madviking
north american scum
considering that bernie is not even a socialist, i disagree.
Is this the end of liberalism?
- Thread starter civman110
- Start date
- Status
considering that bernie is not even a socialist, i disagree.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
What is he then?
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Social-democrat, if we're being charitable?
madviking
north american scum
social-democrat at most charitable, progressive at least.
The Republicans are trying their best to destroy traditional liberalism. There is no leanings towards socialism among modern liberals.
Bernie Sanders on the topic:
"When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertisingvery ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didnt use the word socialist at all because everybody in the state knows that I am that. It has lost its cachet."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/
"When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertisingvery ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didnt use the word socialist at all because everybody in the state knows that I am that. It has lost its cachet."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Then he's delusional. Hardly something rare for a candidate.
Only people more delusional than him are the people voting for him, thinking he's different.
Only people more delusional than him are the people voting for him, thinking he's different.
madviking
north american scum
being not in bed with commercial interests makes you a socialist in this country
/mildly s
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Taxing 300 million Americans with Denmark-levels taxation will result in the second Revolution, in any case.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
The Republicans are opposed to socialism in many of its forms.
Modern progressive thought is focusing more power to the State. More laws, more reach, more regulation. Mills would not consider bigger government utilitarian. His focus would on keeping the actions of the state at the lowest practical level. Federalism is almost directly opposed. Republicans willingness to focus on individual responsibility is much more Millsian.
J
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
That does seem to make up a significant part of Republican rhetoric. Why is that? What do Republicans view is wrong with "socialism"?
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Because it interferes with corporate cronyism, which is what they are all about.
I doubt anyone is delusional enough to think that pure free market actually works.
But support it in many others. Their economic policy has a very socialist underpinning.
That's what conservatives are doing, essentially the entire existence of conservatism. They've never done anything else.
You see, it's not about the state with progressives, it's about the individual. Progressives use the state as a tool to protect and free the individual. One thing the classical liberals were not is blind to the realities surrounding them. The core difference between the classical liberal and the modern progressive was the realization that the goals of the classical liberal could not be met without the actions and power of the state to make it happen. The minimal state society does not produce the outcomes the classical liberals advocated.
Federalism is the primary defense of liberty and the individual which exists in the US.
The funny part of that is that the utter and complete rejection and opposition to personal responsibility is the foundation on which everything the Republicans is based on.
Pure free Market/ Pure Capitalism / Economic Darwinism all lead to Monopoly/Monopolization, making competition impossible. The only way a capitalist market can work is with government intervention to prevent monopolization.
Interesting statement... Tell me more
How so?Interesting statement... Tell me more
It's everywhere in conservative doctrine. Take race relations: "We have done everything we can to prevent you from prospering for 400 years! And we're still doing it! What is wrong with you that you can't bootstrap yourself to success?" Labor relations: "We've broken the unions, taken away labor's right to the courts, given your employers nearly unfettered power over you, and shipped millions of your jobs overseas! How could you possibly still need Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps?" How about the national debt: "We've cut taxes on the rich, raised spending for the rich, crashed the economy, and did it all over again! Why don't the Democrats balance the budget?" The Mideast: "We destroyed the enemy of our enemies, put more of our enemies into power in the nations we laid ruin to, backed our enemies in every way available to us! How dare Obama let the situation get out of control!"
I could go on all day, on any issue you care to name. Everything that they do is about not taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
[QUOTE="The Cracked article]The problem is that if you actually read those stories instead of just phrasing them in the most alarmist way possible, you'll find that none of them happened the way you think. The Vagina Monologues wasn't just abruptly cancelled; it was replaced with a different show that they felt might be more inclusive of trans people.[/QUOTE]
Oh, man, if only we read those stories. If only we read those stories.
- Status
Similar threads
