NOBODY wants me to talk more about this, but I will anyway. As I said, there's a little controversy about the president using a descriptor for Republican political philosophy which some conservatives apparently regard as beyond the pale of civilised discourse. Liberals disagree, and the two sides don't seem to agree on what exactly the term denotes, so the argument is likely to go back and forth interminably. As several commenters noted, liberal use of the term causes conservatives to go ballistic. Not to get caught up in "fake symmetry", but this dynamic pretty well mirrors the one that takes place on the opposite side of the coin over whether it's fair to describe the president using a different term for a certain left-wing political philosophy. The terms are "social Darwinism" and "socialism", and in both cases people who use them to describe the other side's philosophy find them neither inaccurate or offensive, while those to whom the terms are being applied go through the roof.
The question arises, then: to what extent is use of these kinds of political labels a deliberate effort to take advantage of this dynamic? Words are vague and slippery things, perhaps none more so than words that denote political philosophies. They're never simply on or off; like a good clutch pedal, they leave the user with plenty of in-between space. One way to use this in-between space is the "dog-whistle" technique, the art of using language that signifies little to one's opponents and reluctant allies, while signaling to the base that you are one of them. George Bush was described, by Amy Sullivan and others, as using religious language in this way, referring to "wonder-working power" when talking about social policy; the idea was that secular liberals and moderates would take no notice, while evangelical Christians would fill in the rest of the hymn, "...in the blood of the Lamb."
The use of the word "socialist" to describe Barack Obama seems to work the opposite way; it's the converse of a dog whistle. For movement conservatives, calling the belief that the government should ensure that everyone has health insurance "socialist" seems to be fairly non-controversial. For liberals, who have defined themselves since the 1930s precisely as the non-socialist left and have spent the past three decades being pulled steadily rightwards, the term is a snowball in the face. They can't help but start an argument. And conservatives seem to respond in a bit of the same way to the term "social Darwinism".
How does this end up affecting voters' perceptions? To stick with the dog analogy, I think it works a bit like the old Far Side "What we say to dogs/What they hear" cartoon. (Which Gary Larson apparently doesn't want anyone to see on the internet.)
What liberals say: Barack Obama is not a socialist! Socialism is government control over the entire economy, not bailouts of private banks and industries that leave them private, like Obama's (which Bush started anyway)! Obamacare isn't a government takeover of health-care, it's based entirely on private insurers! That's less socialist than Medicare!
What voters hear: Obama... socialist.... socialism... bail-outs... Obama... Obamacare... government takeover... socialist.
What conservatives say: Mitt Romney is not a social Darwinist! He's a middle-of-the-road Wall Street executive! Just because his business success has made him rich doesn't mean he doesn't care about poor people! Social Darwinists believe poor people are inherently inferior to rich people; Romney doesn't believe that, he thinks deregulation and tax cuts will empower the poor to better themselves! Recognising that we need to cut Medicare spending growth doesn't make you a social Darwinist, Romney's just recognising budgetary reality!
What voters hear: Romney...social Darwinist...Wall Street...rich...social Darwinist...poor people are inferior...cut Medicare...Romney.
I would imagine that political speech is often designed to produce these kinds of reactions, and that (to stick with the dog analogy!) when we find ourselves slobbering over the latest insult from our opponents, there's often a consultant in a lab coat somewhere recording the volume of our saliva to calculate what type of bell-ringing might produce more of it next time.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
What happened to the political middle.
It's not just political parties that have their favored words for describing their enemy. Nations pushing a particular philosophy are also at fault. Most recently, of course, the term "terrorist" was more or less given its entire modern meaning as well as a broad new legal definition by the US in promoting a "war on terror" which if examined closely seems to be merely a war on anyone who opposes self-defined "US interests". Domestically, petty criminals are being charged with "terrorism" merely because they terrorized their victims.
It took maybe one year of "monkey see, monkey do" before every tin-pot dictator in the world was describing his own political opponents as "terrorists" and re-branding his secret police, domestic security, and other sundry goon squads as "anti-terrorist" forces. At this point, the word has become meaningless, covering anyone whom any government doesn't like.
"Insurgent" is still a bit more narrow, since it seems to still require that the person or group actually be taking up arms, but in practice it merely means "anyone fighting against our interests", whomever "our" might be. Insurgents whom "we" view favorably might be described merely as "protesters" or "the opposition".
