What would be the difference between a social Democrat and a Democratic socialist anyway? Are the two terms interchangeable?
I was accepted into Georgia Southern on Monday, so I will be starting school around January 14th in the computer engineering program. I'm hoping it will be in my best interests and time to study such a subject. I was still thinking about mechanical or electrical engineering just in case. The other day, I was talking to a libertarian on YouTube who studied engineering and despite the lack of experience, he filled out around 50 resumes and got a good internship and a scholarship.
You seem to have developed an attitude since the election, and its not a good thing. I would have thought, based on your previous intelligent and lucid writings, that you would be smart enough to realize that the Democrats are not the only socialists in town. If excessive government spending is the mark of a socialist, then Bush 43 and Reagan were just as socialist as any Democrat. If the Republican party were truly anti-socialist, then Ron Paul would have been allowed to speak at the convention. I thought you were a legitimate libertarian, but you may have revealed yourself to be just another Republican apologist. The election didn't matter, both parties are evil in different ways. Politics is theater, other people off-stage really run things, and pretending that one of these evils are the good guys is about as logical as taking sides with Stalin against Hitler (like FDR did, the f**king socialist!)
You're flitting tantalizingly close to an important point in this video (perhaps without realizing it): one of the things that distinguishes the left from the right is the left's focus on intent and the right's focus on results. It doesn't matter what the Democrats call themselves, it doesn't matter that they mean well or want to help the poor and disenfranchised by redistributing wealth or whatever. What matters is what happens at the end. If the state effectively owns 50% of everything you're a socialist country no matter how you got there.
"What would be the difference between a social Democrat and a Democratic socialist anyway? Are the two terms interchangeable?"
The two terms ought to be interchangeable. All democracies inexorably slides towards socialism, and this is rational choice theory in action. When you open the franchise to anyone over 18 with two legs and a pulse, you open it to people with some combination of:
*low intelligence *low work ethic *low future time orientation *low impulse control *high acquisitiveness
Politicians will inevitably pander to these people, whether they consider themselves left or right, lower class or upper class. A vote for most people is such a small task, such a throwaway moment. What does it cost, an afternoon? Especially when they are being told how to vote, and promised goodies for it, anyway.
Politicians promise "gibsmedats" to the lowest classes, and pork, subsidies, tax credits, etc. all the way up the ladder of "success". Thus, the bottom-feeding leeches and the rich rent-seekers combine the vote to squeeze the productive classes, as you see happening in the U.S. right now. Without fail, expenditures rise, revenue falls, debt balloons, and confiscatory taxes, inflation, and nationalization are right around the corner.
The only thing democracies have going for them is a relatively peaceful transfer of power, but if democracy inevitably becomes socialism, then violence is sure to follow regardless, mostly revolutionary violence. Good thing about all those antidepressants being prescribed.
The question remains whether democracy is an inevitable reaction to aristocracy. That would be a depressing thought.
Why call them socialist at all? They're really communist - socialist is the nicer sounding word they came up with in order to push a society towards communism by bribing votes - isn't that illegal anyway?
What's the difference between handing a bum on the street cash for a vote versus promising to steal it from those who work to give to a bum for their vote?
10 comments:
You may have titled this post: "Yes, the Republicans are Socialist."
Both parties are the parties of big spending.
You may as well have titled the post, "Yes, the Republicans are Socialist."
Both parties are the party of big spending.
What would be the difference between a social Democrat and a Democratic socialist anyway? Are the two terms interchangeable?
I was accepted into Georgia Southern on Monday, so I will be starting school around January 14th in the computer engineering program. I'm hoping it will be in my best interests and time to study such a subject. I was still thinking about mechanical or electrical engineering just in case. The other day, I was talking to a libertarian on YouTube who studied engineering and despite the lack of experience, he filled out around 50 resumes and got a good internship and a scholarship.
you are invited to follow my blog
You seem to have developed an attitude since the election, and its not a good thing. I would have thought, based on your previous intelligent and lucid writings, that you would be smart enough to realize that the Democrats are not the only socialists in town. If excessive government spending is the mark of a socialist, then Bush 43 and Reagan were just as socialist as any Democrat. If the Republican party were truly anti-socialist, then Ron Paul would have been allowed to speak at the convention. I thought you were a legitimate libertarian, but you may have revealed yourself to be just another Republican apologist. The election didn't matter, both parties are evil in different ways. Politics is theater, other people off-stage really run things, and pretending that one of these evils are the good guys is about as logical as taking sides with Stalin against Hitler (like FDR did, the f**king socialist!)
You're flitting tantalizingly close to an important point in this video (perhaps without realizing it): one of the things that distinguishes the left from the right is the left's focus on intent and the right's focus on results. It doesn't matter what the Democrats call themselves, it doesn't matter that they mean well or want to help the poor and disenfranchised by redistributing wealth or whatever. What matters is what happens at the end. If the state effectively owns 50% of everything you're a socialist country no matter how you got there.
Funny thing how exactly DID "Socialist" and "Communist" acquire such a pejorative meaning?
When a purely descriptive term becomes a pejorative, it's normally because it is well deserved.
@ Roberto
"What would be the difference between a social Democrat and a Democratic socialist anyway? Are the two terms interchangeable?"
The two terms ought to be interchangeable. All democracies inexorably slides towards socialism, and this is rational choice theory in action. When you open the franchise to anyone over 18 with two legs and a pulse, you open it to people with some combination of:
*low intelligence
*low work ethic
*low future time orientation
*low impulse control
*high acquisitiveness
Politicians will inevitably pander to these people, whether they consider themselves left or right, lower class or upper class. A vote for most people is such a small task, such a throwaway moment. What does it cost, an afternoon? Especially when they are being told how to vote, and promised goodies for it, anyway.
Politicians promise "gibsmedats" to the lowest classes, and pork, subsidies, tax credits, etc. all the way up the ladder of "success". Thus, the bottom-feeding leeches and the rich rent-seekers combine the vote to squeeze the productive classes, as you see happening in the U.S. right now. Without fail, expenditures rise, revenue falls, debt balloons, and confiscatory taxes, inflation, and nationalization are right around the corner.
The only thing democracies have going for them is a relatively peaceful transfer of power, but if democracy inevitably becomes socialism, then violence is sure to follow regardless, mostly revolutionary violence. Good thing about all those antidepressants being prescribed.
The question remains whether democracy is an inevitable reaction to aristocracy. That would be a depressing thought.
Both parties have done a 'great' job of implementing the Nazi Party platform and the Ten Planks of Communism.
Neither party cares about the Bill of Rights or anything else that would increase private property or civil liberties.
Hey Captain,
Why call them socialist at all? They're really communist - socialist is the nicer sounding word they came up with in order to push a society towards communism by bribing votes - isn't that illegal anyway?
What's the difference between handing a bum on the street cash for a vote versus promising to steal it from those who work to give to a bum for their vote?
Post a Comment