Dammit, where’s mine?
Printable View
This kind of rhetoric is as useless and divisive as Mr. Goodwin claims the Obama agenda is.
Nah. It is the socialist agenda, and the President just happens to be the standard bearer. This agenda has been in the making since our President was in diapers.
"Socialist agenda"
Spare me. If the left has a socialist agenda, then the right has a totalitarian fascist one. And if Obama is the standard bearer of the purported "socialist agenda," then the ACA is the most ironic piece of legislation in recent memory, given it's heavy fascist undertones.
Anyone that says Obama and the left have a "socialist agenda" don't know the meaning of "socialism."
Bingo Dan, I had read that piece tonight before I came here. The ultra liberal left, the liberal media, George Soros and his billions, are doing all they can to control everything in this country and will take every freedom away from us that they can, little by little. Fast and furious is a prime example, all that was about was a way to show gun dealers were nothing more than greedy thugs and as a result we need more gun control laws. But, it showed what we have in DC, a bunch of crooked sob's that will do anything to get their agenda done. The 2008 election, there is video of the new black panthers with billy clubs outside a voting poll place threatening any white person who dared tried to enter to vote. and what did AG ERik Holder do, nothing, refused to prosecute. and who does Holder answer to, Obama. If this election is close, they will steal it just as they did with Kennedy over Nixon. They will bus boat loads of black voters from one spot to the next in an all black community and they will vote over and over. Outside of Brock, does anyone here really think that a black poll worker will turn down or even look up a black voters name to see if they are legally allowed to vote? If anyone does, I have some nice mountain cabins for sale in Mississippi right by a black rated ski slope.
This is the crookedest administration of my lifetime, they are corrupt, they are greedy, they are liars, they direspect the constitution and will not obey it, they hate the military while pretending they love it, their whole campaing is based on lies, distortions, and more spending. Spend, spend spend, and in between tax away. They have built a voting block that is hard to beat by giving away trillions of dollars in welfare, giving away votes to illegals, swaying the gay vote, and lying to the black vote while doing absolutely nothing for them.
They are trying to destroy the very fabric of greatness that built this country and they are about to succeed because of the voting block they have created and those that can't see the forest for the trees and buy the koolaid they are selling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
Enlighten us please! Anyone that has ever read Obama's books and have read about his infatuation with Saul Allinsky would not make a statement like you just made. Socialism has also put some of the most ruthless dictators this planet has ever known in power. Obama admires the "European system" which is around 85% socialist. BTW in Allinsky's book he says "you have to sell the people about their corrupt government, their unfair tax system and a redistribution of weath. Sell them on hope and change and get the working middle class to betray themselves". Any of that sound familiar?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
You're not interested in being enlightened, so I'm not going to waste the key-strokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukblue
Just as I thought.
Oh, I might know the definition, and I think it's definitely a socialist agenda, and at times almost bordering on Marxist in its implementation paradigm.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
Socialism is fascism, specifically one economic form chosen within the government form of fascism. You are operating on one axis, when in fact political economy is better modeled with two axis. The economic axis on which we move away from socialism is free markets and capitalism, which is also a move away from fascism by definition since it is a move away from government control.
Fascism can also choose a non-socialist form like corporatism, which is still not free markets b/c large corporations prevent competition through government granted monopolies. Effectively it's outsourced socialism from a production standpoint. This was typified by Mussolini's Italy. Again, moving to free markets is a move from fascism as it allows non-government controlled competition.
Obama's socialist agenda is probably best typified by the democratic socialism of Western Europe. You'll notice there they even call it what it is, democratic socialism. Whole political parties named what they are, socialism operated within a democratically controlled government entity.
This form is for all intents and purposes a kind of economic benign dictatorship where the "dictator" is the majority of the populace eligible to vote. This was a tremendous fear of the Founders fwiw, tyranny of the majority. They didn't care so much about liberty as democracy. In democratic socialism the emphasis is on democracy, not necessarily individual liberty.