Prior to the war on terror, it was communist governments that excelled at creating their own definition of an otherwise-vague term. Opposition groups, internally, were "counterrevolutionary" or "reactionary", terms that were almost never used in non-communist countries, while troublesome individuals were frequently described by the USSR as "hooligans", a term that never seemed to sound as serious in the West as the Soviets intended.
Within the US currently, the conservatives have so poisoned the words "liberal" and "socialist" that no one dares use them positively or constructively any more, and they're working hard at putting "progressive" in the same category. It took the liberals a little while to catch up, probably because all those bearded college professors wasted too much time trying ineffectually to teach us that the terms were being misused, but they seem to have found their footing now and are throwing misapplied and redefined terminology back at the conservatives as fast as the conservatives throw it at them.
It is as if if all the speechwriters and opinionators have become Humpty Dumpty; "When I use a word, it means exactly what I mean it to mean, no more and no less." More particularly, when they use a word whose true meaning is obscure to the audience, what it means is that their opponent is a dangerously bad man.
Another great post. I should really stop being so hard on M.S.
The problem with both terms is that neither is being used in its semantic usage, but rather in its mythic usage. Ernst Cassirer describes the split between the phenomenon of mythic language in politics, among other things, in his book "The Myth of the State". He is more concerned with the use of mythic language by totalitarian and fascist states, but his description's applicability here is undeniable. At one point he says, "What characterizes them [words created by or altered by Nazi propaganda and usage] is not so much their content and their objective meaning as the emotional atmosphere which surrounds and envelops them."
Socialism and socialist here are being used not to denote someone who endorses socialist programs, they are being used to conjure up the bogey-man of American paranoia over the perceived threat of the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the lurking Red Menace. And Social Darwinism is not being used to denote someone who truly believes in that ideology on either a national or international scale, but rather to conjure up the fear of late 19th century industrialization and European imperialism and colonization. Both are being used to frighten people into thinking the opposition is a monster out to get the people.
Power is power. It does not care where it is. It needs to be fed. Americans are as likely to be abused and seduced by it as the Soviets or the Chinese or the Indians or the Inuits. But this is a very prescient article.
If I say something bad about socialism, people will agree with it, regardless of whether they know what I'm talking about or have the first clue what socialism is. I could have zero grasp of grammar, logic, and politics, but if I start yelling about the government having too much power, I instantly have support.
As a libertarian socialist, this is probably the single most frustrating issue for me. Why do people insist that a system whose main authority is in the hands of workers MUST involve huge, oppressive government? This is not even possible as I see it. The more powerful the government, the less socialistic it probably is, and if you think otherwise I implore you to read up on every instance of "socialism" in history. Where power exists, it gets abused for the benefit of the wealthy. Huge governments exist to serve the people who control them, not the poor masses. Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Eisenhower, Thatcher, choose a leader from anywhere on the political spectrum and they essentially do the same thing. Keep the power right where they want it, refuse to help people who need it, call their system whatever is most politically expedient. Sometimes that means calling your citizens 'comrade', sometimes it means letting them vote and then telling them that means they are in control. Nothing changes as much as it seems.
So my point is, if you're sympathetic to the tea party, god knows you're justified in being anti-government, but don't be so dense as to associate the left with government oppression and the right with pure joyous freedom.
The Tea Party, to an immigrant American, is simply nuts and full of fundamentalist types who would be very happy sipping tea with the Ayatollahs of Iran. They have the same simple mind.
The problem is really in the eternal fight between capital and labor. Socialist (in the economic sense) countries typically tend to value labor more than they value capital and this can be anathema to pure capitalists (especially those that survive by moving capital around or have access to plenty of capital). Democracy is caught in the middle and both groups claim that they are synonymous with it even though it is an independent system.
In a Democracy, the majority gets to decide what the country ought to be while capitalism and socialism as economic doctrines try to skew the treatment towards one or the other. Capitalism concentrates wealth and socialism dilutes it. This sets up a natural tension between Democracy and Capitalism and between Socialism and Democracy.
What is amazing to me is that the Capitalists in the US (which includes Democrats and Republicans) have convinced the masses that they would be better off in an extreme system that inherently concentrates wealth in a few and make this into an either-or.
