|
On February 16 2012 10:54 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 10:36 Yongwang wrote:From Wikipedia: Social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy. Umm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracyShow nested quote +
Social democracy is an international political movement and political ideology that has undergone three major phases throughout its history. In contemporary uses, social democracy generally refers to advocacy for some form of regulation of the economy and support for a welfare state and ameliorative measures to benefit the working class within the framework of a market economy structured upon private enterprise. Historically, social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy.
Contemporary Social democracy, beginning in the Post-War era, is defined as a political movement that seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while retaining the capitalist mode of production rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system. Contemporary Social democratic policies include support for a welfare state, Keynesian macro-economic policies, and collective bargaining arrangements to balance the power of capital and labor. Examples of contemporary social democracy include the Nordic model and social market economy.
Historical Social democracy in the 19th century encompassed a wide variety of non-revolutionary and revolutionary currents of socialism, but excluded anarchism. In the early 20th century, social democracy came to refer to a political strategy of reformism favoring a gradual process of developing socialism through existing political structures, and an opposition to revolutionary means of achieving socialism.
See when you actually post what the article says, it's the opposite of what you're claiming. But that one sentence fragment, out of context and missing a key description ("Historically") looks like it's saying something else entirely.
Glenn is it you? That´s text book you what it is.
|
On February 16 2012 10:54 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 10:36 Yongwang wrote:From Wikipedia: Social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy. Umm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracyShow nested quote +
Social democracy is an international political movement and political ideology that has undergone three major phases throughout its history. In contemporary uses, social democracy generally refers to advocacy for some form of regulation of the economy and support for a welfare state and ameliorative measures to benefit the working class within the framework of a market economy structured upon private enterprise. Historically, social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy.
Contemporary Social democracy, beginning in the Post-War era, is defined as a political movement that seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while retaining the capitalist mode of production rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system. Contemporary Social democratic policies include support for a welfare state, Keynesian macro-economic policies, and collective bargaining arrangements to balance the power of capital and labor. Examples of contemporary social democracy include the Nordic model and social market economy.
Historical Social democracy in the 19th century encompassed a wide variety of non-revolutionary and revolutionary currents of socialism, but excluded anarchism. In the early 20th century, social democracy came to refer to a political strategy of reformism favoring a gradual process of developing socialism through existing political structures, and an opposition to revolutionary means of achieving socialism.
See when you actually post what the article says, it's the opposite of what you're claiming. But that one sentence fragment, out of context and missing a key description ("Historically") looks like it's saying something else entirely.
He even made the effort to capitlize the S in the first word so it wasn't an accident either...
|
Broadly speaking, in a capitalist system you have private ownership of the means of production, competitive markets, and individuals' incomes are determined by the markets.
Whereas socialism's main characteristics are state ownership of the means of production, a "command economy," and individuals' incomes are determined by the state.
Social democracy is much more capitalist than socialist. You have private ownership of the means of production, competitive markets with some public goods, and individuals' incomes are determined by a combination of market and state forces.
Social democracy was the effort to take the noble (yes arguably mistaken) aim of socialism - minimizing the suffering of the lower classes - and putting that within the context of a capitalist system.
Ironically, the "socialist" parts of our economy - the public goods produced by the government - are probably the most popular government programs. ie schools, police, fire depts, the military, roads, public transportation.
|
If I get elected I will make sure the Europe is socialism posts out of a Republican Nomination thread. I will make sure everything is going to be on-topic and that the talk is actually about America, not how Obama is absorbing America into the EU.
The world would be a WHOLE LOT BETTER OFF if people actually knew the terms they were spouting around. You can't blame the EU countries to be socialist if you don't know what socialism is nor do you know the full scope of the governing of an EU country.
To steer the discussion in some form of on-topicness, here's a Sanctorum spouting nonsense on contraception: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-birth-control-harms-women/2012/02/15/gIQASRukFR_blog.html
|
|
|
How poorly run are these caucuses?? The state party chairs already resigned after screw-ups in Iowa and Nevada. Maine had numerous irregularities (not all the counties even voted and they already declared the result). I'm generally confident in the final election results, but the caucuses seem very questionable this year.
|
Im not one to usualy believe in conspiracy but by stubornly refusing to allow the vote of this saterday to count i cant help but think that someone somewhere behind the scenes is indeed totaly rigging this.
It just doesnt make any sense otherwise.
|
On February 17 2012 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:
Im not one to usualy believe in conspiracy but by stubornly refusing to allow the vote of this saterday to count i cant help but think that someone somewhere behind the scenes is indeed totaly rigging this.
It just doesnt make any sense otherwise.
I think it amounts to incompetency. That's always a much better answer than "conspiracy."
|
|
|
To be fair, people simply have different definitions of the term, and that's not a terrible thing. I know that my definition is almost certainly different than the one you have, or the one I would find in a dictionary for example. The meaning of words often change over time.