In fact from a philosophical point that's really the basis of socialism, the use of force by the majority to compel a given definition of economic equality upon the populace. Then it's just a matter of degrees.
By "socialism" you are probably thinking of "Marxism" wherein classically the workers control the means of production and there is no capitalist class. that's not what socialism means or has ever meant. Socialism in Marxist terms was the stage before Marxism, and has come to mean a tempered state between Marxism and capitalism that is far closer to Marxism.
Specifically it does not mean direct ownership of the means of production by the workers or the government but rather control of the means of production to force a different distribution of wealth than would exist in free markets, and specifically to meet the "basic" needs of all people in some egalitarian sense, such as free health care, food, housing, etc.
Obama laid it all out for the world to see when he said "you didn't build that". In order for the socialist agenda to maintain "fairness" the assumption has to be made that those at the top, earning far more than others, must have gotten that wealth unfairly. If they built that business themselves then it would be unfair to take it away, but if they got there on the backs of the workers, er roads, then it's totally fair.
Obama has done nothing but talk about economic "fairness", and "paying your fair share". How can it be disputed he has a vision of economic fairness that must be imposed by government force (higher taxes, Obamacare, etc.) in order to be achieved? He says it every day.
Well, that's socialism by definition. NOW we're only down to the degree f socialism, as the word loses meaning if we apply it to any government regulation or social agenda. For example I don't think Clinton was a socialist, or Carter, etc. Clinton was dang near a conservative, Carter somewhat liberal but too disjointed to be said to have a particular economic philosophy.
Having watched Obama I think he goes beyond "liberal". That's a good description of a Gore or Kerry, but Obama's fundamental philosophy is socialist, not liberal. "You didn't build that" is a tell all, but his ideology was clear to me from early on in his comments. He philosophically:
a) is an apologist for America. This isn't economic, but it is a near parallel requirement of the socialist philosophy in this country. Probably b/c they see wealth as a bad thing and by global standards we are wealthy, we must have gotten it through nefarious means. Despite a world in a state of massive change to a new model after the end of the Cold War Obama has done nothing to pursue US leverage economically or otherwise. Through both inaction and action he is allowing America's influence over the course of this new model wane.
b) Believes in what can best be desribed as "social justice." As opposed to a liberal who doesn't want people to go hungry, social justice means that at an inherent level it is wrong for some to belong to country clubs and others to be poor, even if they are not per se going hungry. There is a general belief that all "basics" should be free and awarded in an egalitarian manner. This is most often seen now in health care, but can be applied to any basic.
c) Denies the fundamental basis of free markets: entrepreneurship. This nation was founded by people looking to make a better lives for themselves, who were denied the chance due to birth or opportunity in their home nation. They went to a place where they could make a better life through their own labor and enterprise. NOT a better life guaranteed by their labor, but the OPPORTUNITY for betterment without imposition by others.
that is the basis of entrepreneurship, and Obama clearly doesn't believe in it at an ideological level. He's hinted at it many times, but when he says "other people are as smart as you, work as hard as you" and those people don't have what you have, he's saying that the outcome wasn't fair and was as much a matter of luck as intelligence or hard work. he went on to clearly say that the solution was for the one who did have success to "pay his fair share" back to those others who were supposedly as smart and hard working but who didn't have financial success.
That goes against the entire underpinning of the American Experiment.
d) His lack of ANY proposal that moves to free markets, deregulation, encouraging the investment of capital or any other policy that moves away from the socialist economic position to the free market position.
Normally in any "liberal" you have a mix of such things. Clinton voted for NAFTA and finally welfare reform, an economic and political move away from the socialist ideal. Gore, Kerry, etc. all had supported various compromises that expanded business investment or the like in their careers. I have seen no meaningful proposal by Obama that deviates one iota from the democratic socialist policies of Western Europe. In 4 years we should have seen something, but all I see him propose is more government involvement in social basics like health care, more spending in the Keynesian (and non-Keynesian, he never agreed that welfare was an efficient way to spend an economy back to health) fashion, and no proposals to expand the free market base that is the engine for it all.
