@Mamapolo2016 Socialism is an economic system -- irregardless of political governance system -- in which there is a basic safety net of services for everyone and regulatory limits on profiteering.
@Mamapolo2016 Exactly. The debate is over what degree of socialism we want, not whether or if. But it when you demonize it it fits better on bumper stickers and caps.
@Mamapolo2016 Only if they take unilateral party. Are you saying when the Labor Party has control of Britain's government it is a Socialist Government, but when the Conservative Party is in control it is not? Yet the services and restrictions remain virtually the same.
I said ‘[b]when a socialist party takes power.’ Not when a liberal party gets elected.[/b]
When you look at the list of countries you posted and the list of countries that actually have socialist government, the difference is dramatic. @dancingtongue
@Mamapolo2016 They are totalitarian governments in that they have sole power. It isn't socialism per se that gives them that authority. Same with fascism.
@Mamapolo2016 To some extent from when Teddy Roosevelt busted the trusts through FDR's New Deal. Minimum by most standards, but still a socialist economy.
@dancingtongue Constitutional monarchies, and democracies with expansive social programs are not socialist. Danes and Norwegians hate that common generality specifically! If honest rulers use north sea oil money to benefit their people, it doesn't make them "socialist". The USA is not ready for Scandinavian style polieconomics , because the people who are touting "democratic socialism" here, are not the least bit honest and are only looking to seal their positions of power. Every political economic system is only as good as the people who wield the power. There is not an ounce of altruism among the powerdogs who are screaming for 'socialism' in the US. That is why we have to stay the course. These bloodthirsty devils would turn this country into Venezuela in six months.
