Obama as a "Socialist"

[Agnapostate]

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

What you refer to is liberal democratic capitalism, which is a center-left variant of capitalism (as opposed to the rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism and the leftist social democratic capitalism). This economic ideology is quite opposed to the public ownership of the means of production, inasmuch as it utilizes the state to correct the market failures of negative externalities, market concentration, and asymmetric information, providing overall macroeconomic stabilization and sustaining the private ownership of the means of production as well as the physical efficiency of the working class that toil in the capitalist economy. This is in obvious conflict with socialism.

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.

Capitalism is defined by the conditions of the private ownership of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of resource allocation, and the existence of wage labor, all three of which are present in our modern economic structure. The mixed economy is the fundamental basis of capitalism inasmuch as the state is an integral agent in the capitalist economy. You probably refer to a theoretical abstraction of "laissez-faire" capitalism that has been perpetually nonexistent, rendering promotion of it comically utopian.

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:

That you inaccurately define economic rightism as "liberal" does not interest me. What's more relevant is that liberal democratic capitalism is quite opposed to socialism.

Its really not that difficult to understand, all Collectivist ideologies share the same basic principles.

Indeed. Just as liberal democratic capitalism is opposed to all shades of collectivism, which is the basis for my opposition to it.

Once again, you are 180 degrees wrong. "Modern" Liberalism is phasing out capitalism through the "mixed" economy.

More effective... like the Leftist policies that have made Michigan the economic powerhouse that it is today.

You seem to have forgotten to refer to the empirical research that I mentioned. You must need another source. Try Mares's The economic consequences of the welfare state:

What are the economic and employment consequences of larger social insurance programmes? Are larger welfare states diverting resources from economic activity and distorting the investment decisions of firms? I examine theoretical and empirical research on the economic consequences of the welfare state. This review shows that the predictions of a negative relationship between higher levels of social protection and growth have not been borne out in the data. Both insurance programmes and other policies that increase investment in human capital or the overall productivity of workers generate important economic externalities that outweigh the potentially distortionary effects of higher taxes. Empirical studies also fail to uncover a consistent negative relationship between larger welfare states and the level of employment. The employment consequences of the welfare state are mediated by existing institutions and policies—such as the level of centralization of the wage bargaining system—which affect the redistribution of the costs of higher taxes among workers and firms. As a result, the employment consequences of larger welfare states are non-linear.

The welfare state in particular is an important agent in the maintenance of stability in the capitalist economy, thus rendering comparisons with "socialism" ludicrous.

Red Herring/Strawman. I didn't bring up market socialism.... Pay attention Julian, David Schweickart cant help you here:

You didn't mention market socialism, which is why I did. What you inaccurately refer to, of course, is the somewhat outdated market socialism of figures such as Lange. I refer to the republican market socialism of Schweickart and the "post-Hayekian" socialism of Theodore Burczak, their primary appeal being the ability to bypass the economic calculation problem.

Price controls are a central concept of command economies.

Price controls are existent to some degree in every viable economic structure, which accounts for their prevalence in the capitalist economy, particularly during periods of crisis.

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.

A comical claim. My definition of socialism is the public ownership and management of the means of production, or more descriptively, "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." Government ownership is in sharp conflict with this due to the detachment of aims between a political regime and the general public that will ensure that political power is not exercised by the whole community in the case of "government ownership."

It is on that basis that I disavow central planning and a command economy and instead advocate decentrally planned socialism, where horizontal confederations of decentralized collectives and communes engage in economic direct democracy. Consider, for example, this review of the "participatory economics" (parecon) advocated by Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert, which I'd describe as a form of "libertarian collectivism." It's theoretically compatible with either minarchism or anarchism, and is collectivist in nature, as it's reliant on the abolition of markets but preservation of remuneration primarily based on individual measurements of labor inputs rather than needs, as communism would be.

This is a model designed to yield Pareto optimal allocation through decentralized planning. It is an effort to overcome the commodity fetishism of markets, market-bias towards private goods at the expense of public goods, externalities, and market failures of all kinds. Additionally, their model attempts to go beyond the hierarchical decision-making inherent in central planning. It is in many respects a well thought-through effort to go beyond markets without succumbing to the domination of central planning.