I know the definition of socialism. I know both its formal definition from Marx through to the modern definition we see in France, Sweden and other nations. I have never applied the "socialist" label to an entire candidate before. I have said a given policy is socialist, but not a whole candidate.
Obama is a socialist, and is pursuing a classic Western European socialist agenda. Even down to his policies on guns and a wide array of social issues, it's like watching a candidate in France or Sweden or just about any European country.
I don't have time to go into more detail but this is an OK overview. There are a lot of details that link up, a lot of statements he's made, even his actions as a community organizer and attorney and his position papers when in the Illinois state legislature, but it's not like he hides the fact. He won't use the "S" word, but his constant and singular emphasis on social justice makes it clear.
Not trying to take a shot at you, but if you want to say something so bold as "you don't know the definition of socialism" you ought to be willing to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
I doubt anyone here will persuade anyone else on a broad, "Oh my God I've been wrong all these years" level, but that's hardly a basis for coming to a topic, telling people they're wrong, and then saying they aren't receptive so you don't have to back it up.
Actually citizen, it is bring a pen knife to a gun fight and knife won't open so run to the hills.
You and I haven't always agreed...BCG in the beginning...but watching anyone try to take you on w/o any knowledge of what they are talking about is worth the price I pay every month for this site.
And blue, brock has no idea just how enlightened you really are when it comes to this administration and how they run things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
This is fundamentally incorrect. Socialism is not fascism, in fact the two philosophies are diametrically opposed to one another. Given this basic misunderstanding, I have to wonder what you've written below.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
This is sort of correct, but not really. Socialism at its core is an economic philosophy which entails state/socially-owned means of production (known as nationalization). Germany, a country I believe typifies what you believe socialism is, has virtually no nationalized production. All the car companies are privatized, all the banks are privatized, etc. The means of production are regulated, but regulation =/= socialism.Quote:
Obama's socialist agenda is probably best typified by the democratic socialism of Western Europe. You'll notice there they even call it what it is, democratic socialism. Whole political parties named what they are, socialism operated within a democratically controlled government entity.
This is incorrect. Social democracies believe that individual liberty and freedoms are enabled via modern liberalism ideals such as universal healthcare, public education, and so forth. It's a concept in modern liberalism called positive vs negative liberty. Social democracies facilitate positive liberty, that is, individual access to power and resources to fill your potential (higher education assistance, for example). Negative liberty is freedom from restraint. Basically, with negative liberty, we're not going to get in your way, but we're not going to help you, either.Quote:
This form is for all intents and purposes a kind of economic benign dictatorship where the "dictator" is the majority of the populace eligible to vote. This was a tremendous fear of the Founders fwiw, tyranny of the majority. They didn't care so much about liberty as democracy. In democratic socialism the emphasis is on democracy, not necessarily individual liberty.
Incorrect. Socialism is an economic philosophy that is a part of the larger political philosophy of Marxism.Quote:
In fact from a philosophical point that's really the basis of socialism, the use of force by the majority to compel a given definition of economic equality upon the populace. Then it's just a matter of degrees.
By "socialism" you are probably thinking of "Marxism" wherein classically the workers control the means of production and there is no capitalist class. that's not what socialism means or has ever meant. Socialism in Marxist terms was the stage before Marxism, and has come to mean a tempered state between Marxism and capitalism that is far closer to Marxism.
You're mixing socialism and modern liberalism. Modern liberalism, which is the true ideology of the modern Democratic party, is what you describe as redistribution of wealth, although that is a oversimplified way of putting it.Quote:
Specifically it does not mean direct ownership of the means of production by the workers or the government but rather control of the means of production to force a different distribution of wealth than would exist in free markets, and specifically to meet the "basic" needs of all people in some egalitarian sense, such as free health care, food, housing, etc.
