Obama as a "Socialist"

Just a small point, and one not really related to the thread, but as one who's first memory is that of visiting my mother in a mental hospital after having shock treatment, I do not find your description of liberalism as a mental disorder as accurate, tasteful or funny.

By all means try and destroy any argument that I may put forward, but leave the mentally ill out of it.

Thanks in advance

Comrade Stalin

When a persons takes on the name of a murderous dictator who caused the death of millions, not only in his own country, but in other countries where his influence was forced onto the people, and when this same person refuses evidence and information regarding the ideology he has chosen, but instead prefers to attack others on spurious unsupportable grounds....

...it sure seems like a mental illness to me.
 
Werbung:
That is a factually inaccurate claim.
You make this statement then offer absolutely nothing to invalidate my claim about a mans property being the result of skill and ability.

In fact, your entire reply wandered into the patently absurd and you seem to be unwilling, or unable, to answer my questions. I'll even restate my question to make it easier for you:

By what "right" do you claim to have an equal share of my property?

And when I use the word "Property", I don't mean just land but all tangible property, such as ones possessions, and intangible property, such as ones intellectual property.

If you can make it past that question, I have another one:

By what Constitutional Authority could your system be justified?

Now I'm quite sure you will try and say I'm attempting to avoid the "points" you made by holding you to account for your own inability to answer questions, so I'll humor you this much and equally decimate the rest of your "points" once you answer my questions:

Massive wage inequities are not created by massively different abilities or skills.
Talk about "factually inaccurate claims"...

This guy:

3441454122-cleveland-browns-quarterback-brady-quinn-fires-11-yard-pass-maurice.JPG


And this guy:

hot-dog-vendor-400ds0621.jpg


These men both work at the same place yet they have massively different skill sets and abilities - thus, massively different pay. To claim that a Hot dog vendor is anywhere close to the level of skill or ability that a quarterback has is totally absurd.
 
Here's a revival post:

The history of the development of socialist ideology as being focused around the collective ownership and management is conveyed through the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "socialism" as "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." With that in mind, where lies the basis for description of the liberal democratic capitalist administration as "socialist" in nature?

Liberalism and socialism are in fact antithetical because of the role of the welfare state in maintaining macroeconomic stabilization in general and sustaining the physical efficiency and employment of the working class, the latter constituting a sustainment of static efficiency. This role occurs in the context of the capitalist economy, which means that the welfare state is supporting the existence of the prevailing arrangement of the private ownership of the means of production. It's therefore ironically economic rightists who are greater allies of socialists, as their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.
 
American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "socialism" as "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community."

Communism:

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.

Socialism:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Both you and PLC1 like to leave that #3 part off your definition of socialism.

Social Democracy

1 : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2 : a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices

Liberalism and socialism are in fact antithetical
I agree with that much of your statement. Liberalism (classical liberalism) believes in individual rights and free market economies. Where Socialism finds fellowship is with Progressives, who advocate for collective rights, a command economy and central planning by a centralized government.

This role occurs in the context of the capitalist economy, which means that the welfare state is supporting the existence of the prevailing arrangement of the private ownership of the means of production. It's therefore ironically economic rightists who are greater allies of socialists, as their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.
Your claim is that the welfare state stabilizes capitalism by way of placating the lower classes with social programs to prevent a revolution that would topple capitalism. Where your theory falls apart, is in the fact that our capitalist system existed, and thrived, for 160 years before the creation of the welfare state.

The welfare state is a parasite that lives off the life blood of capitalism and because of the welfare states ever growing size, and insatiable appetite, it will eventually collapse what little bit is left of our capitalist system.
 
Both you and PLC1 like to leave that #3 part off your definition of socialism.

No, it's a matter of emphasizing a sufficiently inclusive definition. Since the definition that you posted is Marxist-specific and as unsophisticated as dictionaries will be, it's not sufficiently inclusive and excludes important aspects of the socialist tradition.

1 : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2 : a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices

This is absolute drivel. Social democracy is a leftist form of capitalism, with the other two major forms being the rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism and the center-left liberal democratic capitalism. It's in fact quite opposed to socialism, since it's based in the sustainment of the private ownership of the means of production.

I agree with that much of your statement. Liberalism (classical liberalism) believes in individual rights and free market economies. Where Socialism finds fellowship is with Progressives, who advocate for collective rights, a command economy and central planning by a centralized government.