The model relies on the existence of "consumer councils" organized geographically by neighborhood, municipality, state, and federal jurisdictions. They start out small and local, yet become aggregated until their plans combine into a national system. The "consumer councils" are assumed to be self-interested with each member assumed to act in her/his own individual interest. They are "rational maximizers" as is assumed in neoclassicism. The effective "check" on each unit is the fact that they exist within a network of other local consumer councils, who also want to maximize self-interest. Also, the self-interest of consumer councils is checked by the rational maximizing behavior of "worker councils" in production. "Worker councils" likewise seek to achieve the best working conditions and most income under conditions that are not competitive but that are collectively monitored by other competing workers' councils. The democratically run worker councils are grouped by industry and proceed from the shopfloor upwards to the federal level. Plans are drawn through an iterative process in which consumer councils articulate what they want to purchase and worker councils articulate what they want to produce. Each person, as both consumer and producer, gets to vote according to the extent to which she/he is affected by the decision.

My own preferred "system" is somewhat to the left of that as it's both explicitly anarchist and communist in nature, but the fundamental elements of decentralized socialist economic planning are present in both.

 

[Agnapostate]

I already have... you are outclassed.

You haven't. While there are some economically informed rightists, you aren't among them. This ensures that the prospect of you successfully defeating me here is somewhat akin to that of an Ewok slaying Darth Vader.

I never said our current "mixed" economy was present in colonial periods. Which makes this "rebuttal" a strawman.

Wrong. That there was not a domestic welfare state comparable to that of today is due to the fact that economic conditions were not comparable to those of modern capitalism, which means that your attempts to attack the welfare state lack important context.

Another strawman. Such advocates for collectivism have always existed and I've never suggested otherwise.

Among those "advocates of collectivism" are the aforementioned Alexander Hamilton, as well as the political economist Adam Smith, since the modern depiction of him as a rigid and strong advocate of laissez-faire policies is incorrect to begin with, even prior to examining the problem of the inapplicability of such advocacy to present arrangements. For instance, consider Nolan's Adam Smith and the Contradictions of the Free Market:

Smith's analysis of the market mechanism was an attempt to lay bare the fundamental laws governing economic development. At the same time that he sought to identify these principles, he devoted scrupulous attention to the underlying contradictions of the market economy. He did believe that the free market was the fundamental driver of economic progress. However, he demonstrated that this driving force contained deep internal contradictions from the point of view of people as both producers and as consumers. In respect to both issues. Smith insisted that the dynamism of the free market economy should be considered alongside its deep ethical shortcomings. He was unable to answer satisfactorily how the latter shortcomings could be resolved, but his intellectual honesty and driving sense of moral purpose led him to display these contradictions clearly and passionately.

Supplement that with Houseman's The Use and Abuse of Adam Smith. This is an interesting portion:

It is in the area of taxation, more than in any part of the sum of his legacy, that Smith and his supposed heirs diverge the most. Smith favors using the revenue-raising powers of government to go after the "wastrel" spending of the idle rich, and he recognizes the need to tax most heavily rental income, the major crutch of the wealthy in his day, and also wealthy persons' housing. He then proceeds even further by advocating steeply progressive taxes as part of the ideal revenue-raising system. Smith's demand for this structure is repeated and strident (pp. 346-47) and is clearly at odds with recent White House, Wall Street Journal, and Forbes calls (among others) for a flat or flatter income tax.

It seems that Smith, unlike the modern rightist, understood the nature of the diminishing rate of marginal utility and favored progressive taxation accordingly. Last but certainly not least, I'd also throw in Young's Unintended order and intervention: Adam Smith's theory of the role of the state:

Is it possible to give a coherent account of Smith’s theory of the role of the state in a system of natural liberty? If by 'coherent' we mean reducible to a single principle or even slogan such as 'laissez-faire', then the answer, of course, is 'No'. Ever since Jacob Viner (1928, 153–54) pointed out at the occasion of the celebration of the sesquicentennial of the publication of the Wealth of Nations that 'Adam Smith was not a doctrinaire advocate of laissez faire', scholars have come to appreciate that Smith actually advocated 'a wide and elastic range of activity or government'.

While you're undoubtedly a greater theorist than he, perhaps this will aid you in your quest to realize that capitalism requires a substantial degree of government intervention and even required a certain degree in colonial periods.

Another strawman and Red Herring combo. I didn't claim there was a trade off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state.