See, now you're taking things Obama has said out of context. Obama said you didn't build the roads or the bridges or the railroads. He wasn't telling business owners they didn't build their livelihoods, he was telling them that the infrastructure that exists, which allows them to conduct business, was built by the government - which it was. He's not using this as justification for taking anyone's business - where did you even get that idea? What he's saying is that business owners need to realize that the things that make doing business possible - the legal system, the police, the fire departments, the teachers that teach their workers, the universities, the roads, the bridges, and the railways - were all built by Uncle Sam. And that upkeep on all those things requires that we PAY TAXES.Quote:
Obama laid it all out for the world to see when he said "you didn't build that".
No, he actually fits modern liberalism to a tee. If you understand what modern liberalism is, then you see Obama is the poster-child for it.Quote:
Having watched Obama I think he goes beyond "liberal". That's a good description of a Gore or Kerry, but Obama's fundamental philosophy is socialist, not liberal. "You didn't build that" is a tell all, but his ideology was clear to me from early on in his comments.
Not only is this a fundamental mischaracterization of many of Obama's policies, both economic and foreign, it's also a skewed view for how the US is perceived. I would challenge you to back up your claims that "Obama has done nothing to pursue US leverage economically or otherwise." Watching him take action in Libya (which I disagree with) and policies for Iran (which I also disagree with), I see someone who is very willing and able to leverage the US "otherwise."Quote:
He philosophically:
a) is an apologist for America. Probably b/c they see wealth as a bad thing and by global standards we are wealthy, we must have gotten it through nefarious means. Obama has done nothing to pursue US leverage economically or otherwise. Through both inaction and action he is allowing America's influence over the course of this new model wane.
Yes, modern liberals believe its immoral to just leave the poor to their own devices without helping them. This is a core principle of their philosophy.Quote:
b) Believes in what can best be desribed as "social justice." As opposed to a liberal who doesn't want people to go hungry, social justice means that at an inherent level it is wrong for some to belong to country clubs and others to be poor, even if they are not per se going hungry.
He has never denied entrepreneurship. You're misinformed.Quote:
c) Denies the fundamental basis of free markets: entrepreneurship.
What he's saying is that success is hard work, know-how, and luck. Which is true. There are brilliant people who are not millionaires because they were unlucky or didn't work hard. There are millionaires who aren't bright people, but maybe worked hard or were really lucky. Asking for the top 1% to pay back into the system that has facilitated their success is most-certainly fair.Quote:
that is the basis of entrepreneurship, and Obama clearly doesn't believe in it at an ideological level. He's hinted at it many times, but when he says "other people are as smart as you, work as hard as you" and those people don't have what you have, he's saying that the outcome wasn't fair and was as much a matter of luck as intelligence or hard work. he went on to clearly say that the solution was for the one who did have success to "pay his fair share" back to those others who were supposedly as smart and hard working but who didn't have financial success.
That goes against the entire underpinning of the American Experiment.
The answer to our economic woes isn't deregulation (not solely, anyway). Deregulation is what caused our economic woes to begin with. You mentioned Clinton below. In his second term, he passed legislation that nullified the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. This legislation allowed commercial banks to engage in investment activities normally reserved for investment banks (such as mortgage-backed securities). That was the pebble that caused the 2008 financial avalanche.Quote:
d) His lack of ANY proposal that moves to free markets, deregulation, encouraging the investment of capital or any other policy that moves away from the socialist economic position to the free market position.
Do you understand how the US economy works? The things you're talking about are done largely by the Federal Reserve, which typically acts of its own accord. They've kept lending rates at or below 0% for the last few years in order to stimulate investment. There's nothing Obama can do to force businesses to hire and invest. You can't legislate that, and I wouldn't expect you to want it anyway (no one should).Quote:
I have seen no meaningful proposal by Obama that deviates one iota from the democratic socialist policies of Western Europe. In 4 years we should have seen something, but all I see him propose is more government involvement in social basics like health care, more spending in the Keynesian fashion, and no proposals to expand the free market base that is the engine for it all.