It is a lottery mentality. Everyone thinks they can be a winner like anybody else (equal opportunity) while the fact that only a very, very few can win in a purely Capitalistic system is forgotten or not understood. Socialism might mean no lottery. No lottery, no hopes of winning big for the masses.
The moderation of both to the middle has been an experiment in US History that has not been very successful. Between the anger of the 99% and the money of the 1%, it is unlikely to reach there at any time.
Social Darwinism?
-
Well, after civilization collapses because of the democratic party, we're going to have to make some tough choices. And my dog Blood and me been through everything together. Well, hell, it ain't my fault she chose me to get all wet brained over. "A Boy and His Dog" gotta stick together. She ain't popcorn though.
[Whistle]- come an' get it Blood. Now that's a Social Darwinian dog whistle.
I have no idea what you just said, but it cracks me up.
Well, I'd say she had marvelous judgement Albert, if not particularly good taste.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiTPc2NBfdI
Skip to 4:30.
-
a boy and his dog, can go walkin
a boy and his dog, sometimes talk to each other
a boy and his dog, can be happy sittin out in the woods on a log
but a dog, knows his boy, can go wrong.
Actually, don't. That ruins the whole movie. Here's the trailer...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAPLJRKyJLk&feature=related
After having just fought the long weekend crowds at my local supermarket, I'm all for Anti-Social Darwinism.
I know, right. There are no parking spots and the democrats won't respect my right to drive a monster truck. Socialism!
I'm thinking along the lines of:
"So, you just took the last glazed ham? No worries. I'll just send your name in as a likely donor to the Gingrich campaign."
Stuff like that.
You can have your truck but the Democrats are going to make you pay four bucks per gallon of gas to run it.
as President Obama told one complainer, "Get used to it."
Strange, whenever I go shopping at the local Wal-Mart I become *more* in favor of Social Darwinism.
It's the same kind of environment that makes me want to tend toward Anti-Social Darwinism, which I believe is also on display during Black Friday shopping sprees.
"Gimme that Wii, dammit!" :)
This article makes Americans look less intelligent than they really are. I was offended when the previous one insinuated that Americans don't know the difference between Socialism, and Social Darwinism... most at least of my generation have been taught about both subjects several times in school. I also disagree that we are incapable of actually listening to one another and just pick up on key words and string them together into a thought which is unrelated to what the speaker is actually trying to say. This post fails to be insightful, and the author instead simplified American political discourse and ranted.
No, the author is correct, take the 1 in 5 people who believe Obama is a muslim. I think it is fair to say Americans are stupid if 1 in 5 of them believe that.
Educated-Americans are the next hyphenated minority
Uneducated people are to be found everywhere. Yet, in the US a large proportion of the uneducated people seem to differ from other uneducated people on this planet. They are PROUD to be uneducated. They think that being unaware of all kinds of things, defines them as a person. It gives them an identity. Whatever subject comes up that they don't have a understanding of, these people will say. "Well, I 'am not an expert in this but I do know that I believe in family values and that we have to honour the flag." And their also not very educated neighbour will agree with them. The fact that family values or the honour of the flag (whatever that may mean) is not at stake at all, is irrelevant to them. These people thought 4 years ago that Sarah Palin would make a suitable VP. Because she is "a hockey mom". How on (this more than 6.000 years old) Earth can one think that the intelligence of the American public is underestimated? No one went ever broke in doing so.
In attempting to locate the origin of Obama's reference to Social Darwinism, the usual reference is to Hofstadter. While Obama would almost certainly have read Hofstadter, I have another suggestion, namely a case and its commentary referred to here:
Constitutional Law
chapter 1: Approaches to Constitutional Analysis
Laurence H. Tribe
"Justice Holmes famously asserted in Lochner v. New York: “The Fourteenth
Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.”14
He could not have meant that Supreme Court Justices (or other
participants in the enterprise of constitutional law) should not read
Social Darwinists or other social theorists like Spencer: Holmes may
have been the only Justice then sitting on the Supreme Court who actually did!..."
IT IS A CONSTITUTION
WE ARE EXPOUNDING
Collected Writings on Interpreting
Our Founding Document
Foreword by Laurence H. Tribe
at:http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/ACS_Expounding_FNL.pdf
Imagine a government that operates only its judiciary, legislature, military, law enforcement, and roads. There is a 100% income tax. All goods and services are rationed. All production is paid for through subsidies but operated by private companies. According to Democrats, this is not socialism because the means of production are not owned by the government. So please tell us what we should call this system.