False on both grounds. Firstly, socialism is more consistent with classical liberalism than modern capitalism is because classical liberalism was advocated in agrarian settings in which property distribution was relatively equitable (among the privileged classes), conditions that would be far more effectively approximated by market socialism than by capitalism. Secondly, I speak of modern liberalism (what you inaccurately refer to as progressivism). Modern liberalism is based in the ultimate preservation of capitalism through strategic utilization of the state, something that will function more effectively than more rightist policies. Moreover, the most contemporary forms of socialism, market socialism and decentrally planned socialism, have nothing to do with a command economy or central planning. Study up.

Your claim is that the welfare state stabilizes capitalism by way of placating the lower classes with social programs to prevent a revolution that would topple capitalism. Where your theory falls apart, is in the fact that our capitalist system existed, and thrived, for 160 years before the creation of the welfare state.

It did not. Capitalism in its present form was not existent in colonial periods due to the absence of widespread wage labor in its present form; there was a market-based economy that entailed exchange between independent traders and artisans to a far greater degree and there was consequently little need for substantial domestic regulation. At the same time, however, there was still advocacy of state support of economic structure and implementation to a large degree.

The welfare state is a parasite that lives off the life blood of capitalism and because of the welfare states ever growing size, and insatiable appetite, it will eventually collapse what little bit is left of our capitalist system.

A comical claim, and more importantly, one in sharp conflict with the available empirical research on the matter. For example, consult Headey's Is There a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’ :

A crucial debate in policy-making as well as academic circles is whether there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and the size/generosity of the welfare state. One way to contribute to this debate is to compare the performance of best cases of different types of state. Arguably, in the decade 1985-94, the US, West Germany and the Netherlands were best cases - best economic performers - in what G. Esping-Andersen calls the three worlds of welfare capitalism. The US is a liberal welfare-capitalist state, West Germany a corporatist state, and the Netherlands is social democratic in its tax-transfer system, although not its labor market policies. These three countries had rates of economic growth per capita as high or higher than other rich countries of their type, and the lowest rates of unemployment. At a normative or ideological level the three types of state have the same goals but prioritise them differently. The liberal state prioritises economic growth and efficiency, avoids work disincentives, and targets welfare benefits only to those in greatest need. The corporatist state aims to give priority to social stability, especially household income stability, and social integration. The social democratic welfare state claims high priority for minimising poverty, inequality and unemployment. Using ten years of panel data for each country, we assess indicators of their short (one year), medium (five year) and longer term (ten year) performance in achieving economic and welfare goals. Overall, in this time period, the Netherlands achieved the best performance on the welfare goals to which it gave priority, and equalled the other two states on most of the goals to which they gave priority. This result supports the view that there is no necessary trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state.

Moreover, the Netherlands' focus on minimization of unemployment translates into a reduction of static inefficiency. So no, the welfare state is hardly an agent of "socialism." It's an integral portion of the capitalist economy. I might favor dismantling it along with you, since more rightist forms of capitalism would cause destabilization. So we'll see what happens. :)
 
Communism:

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.

Socialism:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Both you and PLC1 like to leave that #3 part off your definition of socialism.

Social Democracy

1 : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2 : a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices
You forgot "conservatives'" guiding-principles....​

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

cheneylapdog.jpg
 
No, it's a matter of emphasizing a sufficiently inclusive definition. Since the definition that you posted is Marxist-specific and as unsophisticated as dictionaries will be, it's not sufficiently inclusive and excludes important aspects of the socialist tradition.
Then your above statement should also apply to the very specific and unsophisticated definition of socialism you offered. That definition was not "inclusive" enough to "sufficiently" define socialism because it excluded "important aspects of the socialist tradition".

This is absolute drivel.
Then your problem is with Merriam Webster, I suggest you take it up with them.

socialism is more consistent with classical liberalism than modern capitalism
You have a habit of being wrong.

Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." For classical liberalism, rights are of a negative nature—rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others. Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state." They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law." Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.

Social Liberalism, or Welfare Liberalism, is more in line with Socialism than Classical Liberalism.

Now I have no idea what you mean by "modern" Capitalism but considering your propensity for making inaccurate statements, my guess would be that you're talking about our "mixed" economy and not Capitalism.

I speak of modern liberalism (what you inaccurately refer to as progressivism).
Actually, what I said was that Progressives and Socialists have a great deal in common, I didn't mention "modern" Liberalism at all... But since you brought it up:

Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism that arose from progressive ideals such as Thomas Paine's asset-based egalitarianism, Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Modern American liberalism is a combination of social liberalism, social progressivism, support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. Keynesian economics play an influential role in the philosophy.
Its really not that difficult to understand, all Collectivist ideologies share the same basic principles.

