Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
That definition has no meaning in the practical sense of determining when socialism exist and when it does not. Can you give an example of "socialism" and the opposite of "socialism?
|
There's never been a purely socialist government or economic system; all economies are mixed. NHS is a good example of a socialist program existing in a mixed economy. NHS is paid for collectively and is run by the DoH, which is answerable to Parliament, which is ultimately answerable to the people via elections.
As for the opposite.... I suppose it would be some kind of conservative libertarianism, but that's too vague to really make any kind of sense. I know people like to boil down political positions to some sort of spectrum illustration, but it's not that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I know what you think about me personally.
|
You know that you remind me of my uncle?! How could you know that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Perhaps, a more in dept look at some of these concepts would help us communicate better. I generally do more than regurgitate what I read, in some cases I put some thought into complicated matters and concepts.
|
President Obama is a socialist in the same way that he's a capitalist. He's both of those things. I'm both of those things, and you're both of those things, too.
You support having a publicly funded and run military, right? That's "socialist". You support a publicly funded and run fire response service, right? That's "socialist". You support the CDC, right? "Socialist".
Calling Barack Obama a socialist isn't the same thing as doing research and coming to the conclusion that he has made some socialist decisions. It's fear mongering; because there are a lot of very ignorant people in the US that equate socialism with totalitarianism or fascism, calling someone a socialist, even if partially true, isn't intended to say that "this individual occasionally sees the benefit in an economic system we already commonly use".