Since your system does not fit the word "socialism" or any other category of which I am aware, I have invented a new word to describe it: "restrainedradicalism"
That was easy. Do you have another question?
An absurdist's concept of an example?
Make the tax 0% and you have Republican rule.
I'm hearing a funny whistling sound. :)
I'd call it a primitive command economy, what this effectively does is remove money from the picture. It reminds me vaguely of ancient Sumer, which didn't have any similarities whatsoever to a socialist system. They just didn't have money so had to operate through a centrally administered exchange system centered on the temple.
Command economies are a distinct form of economic coordination and don't have anything about them that are necessarily socialistic. Socialist countries can function as command economies, but they can also function under different types of command economies and command economies can have different socio-political beliefs than socialism. I fail to understand what you're trying to get at.
>>There is a 100% income tax. All goods and services are rationed. All production is paid for through subsidies but operated by private companies.<<
What would make those companies "private"? Ownership is about control – no control, no ownership.
The problem with this analysis is that it fails to take into account the root "society" common to both terms. The issue for conservatives with the term "social Darwinism," contrary to several commenter's unsophisticated analysis, is not that it includes the satanic "D" word but that, in associating federal action with the means for survival in society it manufactures the implication that government is or at least is responsible for society. And, as members of churches, families, rotary clubs, PTAs, etc., many conservatives disagree completely with the notion that society is the result of policy wrought in DC or the authority with which it arrives. They consider themselves, their family members, and their peers the arbiters of their own segments (admittedly, too often, other people's segments) of society. Not Washington.
Conservatives give charitably more often than liberals do. That's not social Darwinism. That's charity. That's helping the less well off get back into the game. That government has nothing to do with it doesn't stop it from being part of society. In their eyes, it is probably a greater part of society since it was done without threat of fine or imprisonment.
Socialism at its very essence means bringing society, or what people do all day, every day, such as work, going to school, watching the news, and deciding what to have for dinner under the control of some sort of government and all the threats and coercion that go along with extraction of production and assets from people who could think of perfectly good uses for that stuff themselves.. You can argue all day about "ownership of the means of yada-yada" but once a group controls something, nobody cares about the actual name on the title. As of 2014, the US federal government controls medicine in this country. We consume it and doctors provide it at their pleasure.
Look up the word socialism and quit making up your own definitions. Ownership of the means of production and government coercion can certainly overlap, but are hardly the same thing.
@ _jks: "You can argue all day about "ownership of the means of yada-yada" but once a group controls something, nobody cares about the actual name on the title."
Of course, but you are missing the point. By misusing words until they all essentially just mean "BAD!" with no distinction between them, you lose your ability to communicate clearly to other people what is going wrong and so are unable to prevent the very dystopian future you have described from occurring.
I'm not making up definitions, as evidenced by the fact that I defined it in the comment. What I'm saying, and what you would have noticed if you had attempted something beyond partisan point scoring, is that the difference between what we are doing and the dictionary definition of socialism are semantic differences which allow statists to say they aren't "socialists" while applying socialist remedies.
Who is misusing a word? Socialism means common ownership of the means of production. Controlling something without actually owning it merely allows partisans (of which you are definitely one) in this case to skirt the argument. It doesn't mean that what we are doing is something else. Just that you have found a loophole.
I'm saying that, ownership or not, controlling the means of production has the same results. You might be safe from conservative arrows until the specifics of the word are readdressed, but hiding behind semantics neither advances the discussion nor helps people avoid speaking past each other. I guess it's a small sacrifice to make in order to be "correct."
Sounds like we agree on the dictionary definition. I trust you that you did not make up the definition in your comment. Perhaps you are just repeating someone else who made up a definition.
The confusion of regulation and taxation with ownership of the means of production,is the difference between the best economic system the world has known and the one responsible for killing hundreds of millions of people, many by starvation.
At the end of 12 years of Republican rule both of the President and the Congress from March 1921 to March 1933 GDP had annualized growing less than 0.5%, the stock market and industrial production were lower. Our GNP had shrunk from the largest to the number 2 spot behind the British Empire. By Contrast, after 20 straight years of Democratic Presidents with the greatest percentage control of Congress Democrats ever had, the economy annualized growing 5.8%. The country reached the high water mark in its economic place in the world producing about 40% of the world's goods and services and owning about 70% of its wealth. Even if you don't start measuring until 1952 the economy on average grows better under Democrats and the stock market averages higher returns.