On February 17 2012 02:04 Black Berry wrote:
Can someone please point me in the right direction for neutral news sites regarding the American elections? I am very interested in following them, but have mostly been getting my information from reddit.com/r/politics and their links - thanks.
I'd say there's really no such thing as "neutral news." Just in choosing which issues to discuss there is some inherent bias. I'd say look at a mix of differing news sites and try and find the truth intermingled between them. Even extreme news sources like Fox or MSNBC can occasionally have a kernel of truth that the other side refuses to report.
|
On February 17 2012 02:10 liberal wrote:To be fair, people simply have different definitions of the term, and that's not a terrible thing. I know that my definition is almost certainly different than the one you have, or the one I would find in a dictionary for example. The meaning of words often change over time. Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 02:04 Black Berry wrote:
Can someone please point me in the right direction for neutral news sites regarding the American elections? I am very interested in following them, but have mostly been getting my information from reddit.com/r/politics and their links - thanks. I'd say there's really no such thing as "neutral news." Just in choosing which issues to discuss there is some inherent bias. I'd say look at a mix of differing news sites and try and find the truth intermingled between them. Even extreme news sources like Fox or MSNBC can occasionally have a kernel of truth that the other side refuses to report.
But use American media, european (or atleast German) media only report so one-sided about this topic. I like the Washington Post because they actually mark non-neutral articles as opinions.
|
On February 17 2012 02:10 liberal wrote:To be fair, people simply have different definitions of the term, and that's not a terrible thing. I know that my definition is almost certainly different than the one you have, or the one I would find in a dictionary for example. The meaning of words often change over time. Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 02:04 Black Berry wrote:
Can someone please point me in the right direction for neutral news sites regarding the American elections? I am very interested in following them, but have mostly been getting my information from reddit.com/r/politics and their links - thanks. I'd say there's really no such thing as "neutral news." Just in choosing which issues to discuss there is some inherent bias. I'd say look at a mix of differing news sites and try and find the truth intermingled between them. Even extreme news sources like Fox or MSNBC can occasionally have a kernel of truth that the other side refuses to report.
On the other hand, CNN isn't bad. Overall, though, as long as you stay away from opinion articles, you'll get good information from any major news outlet.
|
On February 17 2012 02:19 aksfjh wrote:
On the other hand, CNN isn't bad. Overall, though, as long as you stay away from opinion articles, you'll get good information from any major news outlet.
Are you kidding? CNN is one of the worst culprits when it comes to bias.
|
On February 17 2012 02:37 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 02:19 aksfjh wrote:
On the other hand, CNN isn't bad. Overall, though, as long as you stay away from opinion articles, you'll get good information from any major news outlet. Are you kidding? CNN is one of the worst culprits when it comes to bias.
This coming from the guy who thinks a large portion of Britain is socialist...
|
It amazes me how people forget that the most frequent act of journalistic bias is selective journalism -- ie choosing which stories even get aired. All of the media outlets report individual stories fairly accurately. Where they differ is in choosing which stories to report and emphasize.
|
On February 17 2012 03:55 xDaunt wrote:
It amazes me how people forget that the most frequent act of journalistic bias is selective journalism -- ie choosing which stories even get aired. All of the media outlets report individual stories fairly accurately. Where they differ is in choosing which stories to report and emphasize.
Why are you so amazed by this?
|
On February 17 2012 03:57 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 03:55 xDaunt wrote:
It amazes me how people forget that the most frequent act of journalistic bias is selective journalism -- ie choosing which stories even get aired. All of the media outlets report individual stories fairly accurately. Where they differ is in choosing which stories to report and emphasize. Why are you so amazed by this?
Because it's a fairly simple concept that should not be so overlooked.
|
On February 17 2012 04:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 03:57 Roe wrote:On February 17 2012 03:55 xDaunt wrote:
It amazes me how people forget that the most frequent act of journalistic bias is selective journalism -- ie choosing which stories even get aired. All of the media outlets report individual stories fairly accurately. Where they differ is in choosing which stories to report and emphasize. Why are you so amazed by this? Because it's a fairly simple concept that should not be so overlooked.
I'd have to say that as far as bias goes, the choice of story is less significant than directly misrepresenting reality by introducing a personal opinion. Presenting two points of the same story is overrated in many cases and often results in two completely different talking points only slightly related to the subject in the story.
Introducing an unfounded bias to a story is just unprofessional, choosing not to air something is an editorial choice and as long as you can find the story on the sources net-site - yes, it is mostly in tv/radio they make those choices - I am completely fine with it.
However, on the internet you should not have the same luxury.
|
|
|
That political party is falling apart at the seems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
