The Thread of Democrats

[pErvinalia]

Indeed I did, and I gave my reasons for that - not that you'll reflect and address those reasons in good faith or, as I said, present any kind of moral argument in support of your grand and copious assertions.

I addressed this centrism bullshit multiple times. You never once responded. You are just the 42 of the left.

[pErvinalia]

How much socialism must one adopt before being "left" in your assessment? You know there's not a distinct boundary line between socialism and social democracy, right?

[pErvinalia]

And where's the nuanced position between socialism and captialism which does support capitalism?

I see you are using the moderator panel to edit your posts again without leaving a trail. You need to stop doing that.

Regarding the nuanced position between socialism and capitalism, it's social democracy - where capitalism is heavily regulated and the state/people take ownership/control of some of the means of production. If you don't accept that there is a nuanced position then you would seem to be arguing that there is a distinct line between socialism and capitalism. Is that what you are arguing?

[JimC]

"the 42 of the left"

[Brian Peacock]

...

Regarding the nuanced position between socialism and capitalism, it's social democracy - where capitalism is heavily regulated and the state/people take ownership/control of some of the means of production. If you don't accept that there is a nuanced position then you would seem to be arguing that there is a distinct line between socialism and capitalism. Is that what you are arguing?

I accept your description, and have described it myself in similar term, now I'm just waiting for your arguments to arrive about why it's unreasonable to consider social democrats centrist in their outlook - on what ground do you assert that position?

[laklak]

Because they're commie scum?

[JimC]

...

Regarding the nuanced position between socialism and capitalism, it's social democracy - where capitalism is heavily regulated and the state/people take ownership/control of some of the means of production. If you don't accept that there is a nuanced position then you would seem to be arguing that there is a distinct line between socialism and capitalism. Is that what you are arguing?

I accept your description, and have described it myself in similar term, now I'm just waiting for your arguments to arrive about why it's unreasonable to consider social democrats centrist in their outlook - on what ground do you assert that position?

Surely social democrats can be considered to be centre left, and the classical liberals you often talk about can be centre right...

[pErvinalia]

You answer my questions I asked you first. It will help me make my point.

[pErvinalia]

...

Regarding the nuanced position between socialism and capitalism, it's social democracy - where capitalism is heavily regulated and the state/people take ownership/control of some of the means of production. If you don't accept that there is a nuanced position then you would seem to be arguing that there is a distinct line between socialism and capitalism. Is that what you are arguing?

I accept your description, and have described it myself in similar term, now I'm just waiting for your arguments to arrive about why it's unreasonable to consider social democrats centrist in their outlook - on what ground do you assert that position?

Surely social democrats can be considered to be centre left, and the classical liberals you often talk about can be centre right...

Surely they can be left like Corbyn, Sanders and The Australian Greens (not to mention the left faction of Labor)

[Brian Peacock]

...

Regarding the nuanced position between socialism and capitalism, it's social democracy - where capitalism is heavily regulated and the state/people take ownership/control of some of the means of production. If you don't accept that there is a nuanced position then you would seem to be arguing that there is a distinct line between socialism and capitalism. Is that what you are arguing?

I accept your description, and have described it myself in similar term, now I'm just waiting for your arguments to arrive about why it's unreasonable to consider social democrats centrist in their outlook - on what ground do you assert that position?

Surely social democrats can be considered to be centre left, and the classical liberals you often talk about can be centre right...

Of course, perhaps only differing on the extent to which markets are/should be regulated or the relative proportion of taxation to transfers into social goods. Social democracy is a broad and liberal church.

[pErvinalia]

How is it liberal, though? It's socially liberal, but it's not economically liberal. It's for heavily fettered markets. Liberal economics is the embracing of a market as free as possible.

[rainbow]

Yebbut free markets are impossible under Capitalism.
Therefore Liberals are anti-Capitalist and therefore Socialist, which is just a kind way of saying Communist.

[Hermit]

tell that to French lefty bourgeoisie... they'll never agree that money is the only thing of value, culture goes first.

The French lefty bourgeoisie makes up 1.021% of the French population.

[Brian Peacock]

How is it liberal, though? It's socially liberal, but it's not economically liberal. It's for heavily fettered markets. Liberal economics is the embracing of a market as free as possible.

To what extent is social democracy not economically liberal, and, given that it's a broad church, how?

[pErvinalia]

We're are just back at where we were in that other thread. Economic liberalism is a thing. Without cutting and pasting definitions again, it's about individuals and their interactions in marketplaces being as free as possible. The fettering of markets by social democracy with things like wealth redistribution, and distortions like a minimum wage, are antithetical to economic liberalism.