Republican attempts to confuse the best system ever at creating wealth, a mixed economy, with socialism would be laughable if it were not so dangerous to prosperity.
@ _jks: "Who is misusing a word? Socialism means common ownership of the means of production."
An earlier incarnation of you:
@ _jks: "Socialism at its very essence means bringing society, or what people do all day, every day, such as work, going to school, watching the news, and deciding what to have for dinner under the control of some sort of government and all the threats and coercion that go along with extraction of production and assets from people who could think of perfectly good uses for that stuff themselves."
In other words, according to past you, socialism is about bringing all of one's decisions under the control of the government, not "Socialism means common ownership of the means of production." Put another way, you seem to be conflating socialism with totalitarianism.
@ _jks: "I'm saying that, ownership or not, controlling the means of production has the same results."
Of course. However, merely regulating an industry does not mean that the industry is being totally controlled by the government. There is a huge difference between creating rules for something and taking total control of something, and if you refuse to see the difference and prefer to conflate the two so you can say things like "As of 2014, the US federal government controls medicine in this country." with a straight face then frankly I am not the one in discussion who is being the partisan.
@ _jks: "What I'm saying, and what you would have noticed if you had attempted something beyond partisan point scoring, is that the difference between what we are doing and the dictionary definition of socialism are semantic differences which allow statists to say they aren't "socialists" while applying socialist remedies."
You know what? From now on I am going to call all solutions that involve lessening government regulation in a particular sphere as being "anarchist" remedies, and if anybody complains about this then they are being obviously partisan.
Americans don't have a clue
But we have bombs! No clue and lots of bombs. I'd watch it.
The columnist asserts that the American left has been 'pulled rightwards' over the past three decades.
This is nonsense.
Only in that "rightwards" means nothing.
It doesn't matter in which direction, we're still just spinning.
Take Obamacare, in 1992 this was an idea that was promulgated by the such rightward organizations as the Heritage foundation and the Republican party, but now it is considered left of the American mainstream, what was previously left, a public option, single payer insurance is dead and the modern left has to take the sloppy seconds of early nineties conservatives. i.e. the text book definition of pulling the left rightwards.
Spot on. The other nice bit of evidence is that the deity formerly known as Ronald Reagan would be called a liberal in today's election. He was a Californian, a member of the 'hollywood elite', and raised taxes. That's two more reasons than republican voters need today to destroy someone's hopes of the presidency. Of course the fact that he violently overthrew democratically elected leaders and then passed off the blame will still bother no one except the "far left".
The important thing is that he ripped Jimmy Carters solar panels off the roof of the White House. If we could elect him today, he'd stomp all over Michelle's organic garden. He was badass.
We need more of this kind of reportage/commentary as an antidote to the propaganda of FOX and AirAmerica [or whatever the left version of FOX might be].
Excellent, thought provoking post and responses.
Thanks to all.
Agreed but I"d say the overlap of Fox viewers and Economist readers is razor thin so it may not function as an effective antidote. Proposal: Print the Economist on potato chip bags
There seems to be a difference in the specificity of the labels. Social Darwinism is a very particular philosophy that, along with several other different philosophies, might lead one to oppose certain government actions. A liberal/democrat analog of calling someone a social darwinist might be calling someone a Leninist or a Maoist (not because these labels are more extreme, but because invoke more specific ideas). Socialism means less – really just relatively more government control over society and the economy. If we ever elect a majority of Ron Paul types to congress the socialists might then be the people opposing the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment.
No, the liberal/democrat analog of accusing the conservatives of social darwinism is accusing the liberals of social creationism (of trying to play God with how society should work).
The irony of both labels would be perfect.
The socialist dost protest too much, methinks.
It is a rather lecherous approach to public discourse, either way.
I think the label suits what the republicans are saying. No help for the poor, cause that will raise my taxes. Let them eat cake is the message I get from all their bellyaching about taxes. It's time they were called out over their Scrooge ways.
It has been suggested that conservatives are more likely to contribute to charity and do so in greater quantity when they do than their liberal counterparts. Who is the Scrooge here? The person who doesn't want others coercing charity or the person who is unwilling to contribute unless everyone else contributes as they do?