Your attempts to slip away grow more amusing. No, you certainly made no specific claim using those terms, but the fact that you claimed that there was a conflict between economic efficiency/growth and state protectionism/interventionism in the capitalist economy is quite apparent.

Do you buy Strawmen and Red Herrings in bulk?

Good. I'm glad you now realize that the welfare state and socialism are quite detached, with the former being an agent of efficiency in the capitalist economy. You must have taken a few basic econ. courses since our last encounter.

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

"Laissez-faire" structure is itself a theoretical abstraction antithetical to the continued existence of capitalism. Since it would cause a substantial amount of destabilization in the capitalist economy and perhaps lead to the embrace of socialism, I might be persuaded to support it, though.

You should look into the very leftist Cloward and Piven strategy:

You should look into an elementary logic course at one of the local junior colleges.

 

[GenSeneca]

Julian, you have taken to using the copy and paste method of response:

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=22178;start=0#msg454330

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...pointing-those-look-up-us.html#post1058309198

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=394907&postcount=5

Even the post you made to "resurrect" this thread was recycled garbage you had posted elsewhere:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/10763.aspx

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/general-political-discussion/73333-administrations-socialism.html

You probably refer to a theoretical abstraction of "laissez-faire" capitalism that has been perpetually nonexistent, rendering promotion of it comically utopian.

Once again you shoot yourself in the foot, while its planted firmly in your mouth. Your theoretical abstraction of Anarcho-Socialism has been perpetually nonexistent, rendering your promotion of it comically utopian.

Now if you decide that there is a particular topic you would like to focus on, rather than offering red herrings because you have pre-packaged responses sitting on other forums waiting to by copied and pasted, you let me know.

BTW... How many forums have you been banned from anyway? I understand you think adults should be allowed to have sex with children, that's pretty sick stuff.... And its a good thing you aren't spewing any of that antisemitic drivel around here.

 

[Agnapostate]

Julian, you have taken to using the copy and paste method of response

That's true. And I'm flattered by your Google search of phrases within my commentary, which indicates that you regard my work as being high-quality enough to be plagiarized.

The problem with you, of course, is that you're little more than a somewhat more verbose and persistent version of every single anti-socialist spambot I've ever encountered on Internet discussion forums. That's why the exact same responses that have been issued against others without adequate response were issued against you...you regurgitate the exact same talking points that I've encountered time and time before. I freely admit that most of my longer posts contain re-posts of things I've written before. This is mainly because they remain just as apt.

Next time, try rebutting instead of deflecting.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

GenSeneca

Once again you shoot yourself in the foot, while its planted firmly in your mouth. Your theoretical abstraction of Anarcho-Socialism has been perpetually nonexistent, rendering your promotion of it comically utopian.

Now if you decide that there is a particular topic you would like to focus on, rather than offering red herrings because you have pre-packaged responses sitting on other forums waiting to by copied and pasted, you let me know.

BTW... How many forums have you been banned from anyway? I understand you think adults should be allowed to have sex with children, that's pretty sick stuff.... And its a good thing you aren't spewing any of that antisemitic drivel around here.

Oh, MY, MY, MY...the ALL MIGHTY GENSENECA slides down that slippery slope of vile/vitriolic personal attacks...I'm so shocked and taken a back

You, who posts the constant diatribe of being a 'TRUE ADULT' AND KEEPING THE DISCUSSION PURE AND AVOIDING THAT CHILDISH BEHAVIOR OF PERSONAL ATTACKS...just took this entire debate right into the gutter.

WOW the pedestal that was stuck up your rear must have CRACKED and SPLIT into two...did that fall hurt you in any way {only asking so that you don't think that I would not care}

 

[Pandora]

GenSeneca

Oh, MY, MY, MY...the ALL MIGHTY GENSENECA slides down that slippery slope of vile/vitriolic personal attacks...I'm so shocked and taken a back

You, who posts the constant diatribe of being a 'TRUE ADULT' AND KEEPING THE DISCUSSION PURE AND AVOIDING THAT CHILDISH BEHAVIOR OF PERSONAL ATTACKS...just took this entire debate right into the gutter.

WOW the pedestal that was stuck up your rear must have CRACKED and SPLIT into two...did that fall hurt you in any way {only asking so that you don't think that I would not care}

You are ok with having sex with children?

