Any time someone gets offended by labels it is usually an indication they are trying to hide something. If a label is truthful and it is what you actually believe then you should be willing to defend your position and hence defend the label.
I am a Constitutionalist. I believe we'd be far better off sticking to the strick word of the Constitution when it comes to running the federal government. If it isn't listed in Article I Section 8 then it's not a job that the federal government should be involved in. And if enough of the country wants the federal government to assume a new responsibility then we should go through the process of amending the Constitution.
That paragraph is clear and precise and explains my beliefs and defends the label they are classified under, "Constitutionalist".
So why then do people who believe in socialist ideas refuse to admit they support socialism? In fact I've only meet one person in my life who openly admitted that he believed little bits of socialism is good and he called it what it is, socialism.
Today most socialists refuse to admit that is actually what they believe. They refuse to accept the label even though it is truthful and fitting. Perhaps they deep down inside understands that socialism has never worked ever and don't want to believe that their views are actually socialism. Perhaps they don't truly know what socialism is. Regardless, they refuse to accept the truth and in doing so they continue to lie and mislead those who they seek to convince of their ways.
American Heritage dictionary defines socialism as:
- Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
- The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
When government takes over processing of a goods or service, that is socialism. That's not debatable, it's a factual statement taken directly from a dictionary.
Government taking money from you, setting prices, etc even if they don't directly run it is still socialism.
Obama supporters either wont accept that they are supporting socialism or they don't want you to realize their ideas are anti constitutional and socialistic.
The government has taken control of the Chevy, they are now controlling that company. Instead of defending the governments actions and saying yes, it is socialist but it is needed because X, Y and Z I'm reading articles claiming we're not heading down the paths of socialism because government subsidies and control have so far only impacted less then 1 percent of all companies in the country. This somehow makes it better? This somehow makes it any less socialistic?
Now they want "Universal Health Care" but they become offended and defensive when it is called what it is, socialistic health care. Government would be controlling the costs, forcing everyone to pay etc. It falls perfectly under definition 1 in which the government is controlling distribution by setting the prices and giving everyone access.
If you want to defend socialism and say yes, small doses are needed and explain why, I respect that. I don't agree with you but I respect honesty. If you want to call it something other then it really is and instead argume semantics then its clear your hiding it because you know it isn't defendable and isn't something people would ever support if they knew.