It has been suggested. I think it should also be suggested, and my church is one of my three regular charities, that donations to your congregation ought to be reduced by 90% since that's roughly how much of your contribution is actually consumption. If that statistic is still true after tithes are discounted, I'll believe it.
No, Morco.
We only feel that you've received enough. Now we'd like you to apply yourselves, pay some taxes, pull on an oar.
Stop asking us to fritter away all of the equity in our businesses and income we receive on entitling you.
Do what you want. Don't ask me for permission or for me to foot the bill. And don't ask the government to license or entitle it.
And for goodness sake, bathe and clean up after yourselves.
Bruce, the baseless ad hominem at the end of your response really drives the point home, I think.
The discourse is not really about "frittering" away people's earnings. Rather, it seems to derive from a holier-than-thou, people-with-money-are-better mentality. And, by Jove, you've played right into it.
As an American tax payer---one who regularly showers and grooms himself---I would rather see a cut of my earnings helping people who might have less than I than I would structures that continue to concentrate wealth and power in people who have more.
The republicans want to reduce government debt so that Medicare or Social Security won't go bankrupt. On this course, that's where they are headed.
-
It's like we're telling you to stop snacking on all our stores before winter comes, and you accuse us of being in favor of famine.
It's more like you're telling us to stop snacking while your mouth is full and your hands are in the cookie jar. Why should any Democrat listen to any Republican on fiscal responsibility? Since when has the GOP shown any such fiscal responsibility when given the opportunity?
There's no credibility behind the righteousness.
Worse, since when has the GOP in the last two decades shown any interest in governance? No, the Party wants power so it can get its arms more deeply in the till and spread that wealth around to their buddies.
Both parties really. The Dems took a decade to jump on the bandwagon the Republicans went for. Sold their soul to the Debbil, the both of them.
"The republicans want to reduce government debt so that Medicare or Social Security won't go bankrupt. "
To be precise,
The republicans want to reduce Medicare so that Medicare won't go bankrupt.
They have no plans for cutting the debt and only a small effort to cut the deficit. Without cutting defense and increasing revenues there is no way to cut the deficit let alone the debt. Numbers don't work.
I never got anything from the cookie jar. I've only payed into the system, and it's a really long line of people before I get to my retirement. I look at the projections under the President's budget, and by then we will be basically insolvent.
I think all the cookies will be gone. I help pay for the cookies. I want my num nums too. That doesn't seem so unreasonable.
I get that you guys are saying that the republicans acted liked cookie monsters. Bad republicans! But that doesn't mean that you guys get to be cookie monsters too. We can't all be cookie monsters. THEN THERE WILL BE NO COOKIES! Somehow, we're just going to have to figure out an appropriate cookie policy going forward.
Right now, republicans and democrats are just trying to eat as many cookies as fast as possible so that they will get more cookies. This is an irresponsible approach to cookies. Some of us were in the back when the cookie frenzy began, and that's not good.
This election, I am unfortunately forced to choose between two very guilty looking cookie monsters to trust to guard my cookies. Right now, red cookie monster says that he will stop eating all the cookies. He may be lying- cookie monsters really can't be trusted much around cookies. But, blue cookie monster is saying "I EAT ALL COOKIES! num, num, num". He isn't even trying.
Their charity is for co-coreligionists or those who accept the constraints of the religion offering it. Hence the controversy over Catholic hospitals and public funding.
The social darwinist analogue is to the deserving poor who will be corrected by charity.
Nick
You understand my point exactly. I'm always amazed at in a country as wealthy as America that so many are trapped in squalor. At the self-serving attitudes of the rich towards hard working poor and the skin flint funding of the public purse. If you hate government waste fix the waste don't squeeze it to the point where the job can't be done no matter who is running the show.
I suppose even Sweden isn't technically socialist according to the textbook definition, but I still think of it that way. What term would I use instead? They may not control production, but they employ a very large part of the workforce (the part that doesn't produce).
I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Are you saying government employees in Sweden "don't produce"?
To answer the question though, "Social Democrat" seems to be the term used in Europe.
Social democrats consider themselves socialist and democratic.
Both the above definitions of social democracy are untrue. Social Democracy is not a term for socialism that is simply "used in Europe". Instead it is a capitalist system that hopes to appease the working class by buying them off with surplus taken from the higher classes.
The second definition is wrong because Socialism has always intended to be democratic. The difference between Social Democracy, and Socialism in the simplest form is the institution of private property.
The Swedes are better capitalists than the Americans. $100 invested in the US market on December 31 1969 with reinvested dividends would be worth about $5000 today. That $100 invested in the Swedish market would be worth about $24,000.
Why do you just keep making up these things about other groups? Seems quite pathological.
I present facts. Ed Miliband considers himself a socialist, a democrat, and a social democrat.
You obviously have no idea whatsoever about the high standard of living and high quality of life in Sweden guaranteed citizens of that country by merely living there..
The problem is you consistently use horrible logic, almost Sarah Palinesque
A considers himself X, Y and Z. Therefore Z consider themselves X and Y.
Not to mention the fallacy of equivocation between socialistic and social.
When we accuse liberals of trying to turn America into Sweden "hey! Sweden is great!" doesn't really refute our accusation.
No. The Labour Party in the Netherlands calls itself "Social Democrats". The party that calls itself "Socialist" is...the Socialists.
The weird thing with all this invoking of sweden as a socialist hell/heaven is that we have a conservative, rightwing government. And have had for quite some time.The social democrats haven´t been pulling the strings on their own since the 80´s and early 90´s and even then it was they who privatized the telecom, energy and education and deregulated the banks( Which subsequently went bust. Of course). But hey, who cares about facts
Rather devious of them to hide their true nature. Those inscrutable socialists and their dissembling. :)
This is pretty much spot on, as usual, MS.
Many people outside America who hear Palin and Hannity call Obama a socialist just think they are dumbass dipshits. Just like those that think he's a muslim or was born overseas. Because such descriptions can easily be disproved with information. Even though outside the US there is no paranoid fear of socialism. It is not always viewed as the road to godlessness and secularism that so frightens the US Right. And even when it is, that is not seen as such a bad thing.
On the other hand for the religious US Right anything with "Darwinism" in it and with "Social" in it must provoke the fear and disgust response..both words. Clever really I suppose. Though Obama may want to explain what it means to some who never learned about Darwinism at school. e.g. did Santorum teach his kids about Darwin? Doubt it. Its a bit too close to evolution.
Of course Darwinism is wrong. To quote scripture...
-
In the beginning Eru, the One, who in the Elvish tongue is named Ilúvatar, made the Ainur of his thought; and they made a great Music before him. In this Music the World was begun; for Ilúvatar made visible the song of the Ainur, and they beheld it as a light in the darkness. And many among them became enamoured of its beauty, and of its history which they saw beginning and unfolding as in a vision. Therefore Ilúvatar gave to their vision Being, and set it amid the Void, and the Secret Fire was sent to burn at the heart of the World; and it was called Eä.
-
Now the Children of Ilúvatar are Elves and Men, the Firstborn and the Followers. And amid all the splendours of the World, its vast halls and spaces, and its wheeling fires, Ilúvatar chose a place for their habitation in the Deeps of Time and in the midst of the innumerable stars.
-
It is disturbing that liberals are unable to comprehend in Middle Earth the transcendent hand of Ilúvatar. It is probable that you have fallen under the debasing influence of Morgoth.
No one outside 'America' (by this you surely mean the United States), knows who Sean Hannity is.
And no one of political consequence -outside the US- listens to Sarah Palin, on foreign or domestic policy.
Social market economies are largely economic backwaters, easily proved with information.
But Europe is a social market economy. It is a bigger economy than the US. How is it a backwater? And China. China is a market economy with social characteristics. In six years time it will be bigger than the USA. That means it won't be a backwater. Where are you thinking of? Canada?
publius50, you are totally my favorite conservative :-)
Right? I know from experience a person can be liberal and southern, but conservative and funny? I think Publius50 is a double agent planted by Norman Lear.
Quite a lot of people outside the U.S. listen to Sarah Palin. They enjoy it like a horror movie with the additional pleasure of feeling intellectually and morally superior to those barbaric Americans.
Aw, thanks guys. Right back atchya. Actually, I'm conservative and southern. Boo! We're not such bad eggs when you get to know us. Americans- all pretty much pretty good eggs. Republican, Democrat- super omnia insuavitas! ;)
-
Doug, it's that I'm a servant of the secret fire, wielder of the flame or Anor! All republicans are, we just don't normally tell people the true purpose of the republican party until they have been initiated into the higher levels of our order.
So, Publius50 is a canary.