Politics over Religion at MD&D

[_Uncle Ed]

The fact that you even bring up socialism, as though this were a real thing these days, shows me just how far off the map of reality you are.

I can't believe I read that. What planet are you from?

[_Morley]

I am a "white" Scandinavian boy, though. And so were the Founders, of course, for the most part; "white", that is.

You mention this, why? The whiteness of the founders has what to do with what?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I am a "white" Scandinavian boy, though. And so were the Founders, of course, for the most part; "white", that is.

You mention this, why? The whiteness of the founders has what to do with what?

You literally introduced the topic to him.

- Doc

[_beastie]

"Uncle" Ed is "bat" shiit "cray cray".

[_Morley]

I am a "white" Scandinavian boy, though. And so were the Founders, of course, for the most part; "white", that is.

You mention this, why? The whiteness of the founders has what to do with what?

You literally introduced the topic to him.

I certainly did. I'm still waiting for an answer as to what the whiteness of the Founding Fathers has to do with Hávamál, Asatru, white supremacists, or Uncle Ed being a Scandinavian boy.

Oh, and you use 'literally' too much. Really, Cam, you literally do.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh, and you use 'literally' too much. Really, Cam, you literally do.

Well, I'm a big Parks n' Rec fan.

- Doc

[_theboss]

Politics and prayer are strictly not allowed in MD&D. Please stop saying politics is over Religion at MD&D. A thread got locked quickly.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/699 ... -for-them/

[_Kishkumen]

I can't believe I read that. What planet are you from?

What do believe socialism to be, Ed? It’s not a lazy man’s synonym for liberal. It has a specific meaning, which does not fit much of anything that goes on in the political or economic sphere in the US today.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Is the means of production socially or privately owned in the US?

When I say socialism is not a thing, I mean it hardly exists as a movement and exerts very little force in mainstream politics. We can look at the long list of federal legislators and find almost no socialists. Sanders is as close as it gets, and he does not advocate social ownership of the means of production. Rather, he advocates for well regulated capitalism.

[_Uncle Ed]

What do [you] believe socialism to be, Ed? It’s not a lazy man’s synonym for liberal. It has a specific meaning, which does not fit much of anything that goes on in the political or economic sphere in the US today.

Which "flavor" of "socialism" are we to define? Anymore, the word is arguable. You reference "a range" of definitions. What any of them are is a danger to free enterprise because the Gov't obtains more and more control over private use of property. Fascism makes no bones about the "necessity" of Gov't control for the "common good": it asserts that private enterprise is too vulnerable to the evils men do as they pursue profits. The Gov't must step in and regulate, or else evil capitalists will unbalance the market, create Mega Huge Corporation monopolies and drive out competition. So the Gov't takes control of this one and that one, bailing out Chapter Elevens left and right, and never giving back full control again. Over time,
fascism is the result. Socialism is the way to fascism. Bernie Sanders pushes a toothless private ownership; the "teeth" belong to the Gov't.

Is the means of production socially or privately owned in the US?

As I said, "ownership" is only apparent when we reach and pass the point that Gov't regulates the actual use of property.

When I say socialism is not a thing, I mean it hardly exists as a movement and exerts very little force in mainstream politics. We can look at the long list of federal legislators and find almost no socialists. Sanders is as close as it gets, and he does not advocate social ownership of the means of production. Rather, he advocates for well regulated capitalism.

Since the EU is far more "socialist" in its approaches to regulating the "common welfare"
and since many in the US (especially Democrats) point to the EU as a model to be admired,
it does not follow your assertion that over here socialism "hardly exists as a movement and exerts very little force in mainstream politics."

I believe that the attack on our definitions of words of utility in political discussion tends to hide the degree that socialism is pushed for in this country.

[_Uncle Ed]

I'm still waiting for an answer as to what the whiteness of the Founding Fathers has to do with Hávamál, Asatru, white supremacists, or Uncle Ed being a Scandinavian boy.

You associated this "white Scandinavian boy" with Asatru because I like the ancient wisdom. You further asserted that this association made me a "white supremacist". White supremacist are all about "white privilege". The Founders were, according to the demagogues of the present day, all about "white privilege". So I appealed to them as alike with myself. And if they are "white privilege" dudes, then so am I. But it remains for you to make that assertion. Because I don't for a minute believe that they were pushing their race in anything that they did. In fact, the bulk of them denigrated the practices of the Southern Colonies: but had to bow beneath necessity in order to bring them into the revolution. The result was the ACW generations later. How any of that has the first thing to do with some neo-pagan literalism is beyond me. But "progressives" will make all manner of fallacious associations.