations with high taxes, free/cheap college, universal healthcare, generous welfare states, generous unemployment benefits, and large infrastructure spending are definitely NOT SOCIALIST. When those uppity liberals get all 'facty' and 'evidence-based' when discussing that most Americans can't enjoy basic protections and care that most of the developed world enjoys, remind them that those nations enjoy free market capitalism. Nevermind that the aforementioned liberals have known this the entire damn time. If you keep condescending long and hard enough, they might not remember that up until now we've been screaming socialism about every government program since WWII, and that the last thing we want is 'European socialism.' And definitely mention the Invisible Hand; they've never heard that one before. Repetition is key. If they nevertheless persist, simply say 'socialism just doesn't work.' Don't provide evidence; moral certainty is more important. Instead, simply use Hitler, Cuba, and Venezuela as slurs. When liberal Americans want to raise taxes, make education and healthcare affordable and accessible to all, keep it simple: These programs will lead inevitably to a situation like Venezuela, just like we've been telling you for decades. Be afraid! Death and chaos await! The dozens of other nations that have been enjoying cheap education and universal care do not count, they are not socialist.
I don't give a flying f*ck what conservatives want to call northern Europe / Scandinavia. The Nordic model. Socialism. Compassionate Capitalism. Call it whatever the hell you want. What it is, is a better socio-economic model than what we are using in the states. I want my fellow countrymen to to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe policy and legislation should be based on realism, pragmatism, evidence, and rationality. A pragmatic approach tells us to emulate that which works better than what we have. I'll repeat what I said before: Germany has higher taxes, strong unions, a generous welfare state, generous unemployment benefits, generous maternity leave, generous disability pay, free or cheap pre-school, free or cheap college for all, universal healthcare, fantastic infrastructure, publicly funded elections, and has been running balanced federal budgets every year since 2014. (Their weather sucks tho.) Last time I posted this @dachuda86 said it read like 'socialist fan fiction'. It ain't fiction. This is reality. And Americans can have it to, if they find the will.
Great posts...and isn't Trickle-down economics bait and switch as well? The whole idea that if you give the rich more and more that they will just go "Man, what do we do with all this money? We should raise wages!" has been a sham and a complete fraud. The rich continue to get richer and the poor continues to get poorer, when is that trickle coming?
Is this really all there is to it, or the tip of the iceberg in terms of entitlement? Because this isn’t a liberal thing, rich liberals absolutely do not agree with you nor do they want anything to do with aoc, who let’s face it is a left palin pandering to her demo . . who also happen to be the majority. If it was actually about the 3 things you stated, warren would already be the liberal front runner and no one would care about aoc. But it’s about chaos, it’s about bedlam it’s about wanting to see the smarter minds creating wealth burn.
I swear to God on high, 97% of contemporary conservative economic argumentation is founded on the slippery slope fallacy and false dichotomies. It's like an addiction. If y'all were not permitted to use these fallacies in a debate, I honestly have no idea what would come out of your mouths. AOC is pandering to her demo, which happens to be the majority, but this is not a liberal thing? That makes no sense. Or you mean AOC is pandering to Palin's demo? I agree with you that a lower percentage of rich democrats favor higher taxes and larger benefits than middle class democratic voters, but I find it highly unlikely that a majority are against- it would make more sense for them to simply vote republican. Plenty of wealthy business leaders like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates make a strong case for progressive economic policy. Asher Edelman, the inspiration for the corporate raider Gordon Gekko in the famous film Wall Street (remember the famous "greed is good" scene), came out as a supporter of Bernie and had this to say about his economic policy: There are wealthy americans who believe rational self-interest would lead one to create fiscal policy that is favorable to the poor and middle class, instead of pooling money at the top, where it stagnates. It's too early to say who is the front runner, many of the dem candidates have no name recognition so they can't poll well against someone like Biden. It seems you're posing Warren as the far left of the candidates, and she would be the favorite if the democrats favored far left policy? Warren isn't a far left candidate in this field anymore. Speaking in favor of medicare-for-all, for example, used to be an extreme position; it is already standard fare for most dems who have declared already. Or maybe I misunderstand you? I'm not exactly sure what you mean. What on earth does this even mean?
Beats the 100% of "liberals" who label everyone with a viewpoint that doesn't suit their narrative a "conservative who lives in a trailer park" with a hatred for non whites. Unfortunately I am neither. Palin is an airhead, AOC is an airhead. AOC is pandering to the poor, underpaid and uneducated, who make up the majority of her district. I don't care what a 100 year old goon on Wall Street has to say. They swing and miss more often than not. An exec making 6 million who spends 10% of what he makes is still more than 5 guys earning 100k spending 100% of their disposable income (which isn't huge if they pay big city rent). There goes that amazing analysis... even though I personally support policies that support greater distribution of wealth. It has to transfer from the very top of corporate monopolies to the worker (blue and white collar) .. and constant growth is unsustainable. So a sustainable economy with a solid foundation is what should excite people, not the illusion of constant expansion. Maria Balitomoro would be on a yacht in Spain if she knew what was going on, instead she's still yapping about the same stuff. Don't expect to impress me with these clowns. Warren is my favorite in regards to being a champion of the 99%. She has a vision, is realistic, takes money out of the hands of corporate oligarchs and helps the worker out. Plus, she has a track record of being able to execute. I don't want to classify everyone on the spectrum, I want to promote the best candidate. Politicians who are too conniving like Hilary who won't say anything without a market survey and demographic information on it are found out easily by people nowadays. It means AOC appeals to the desperation of those at the bottom who do not see any benefit from the structure and order of contemporary society, so they are fine with Fight Club scenario to "even the playing field". Burn it all . down baby .
Agreed. An economic model based on perpetual growth is irrational. Agreed. Not necessarily my favorite, I'll wait to see how the others do. Ah, like "eat the rich" class warfare. I don't see her advocating violence, if that's what you mean. We've had class warfare this whole time, just with rich killing the poor.
The slippery slope is not a logical fallacy... even though you have a silly info graphic and an outdated example and poor explanation of the concept. Also people did start marrying objects and in one recent case even a ghost. You're assuming the person is saying it is going to happen, versus arguing that by opening up a gate way for something you in turn make it easy for the hypothetical to take place. I highly suggest you study what a fallacy is because no one said it will happen. However the likelihood increases and in many cases this is just based on simple pattern recognition.
The whole racist rants about Hitler being a Socialst are for stupid people. Hitler and Nazi Germany were Facist. If someone says otherwise they are an idiot, and have read too many dumbass conspiracy sites. DD