Incase you did not know, there is a thread started by him
advocating sex with children. Its an old thread but that is what Gen is talking about.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

You are ok with having sex with children?

Incase you did not know, there is a thread started by him
advocating sex with children. Its an old thread but that is what Gen is talking about.

WOW...what a shocker...here you are defending a personal attack by your HERR GENERAL of fair play...AMAZING...yet so predictable too

I don't troll the boards looking for filth and posting my annoyances about that matter...but how so true to your {both of you} right winged nut job diatribes to utilize that topic over here where it doesn't belong!!!

SHAME-SHAME-SHAME on you both...those Halo's must be slipping!

 

[GenSeneca]

That's true. And I'm flattered by your Google search of phrases within my commentary, which indicates that you regard my work as being high-quality enough to be plagiarized.

It wasn't the quality, it was the volume. 3 posts minutes apart with nearly 100,000 words per post... That's a sign of a copy and paste spammer.

Next time, try rebutting instead of deflecting.

Actually, that is my complaint about your "replies", you didn't deal with anything I actually said... At first I thought you were just riddled with ADD and couldn't focus on the discussion but as your apparent ADD got progressively worse, your posts progressively longer, and you were bringing up topics and persons that I had never mentioned, I knew there had to be more to it. Sure enough, you were not responding to things I had said but simply copying and pasting your replies to what other people had said from other forums.

 

[GenSeneca]

You are ok with having sex with children?

Incase you did not know, there is a thread started by him
advocating sex with children. Its an old thread but that is what Gen is talking about.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4884

In this quote, he is saying it would be fine for an adult to have sex with a 7 year old:

Neither penetration nor most other types of sexual behavior would typically induce physical harm upon a 7 year old.

Pointing out someones stated positions on a given topic isn't a personal attack... Its like calling Saxon (the self proclaimed Fascist) a Fascist.

 

[Agnapostate]

It wasn't the quality, it was the volume. 3 posts minutes apart with nearly 100,000 words per post... That's a sign of a copy and paste spammer.

What foolishness. Aside from the fact that there is a limit of 20,000 characters in each post, if I had typed a large amount of original content here, I would have needed to break it up in the manner I had. The content was completed before posting; it simply needed to be divided to bypass the character limit.

Actually, that is my complaint about your "replies", you didn't deal with anything I actually said... At first I thought you were just riddled with ADD and couldn't focus on the discussion but as your apparent ADD got progressively worse, your posts progressively longer, and you were bringing up topics and persons that I had never mentioned, I knew there had to be more to it. Sure enough, you were not responding to things I had said but simply copying and pasting your replies to what other people had said from other forums.

That is false, and a sign of some lack of reading comprehension on your part. The only significant "copying and pasting" in my last response was in reply to your claim about the incompatibility of classical liberalism and socialism. I elaborated on the conflicts between classical liberalism and capitalism, and then explained why republican market socialism was more compatible with classical liberalism than capitalism. If you didn't regurgitate the standard rightist drivel, you just might earn yourself a more original reply some day, but at this point, you won't. The fact that you are unable to reply to even a single comment in my response is evidence of your clear loss here.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4884

In this quote, he is saying it would be fine for an adult to have sex with a 7 year old:

Pointing out someones stated positions on a given topic isn't a personal attack... Its like calling Saxon (the self proclaimed Fascist) a Fascist.

The ethical consequences of an act aren't determined solely by physical harm, as you should know. Suffering of a more severe nature can be caused by mental and emotional harm, which is actually what primary focus is set upon in the case of such sexual interactions. However, you've of course idiotically misrepresented my comments here just as you disingenuously claimed that I advocate governmental central planning and a command economy. The actual thrust of my advocacy there is represented in my youth liberation thread.

That said, even if I advocated daily orgies with children, animals, corpses, and the mentally impaired, that would be of no consequence to your clear and obvious debate loss in this thread.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

What foolishness. Aside from the fact that there is a limit of 20,000 characters in each post, if I had typed a large amount of original content here, I would have needed to break it up in the manner I had. The content was completed before posting; it simply needed to be divided to bypass the character limit.

Something that the good Herr Gen does as well but with your posts he finds fault with this technique...