Modern liberalism is based in the ultimate preservation of capitalism through strategic utilization of the state,
Once again, you are 180 degrees wrong. "Modern" Liberalism is phasing out capitalism through the "mixed" economy. Controls breed controls: part 1 part 2 part 3

something that will function more effectively than more rightist policies.
More effective... like the Leftist policies that have made Michigan the economic powerhouse that it is today. :rolleyes:

market socialism... [has] nothing to do with a command economy
Red Herring/Strawman. I didn't bring up market socialism.... Pay attention Julian, David Schweickart cant help you here:

Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production are publicly owned, but the market is utilized.[1] In a traditional market socialist economy, prices would be determined by a government planning ministry, and enterprises would either be state-owned or cooperatively-owned and managed by their employees.
Price controls are a central concept of command economies.

decentrally planned socialism, have nothing to do with a command economy or central planning.
What I said was, socialism and progressivism share common ground, and they do. According to your narrow definition of socialism, "government ownership and control of the means of production", socialism is based on central planning and a command economy. So you bringing up these offshoots of socialism, "decentrally planned socialism" and "market socialism", is simply an attempt at a Red Herring.

Study up.
I already have... you are outclassed.

It did not. Capitalism in its present form was not existent in colonial periods
I never said our current "mixed" economy was present in colonial periods. Which makes this "rebuttal" a strawman.

At the same time, however, there was still advocacy of state support of economic structure and implementation to a large degree.
Another strawman. Such advocates for collectivism have always existed and I've never suggested otherwise.

A comical claim, and more importantly, one in sharp conflict with the available empirical research on the matter. For example, consult Headey's Is There a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’ :
Another strawman and Red Herring combo. I didn't claim there was a trade off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state.

the welfare state is hardly an agent of "socialism."
Do you buy Strawmen and Red Herrings in bulk?

It's an integral portion of the capitalist economy.
I would say its an integral portion of the "mixed" economy but its antithetical to Laissez Faire Capitalism.

I might favor dismantling it along with you, since more rightist forms of capitalism would cause destabilization.
You should look into the very leftist Cloward and Piven strategy:

[T]he "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
 
When a persons takes on the name of a murderous dictator who caused the death of millions, not only in his own country, but in other countries where his influence was forced onto the people, and when this same person refuses evidence and information regarding the ideology he has chosen, but instead prefers to attack others on spurious unsupportable grounds....

...it sure seems like a mental illness to me.

Just like what the former Soviet Union was accused of - putting people with different opinions in mental hospitals.

I suppose you would have been very happy for Hitler to destroy the Soviet Union and exterminate every Russian.

Without Stalin, Russia would now be a German State, the UK and the USA would be fascist and Jews would be a rarity.

Comrade Stalin
 
Originally Posted by Libsmasher THIS, from the commie who just called conservatives "paranoid" and "delusional":

[URL="https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5596"]https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5596[/URL]



sigh...cognitive dissonance is not a mental illness

I suppose that I should be glad that you are reading my posts, but I am saddened that you have not followed my train of thought.

Comrade Stalin

So sorry to inform you {if you haven't checked his profile as of yet} Libsmasher was banned prior to my coming on board...but he's gone and if he was able to he would be mentally connecting to your posts but all of that pent up angst/vitriolic brain matter causes static and the brain wave gets disconnect...LMAO
 
[/I]




So sorry to inform you {if you haven't checked his profile as of yet} Libsmasher was banned prior to my coming on board...but he's gone and if he was able to he would be mentally connecting to your posts but all of that pent up angst/vitriolic brain matter causes static and the brain wave gets disconnect...LMAO

Libsmasher was not banned! He left because he found a better forum.
 
Werbung:
Then your above statement should also apply to the very specific and unsophisticated definition of socialism you offered. That definition was not "inclusive" enough to "sufficiently" define socialism because it excluded "important aspects of the socialist tradition".

Incorrect. My definition of socialism, derived from the American Heritage Dictionary, is "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." This is a sufficiently inclusive definition that will encompass the legitimate components of socialist theory, while excluding pseudo-socialist ideologies that are actually state capitalist in nature, such as Stalinism. Your definition, by contrast, was Marxist-specific and poorly applied by you anyway, not only ensuring that non-Marxist socialism was excluded but also ensuring that you would be incapable of making legitimate economic comment.