Hate to break it to you, but you don't know the definition of socialism. Or, at the very least, you have it confused with something else. What you call socialism is actually modern liberalism. Socialism is an economic philosophy, modern liberalism is a political philosophy. They may exist in the same country, but they are not the same thing. You can have free markets and modern liberalism, you can have socialism and and neo-liberalism (aka, modern libertarianism).Quote:
I know the definition of socialism.
I had to cut out chunks of your post due to length requirements, but I think I kept the gist of what your points were.
I've been arguing with people on the internet long enough to know when a person won't be receptive of anything I type.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Don't have time to go through it all, but if you think socialism and fascism are opposite sides of the political spectrum and doubt what I have to say then we have to back up quite a ways.
I'll address it in chunks as I can with time constraints, but I'll get through it all. I'll begin with us trying to clarify terms and get past the "you don't know the definition" as some kind of dismissal of the position. Some of this I think you'll agree with, some not, but we can hopefully define our terms for the discussion.
In essence, socialism and fascism are not opposite ends of the spectrum but different axis altogether which can exist in any number of combinations from very little of either to lots of both. It is possible to have as socialist system that is fascist or anywhere in between. National Syndicalism and Anarcho-Syndicalism are great examples. None of them are purely economic or purely political but exist as a combination of the two along the two axis. No system is actually on one of the axis, existing sans either political or econmic system, b/c in the real world there is no such thing.
The best example of socialism combined with fascism is Nazism. Hitler did not move to communist private ownership but rather a socialist system where the state dictated to private businesses and companies, but also farmers, for purposes of redistributing economic outcomes to serve the greater good. the distinction between Nazism and democratic socialism are in the nature of individual liberty beyond economics and in the "greater good" definition, where democratic socialists want everyone to have health care and Nazis want to advance the power of the nation usually through military action.
Likewise there is Syndicalism in between socialism and Corporatism/Italian Fascism. None are purely economic, but more important fascism isn't the "opposite end" from socialism but just a different political system that can be tied to socialist principles to yield a complete system.
That is why I was so careful to talk about his model being "democratic socialism", which more aptly defines both the economic and political axis. Both have to be defined as no economic system exists in a vacuum, and socialism cant' exist without a political system making it possible and enforcing it.
"Socialism" is both an economic and political ideology as used in common parlance, but also by definition if not defined in the two word manner since no such entity exists.
It becomes useless to define socialism as purely economic without qualifying it as I did when it is completely intertwined with government laws and actions. it has a political as well as economic component. So does democratic capitalism. that's why I specifically chose democratic socialism, as opposed to some other political structure. Your distinction with "modern liberalism" as somehow only political makes no sense either, since it clearly has economic goals and impacts.
So, the proper way to analyze these systems is not in a vacuum of either economics or politics, nor on a single linear spectrum, but within the broader x/y two dimensional world of political economy. In that world you don't have the simplistic communism on one side and fascism on the other.
There is no purely economic system or purely political system, which only makes sense since no nation state exists without one of each meshed together into a system. It is a two dimensional world. A single one dimensional world simply doesn't properly categories the varied systems or describe the relationships between them ideologically. For example fascism is underpinned by the State being more important than the individual. Marxism likewise subordinates the individual to the group. A deep similarity not captured by the one dimensional view. Socialism does to some extent, capitalism to less of an extent. OK so where does Corporatism fit? Mercantilism? If it can't create proper associations then the system must be rejected.
So we have to abandon your definitions. In your model "socialism" being force fit into only an economic system is completely inaccurate because the very essence of socialism depends on massive political (governmental) action. how can it exist without a political frame of reference? Then we have to define which political system and look at the whole, again why I specifically did so in my posts.
There are various two dimensional models, and I'll cover two of them. One is my personal favorite, the other is used by RJ Rummel at the U of Hawaii in his research on economic/political freedom and inter-nation violence. A bit controversial but I've found his research very enlightening in taking the discussion to a more global perspective.
