Loc: Port Angeles, WA
Your definition is personal, mine deals with the english language. Simply adding, say, "Democratic" to the word "Socialism" doesn't change anything and is actaully seriously redundant. We have been down this road with some consistency and nobody is going to change their minds. I give up.......
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
THe dictionary definition of "Socialism" is what you say it is. But, as Greger points out, that is not the only definition in circulation - but that is the right-wing definition, and it helps them to demonize fairness and government in general.
The Constitution references the "general welfare" numerous times. What does it mean? What is the word that we should be using for promoting the general welfare of all Americans? I think that "socialism" (small "s" to differentiate it from the dictionary definition of a political system) is a perfect fit. "Democratic socialism" is a further bid to distance it from "Socialism".
This is why I advocate for using "Americanism" instead of little s or big S socialism - because it is actually in the Constitution (promoting the general welfare) and it's not (yet) owned by the Right Wing Asssholes.
"You can't fix a problem until you understand what the problem is." Logtroll
Your definition is personal, mine deals with the english(sic) language.
You...who were able to Google around the internet and convince yourself that irregardless is a word and that it's okay to use it because enough people have mistakenly thought it was a word that it has become a "word" even though it isn't one.... are unable to accept anything except a narrow dictionary definition of another word as the only possible usage of it...
Gimme a break.
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."— Oscar Wilde
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
You are exactly correct. The Right DID define Socialism, a long time ago. They really do this kind of thing right and it sticks. In this case you are also right about how its currently defined and its unlikely to change anytime soon. All this was hashed out, here, several months ago.
They also did this with a number of other things. The demonization of Hillary is an excellent example of what is possible when the subject (human, term, whatever) doesn't fight back when it happens (in her case it went on for over 30 years! (with nary a peep from Hillary)). The idea of reclaiming "socialism" is simply not possible. Especially by the Left who are not even in agreement as to what it (or anything else) means.
The only thing that they are actually in agreement on is that Trump's gotta go. There are other things, like Climate Change, where they, for the most part, agree on the term but not what to do about it. I think there is a historic claim, by Democrats, that they are proud of their inability to agree. Sorry, I believe they should have some basic messages instead of partial thoughts that sound good.
I know, I am completely wrong. That's fine with me. I also know that the Democrats are going up against a man who has one of the best instances of an economy in memory. That is a really hard nut to crack anyway you look at it. My own hope is that he wrecks it, all on his own, and it seems to me that he works pretty hard at that one.
Loc: North San Diego County
I think every Democratic candidate has a pretty good idea what we need to do about climate change. Everyone on the side of reason and science knows it IS man-made, and we need to stop adding carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere. Exactly how we can do that is an engineering problem, not so much a political one. We don't need Presidents who are engineers. Carter and Hoover were, and they don't stand out as great leaders. We need a President who seeks out real experts and directs projects that have a real chance of solving problems.
I just read today that the US renewable energy total has exceeded our coal energy total. That's real progress, no thanks to Trump.
Everyone on the side of reason and science knows it IS man-made, and we need to stop adding carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere. Exactly how we can do that is an engineering problem, not so much a political one.
Yeah but Mr Trump may direct his Energy Czar, Sec Perry, to stop renewables so coal can be king again. It would be consistent with his understanding of energy and it would accomplish one of his campaign promises.
_________________________ ignorance is the enemy without equality there is no liberty