Then your problem is with Merriam Webster, I suggest you take it up with them.

Your problem is not only with the more inclusive definition offered by the American Heritage Dictionary, but also with Wikipedia, where it is noted that "socialism" refers to "various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources." That is the definition formed by consensus...and by actual consultation of the vast socialist literature, as opposed to your shallow misconceptions.

You have a habit of being wrong.

Actually, it is you that stands as clearly incorrect here. Socialism ensures the relative equality of opportunity that classical liberals had an interest in, as opposed to capitalism.

Modern propertarians do claim to have inherited "classical liberalism" and assert that the term "liberalism" was stolen from them in the same manner that I claim that "libertarianism" was stolen from anarchists, but the problem with that assessment is that classical liberalism is genuinely incompatible with propertarianism. The "laissez-faire" prescriptions offered by classical liberal thinkers during a period in which agrarian conditions and relatively egalitarian land distribution were expected to maintain equitable economic conditions are largely inapplicable to modern economic and more broadly societal conditions in which large-scale industrial development after the phase of the primitive accumulation of capital has spawned corporate capitalism, a state-supported economic structure that involves market and wealth concentration and thus, consolidation of primary influence over government and near-complete ownership and management rights over industry by an elite financial class. That problem exists even aside from the fact that many classical liberal philosophers and economists (most notably Adam Smith) were significantly more protectionist in nature than they are disingenuously depicted as by modern rightists. Moreover, the economy as a whole was not as drastically unregulated as is commonly perceived and support for regulation amongst the Founding Fathers was not as sparse as is commonly perceived. In fact, Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, was effectively the first to comprehensively advocate the infant industry argument (a protectionist trade argument, if you're unfamiliar with it) in his Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Subject of Manufactures.

Regardless, the main point is that classical liberal philosophy generally offers a defense of property rights based on individual appropriation of the product of one's labor that many classical liberal theorists expected to result in relatively egalitarian conditions. No defense of vast corporate structure that modern propertarians defend as legitimate fixtures of fair market exchange and the massive concentration of wealth that they defend as the earned reward of entrepreneurial spirit can be drawn from that philosophy. It's an obvious reality that the conditions of presently existing capitalism are not those "without a formal class structure...and a dispersed and relatively diverse population composed of small entrepreneurs," as a recent advocacy of laissez-faire structure described those agrarian conditions. Our capitalist economy is not composed of independent producers and artisans, but of large-scale corporate structure and rampant concentration of wealth and property. The reality is thus that modern propertarians (disingenuously self-identified "libertarians") have effectively co-opted classical liberal arguments just as effectively as they stole the "libertarian" label from European anarchists, thus committing what appear to be property violations more severe than any that they regularly decry. For example, the political scientist Robert Dahl (A Preface to Economic Democracy, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985) notes this:

[A]n economic order that spontaneously produced inequality in the distribution of economic and political resources acquired legitimacy at least in part, by clothing itself in the recut garments of an outmoded ideology in which private property was justified on the ground that a wide diffusion of property would support political equality. As a result, Americans have never asked themselves steadily or in large numbers whether an alternative to corporate capitalism might be more consistent with their commitment to democracy.

Sound adaptation of the more libertarian elements of the classical liberal philosophy would thus probably lend support to libertarian socialism today, particularly libertarian market socialism, such as the mutualism of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (though more likely a minarchist variety, not his anarchist form). We could also look to more broadly democratic market socialism such as that today advocated by figures such as David Schweickart and the aforementioned Theodore Burczak. The reason for this is that democratic market socialism is able to maximize legitimately competitive market enterprise through its elimination of monopolistic and oligopolistic conditions, and more broadly, market and wealth concentration. It's also able to promote personal possession rather than "private property" in that their is greater focus on individual possession and consumption rights rather than the "right" to own massive corporate structure, which permits the utilization of hierarchical and authoritarian wage labor as an element of internal firm structure, which is flatly undemocratic in both de jure and de facto terms. There is a corresponding support for workers' democratic ownership and management in such market socialist models. I don't advocate democratic market socialism myself; I advocate decentralized participatory planning, specifically in the form of anarchist communism. I simply believe that democratic market socialism is more compatible with classical liberal principles as adapted to a modern context than presently existing capitalism is. If not, then massive wealth and property re-distribution at the very least would be necessary to imitate the egalitarian conditions that classical liberalism was then to be applied to, but I think this impractical, and not far from democratic market socialism anyway, so we might as well attempt to implement a framework of public ownership.
 
Back
Top