That is false, and a sign of some lack of reading comprehension on your part. The only significant "copying and pasting" in my last response was in reply to your claim about the incompatibility of classical liberalism and socialism. I elaborated on the conflicts between classical liberalism and capitalism, and then explained why republican market socialism was more compatible with classical liberalism than capitalism. If you didn't regurgitate the standard rightist drivel, you just might earn yourself a more original reply some day, but at this point, you won't. The fact that you are unable to reply to even a single comment in my response is evidence of your clear loss here.

Been there and done that with most every topic that I've TRIED to have an adult exchange with HERR GEN...having to continually stop, go back and redirect his incorrect ASSumptions/misunderstanding/convoluted thought processes makes an adult discussion with him a futile endeavor

The ethical consequences of an act aren't determined solely by physical harm, as you should know. Suffering of a more severe nature can be caused by mental and emotional harm, which is actually what primary focus is set upon in the case of such sexual interactions. However, you've of course idiotically misrepresented my comments here just as you disingenuously claimed that I advocate governmental central planning and a command economy. The actual thrust of my advocacy there is represented in my youth liberation thread.

The constant evidence of this type/style of discourse by the 'Screeching Monkey Crowd' just proves that when they lack any REAL FACTUAL information they will constantly fall back on some 'SMOKE SCREEN' of off topic thought/word/statement as if that is proof of their superiority and genius...LMAO

That said, even if I advocated daily orgies with children, animals, corpses, and the mentally impaired, that would be of no consequence to your clear and obvious debate loss in this thread.

Yep...so sad but true...when they back themselves into the IDIOT CORNER they'll pull out the most obscure/irrational thing that will change the way in which the discussion is going so that they feel they've TRUMPED the argument with a wonderful 'GOTCHA' moment. Oh, the humor that this provides my day with...and then add to that the ever reliable BIB coming in to show mental support for that feeble post by HERR GEN and then I'm ROTFLMAO about both of them

 

[Pandora]

Something that the good Herr Gen does as well but with your posts he finds fault with this technique...

Been there and done that with most every topic that I've TRIED to have an adult exchange with HERR GEN...having to continually stop, go back and redirect his incorrect ASSumptions/misunderstanding/convoluted thought processes makes an adult discussion with him a futile endeavor

The constant evidence of this type/style of discourse by the 'Screeching Monkey Crowd' just proves that when they lack any REAL FACTUAL information they will constantly fall back on some 'SMOKE SCREEN' of off topic thought/word/statement as if that is proof of their superiority and genius...LMAO

Yep...so sad but true...when they back themselves into the IDIOT CORNER they'll pull out the most obscure/irrational thing that will change the way in which the discussion is going so that they feel they've TRUMPED the argument with a wonderful 'GOTCHA' moment. Oh, the humor that this provides my day with...and then add to that the ever reliable BIB coming in to show mental support for that feeble post by HERR GEN and then I'm ROTFLMAO about both of them

are you now advocating for child rape?

 

[Pandora]

WOW...what a shocker...here you are defending a personal attack by your HERR GENERAL of fair play...AMAZING...yet so predictable too

I don't troll the boards looking for filth and posting my annoyances about that matter...but how so true to your {both of you} right winged nut job diatribes to utilize that topic over here where it doesn't belong!!!

SHAME-SHAME-SHAME on you both...those Halo's must be slipping!

What you call trolling, I call clicking the "new posts" button

 

[Pandora]

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4884

In this quote, he is saying it would be fine for an adult to have sex with a 7 year old:



Pointing out someones stated positions on a given topic isn't a personal attack... Its like calling Saxon (the self proclaimed Fascist) a Fascist.

If you are on the right its considered a personal attack, if your on the left an actual personal attack is speaking like an adult

things are more 1984 than I first thought

 

[Dr.Who]

You and that other sexually deviant twisted sister {SIHO} need to 'HOOK UP' and just wale away about those topics that you both seem so fixated about ...cause you aren't getting me engaged in that perverted crap that seems to titillate you so much ...you really own up to that name BIB and you should make it your avatar

Sometimes things get heated and people get carried away saying things that verge on being personal attacks. Other times things actually are personal attacks.

It seem to me that in the last few days your posted vitriol (nothing about you but a comment on your posts) has been upped a notch. And I would say that calling a member who not even a part of this conversation eliminates the excuse that you just got carried away.

Mods what do you say?