The first, you have an x and y axis, the x axis which measures economic freedom (i.e. lack of government control over economic outcomes and events) with none on the left and complete on the right and the y axis that measures political control from libertarian at the top (government makes a minimum amount of laws and the individual is more important than the group or State) to fascist/authoritarian (government is in complete control and the individual is subordinate to the State).
I can't find a quick image of it but I'll try later. In that world "libertarianism" and systems like "democratic capitalism" are in the upper right block, anarchy in the far corner. socialism is in the opposite lower left block, with communism in the farthest corner, socialism in from that towards center.
Somewhere closer to the center point, on the lower left block, is modern liberalism. Even with dem socialism on the Y axis. Somewhere farther in the upper right is classical liberalism. Modern "conservatism" is close to the center in the lower right block, with the Asian model like Singapore in the farthest bottom right corner, where you have a non-democratic government with large amounts of economic freedom.
In the upper left is an area I argue is nearly impossible to maintain in the real world more than just a modicum from the center. A lot of people put democratic socialism here, and even with that conventional definition it still fits Obama and proves the point that "socialism" and "modern liberalism" are pseudo distinctions, but if we see tyranny of the majority as a form of authoritarianism, just one that is more popular with more people, then no systems exist in that quartile since "democratic" in democratic socialism is a function of majority rule versus rule by a small authoritarian group and if we redefine "authoritarian" to not be limited to the number in charge but simply whether the state's interests subordinate the individual's freedoms (other than economic, handled on the other axis), then democratic socialism belongs in the bottom left.
that view is based on the view of the Founders than individual liberty is the goal, not democracy. Democracy is just a governmental form, the best we've found so far to protect the rights of individuals, but it is the protection of the Rights of Man for which the government exists at all, so a democratic system that institutes tyranny of the majority and strips people of their individual rights would be, and was, seen as authoritarian/totalitarian by the Founders, and I see it the same way. The number of people imposing its will on you is small comfort to the loss of your rights.
So "democratic socialism" and "modern liberalism" are both political and economic in nature, which is an accurate description of the real world where political and economic systems are completely intertwined. Likewise it is possible to have a "socialist" economic position and a non-democratic regime (straight down on the axis) where even a single king would enforce a socialist agenda. There are a few small nations that could be argued to fit here, like Brunei. it's only sustained in the real world when there is an abundance of wealth like in oil Sultanates.
In the 2nd model rather than type it, there is a nice summary provided by Rummel.
www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.CHAP31.HTM
He uses a triangle where again we see the two dimensional approach (see below)
So now I have defined my terms. My definition is based largely on the work of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economics, and is a variation on the basic Nolan chart where he defines the up/down axis as political freedom in very narrow social terms rather than individual liberty, which is different.
Regardless, throughout the literature the single axis model has been rejected. So in fact I do understand the definitions, and they are more complex than those you are using. Fascism can in fact exist within the context of socialism, and "modern liberalism" is certainly not just a political system and "socialism" an economic one.
Obama is a democratic socialist, which in Western terms is colloquially shortened to 'socialist', since in Western culture we presume no one is advocating for totalitarian or fascist socialism, e.g. Nazism. Now that terms are covered I'll pick up tomorrow some time on why he falls in that group by providing specifics on the differences between democratic socialism and American liberalism.
No argument, but don't you think saying "you're wrong but I know you won't listen so I wont' bother with explaining" is a bit condescending? I don't think that's the right word, but I can't think of a good one to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
There is a difference in arguing and debating, you don't debate. You say your way or else. Just like your agruement on teaching science of what you believe is the only way which is evolution and then saying Christians only believe in mythology and it should never be taught.
Citizen has laid out strong debate on the terms of socialism, economics, foreign policy, the whole 9 yards. You lay out nothing, no facts, no figures, just your way or the hwy. Your funny little sayings on the premium site about football is okay there but here you better be able to back up what you say because facts are the only thing important and you are butting heads with people far more intelligent than you are and you are butting heads with people who own their own business and understand what is happening to all of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock