When Did Liberalism Become Socialism?

[No_Socialism]

When Did Liberalism Become Socialism? When Did This Happen?

Classic Liberalism:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others.

The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from evolutions in liberal thought during the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[7] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[8] which grants the state a more interventionist role in the economy, including a welfare state. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is actually closer to "conservatism" in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Social Liberalism:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social liberalism however sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals. [5] They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.

Social liberals, therefore, support a mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided or guaranteed public services.(ex: some social liberals defend obligatory universal health insurance, with the state paying a basic health insurance to the most poor of the society). Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central concept. In the process, it expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, etc...

Modern liberalism in the United States is highly similar to the European definition of social liberalism. The agendas of European social liberals and modern American liberals tend to be almost identical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_liberalism)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Classical Liberalism morphed into Social Liberalism starting in about 1877 and culminated with FDR:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause(s) of the shift in liberalism in the United States "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism" has been a subject of study among scholars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Social Liberalism or Social Democracy?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social liberalism versus social democracy

The basic ideological difference between social liberalism and social democracy lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual.

Social liberals value liberty, rights and freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible (subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the State does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, social liberals tend to trust that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.

Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism, and (especially in democratic socialist forms) typically favours a more community-based view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without transforming the nature of the State itself. Having rejected the revolutionary approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the democratic process instead, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong skepticism for capitalism, which they believe needs to be regulated (or at least "managed") for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may, potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_liberalism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama and Clinton sound a lot more like advocates of social democracy (aka, socialism) instead of social liberalism. They depend more on the state for things like healthcare, college education, redistribution of wealth, etc...

What do the Democratic socialists say?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions make private business more responsible.

What can young people do to move the US towards socialism?

Young people are needed in today’s struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and irresponsible multinational corporations. Schools, Colleges and Universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed.

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, did Obama's speech writer write this? This sounds remarkably similar to Obama's campaign and speeches. Has Obama every been connected to the Democratic Socialists?

Why yes he has... As I posted in my "Summary of Obama's Ties to Socialism" thread:

Obama attended meetings with the "Chicago Democratic Socialists of America"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996 Barack Obama attended one of their meetings:

"Over three hundred people attended the first of two Town Meetings on Economic Insecurity on February 25 in Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago. Entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America", the meeting was sponsored by the UofC DSA Youth Section, Chicago DSA and University Democrats. The panelists were Toni Preckwinkle, Alderman of Chicago's 4th Ward; Barack Obama, candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District; Professor William Julius Wilson, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago; Professor Michael Dawson, University of Chicago; and Professor Joseph Schwartz, Temple University and a member of DSA's National Political Committee."

"A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the "social wage" approach used by many social democratic labor parties. "

Source: Chicago Democratic Socialists Website:
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Obama Speaks at Socialist Leader Saul Mendelson's Funderal:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Chicago DSA Website: "Saul Mendelson - You joined the Socialist movement at the age of 18. You chaired the Socialist Club at the University of Chicago. You taught and inspired students at DuSable High School. You fought in the civil rights struggles with the NAACP, with CORE, and with the Negro American Labor Council. You have held fast to your belief in democratic socialism."

"At the memorial service held at the 1st Unitarian Church on South Woodlawn, speaker after speaker recounted Saul's contributions. The service was ably MC'd by a retired colleague, Bob Clark. I spoke first and was followed by Saul's friend Deborah Meier, a MacArthur Genius Grant recipient who is now starting a new school in Boston. Amy Isaacs, National Director of the ADA, spoke of what Saul had meant on foreign affairs to the ADA. Other speakers included Senator Carol Moseley Braun, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, State Senator Barak Obama, Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie and a good friend from New York, Myra Russell. The concluding remarks were made by an old friend, Harriet Lefley, who is now Professor of Psychology at the University of Miami Medical School."

Source: Chicago Democratic Socialists Website:
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng58.html#anchor868634
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Obama Endorses Bernie Sanders, the only openly socialist senator in the US Senate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sanders is the first self-described socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Obama endorsing Sanders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIlIpOkRh2A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AND the Democratic Socialists Endorse Obama:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election
Barack Obama

Source: Chicago Democratic Socialists Website:
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in summary:

Classic Liberalism: Popular from the founding fathers up until FDR.
Social Liberalism: Popular mainly from FDR until today.
Social Democracy (aka Socialism): Popularized by Obama and Clinton in this election.

I have been reluctant to call Obama a socialist or Marxist or communist directly in the past. I think it's time to call him what he is...

Barak Obama is a Democratic Socialist. If anyone can prove me wrong on that, have at it.

[No_Socialism]

I find this quote to be appropriate for this topic:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
– Norman Thomas, American socialist

[red states rule]

It started in the 1930's durign FDR's Raw Deal

It became socialism in the 1960's when libs started their failed war on poverty

I am still waiting for any liberal to explain how they can tax America into prosperity

[glockmail]

It started in the 1930's durign FDR's Raw Deal

It became socialism in the 1960's when libs started their failed war on poverty

I am still waiting for any liberal to explain how they can tax America into prosperity I agree.

Where is the Democrat's Exit Strategy for the War on Poverty? :pee:

[red states rule]

I agree.

Where is the Democrat's Exit Strategy for the War on Poverty? :pee:

When everyone is on welfare and can't pay their taxes :lol:

[April15]

I find this quote to be appropriate for this topic:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
– Norman Thomas, American socialistYour analogy is fair. I would hate to see this nation in this century have any other guiding principle such as that espoused by the right leaning anti human bushies.

[midcan5]

In answer to the original question, only in the minds of conservatives or partisans who require a foe to use as a distraction from key issues or a reason for the changes that modernity brought in our lives. All 'isms' are ideas, Habermas calls them 'fictional ideologies,' and none have ever been fully implemented - or I would think ever will be. Our own democracy is an example. Consider only the protection of minorities as an example of where even a democracy would fail many through a simple majority vote. It is why our founders formed the senate and the other breakup of powers. Brilliant liberals they were and today Berlin, Rawls and Waldron represent only three of modern liberal thinkers.

"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

If one is interested in liberalism and not the rhetorical scapegoat the following is a starting point.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

[theHawk]

In answer to the original question, only in the minds of conservatives or partisans who require a foe to use as a distraction from key issues or a reason for the changes that modernity brought in our lives.

Exactly what are the key issues that we conservatives are supposedly 'distracting' from?

[No_Socialism]

In answer to the original question, only in the minds of conservatives or partisans who require a foe to use as a distraction from key issues or a reason for the changes that modernity brought in our lives. All 'isms' are ideas, Habermas calls them 'fictional ideologies,' and none have ever been fully implemented - or I would think ever will be. Our own democracy is an example. Consider only the protection of minorities as an example of where even a democracy would fail many through a simple majority vote. It is why our founders formed the senate and the other breakup of powers. Brilliant liberals they were and today Berlin, Rawls and Waldron represent only three of modern liberal thinkers.

"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

If one is interested in liberalism and not the rhetorical scapegoat the following is a starting point.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

Liberalism has morphed from classic liberalism to new/social liberalism and now Obama & Clinton's platforms more resemble democratic socialism than new/social liberalism. If you disagree can you explain to me how Obama's platform is more in line with new/social liberalism than democratic socialism?

[theHawk]

Liberalism has morphed from classic liberalism to new/social liberalism and now Obama & Clinton's platforms more resemble democratic socialism than new/social liberalism. If you disagree can you explain to me how Obama's platform is more in line with new/social liberalism than democratic socialism?

He can't. Which is why he is distracting from the issue you brought up.

[red states rule]

Your analogy is fair. I would hate to see this nation in this century have any other guiding principle such as that espoused by the right leaning anti human bushies.

The last thing libs want is to have fewer people dependent on government for something. That is what liberal principals are all about

[midcan5]

Exactly what are the key issues that we conservatives are supposedly 'distracting' from?

just a few

For some it is political, the failure of the Iraq war - many issues there including the corrupt regime we are propping up.

For jobs, the outsourcing of work, corporations using tax benefits to ship jobs overseas, the fight against unions

an unfair tax structure that supports the corporation or the wealthy

Environmental concerns

Immigration to benefit business

Education, lack of support

[avatar4321]

you guys are wrong. it started during the Wilson administration. That's where FDR got most of his government experience in the cabinet. I highly recommend reading Liberal Fascism for a decent recap of history.

[red states rule]

Here is an excellent example of the socialism Ms Obama wants to impose on America


The latest example was Mrs. Obama's appearance in Harrisburg, Pa., where she told a group of mothers: "If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership, for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2001271/posts

[avatar4321]

just a few

For some it is political, the failure of the Iraq war - many issues there including the corrupt regime we are propping up.

For jobs, the outsourcing of work, corporations using tax benefits to ship jobs overseas, the fight against unions

an unfair tax structure that supports the corporation or the wealthy

Environmental concerns

Immigration to benefit business

Education, lack of support

We have a federal government that grants more funding to Education than self defense despite the fact that the federal government isnt authorized to do a darn thing about education in the Constitution. How the hell is it not being supported? If you notice, the schools that suck are the ones in the Democrat controlled inner cities. I cant imagine why.

You also realize that as long as you work, you are considered rich by the government.

What environmental concerns do you think are being ignored? We've given our rights up so much for the environmentalist wackos that we cant even become energy independent because it doesnt matter if its clean or "dirty" fuel, their objective isnt a clean environment. It's freaking socialism. Thats why the policies that will supposedly "Save the environment" are the exact same policies that liberals couldnt sell because they are socialist. Dont you think its a mighty odd coincidence that everything that we are supposed to do to "support" the environment are the same exact issues Liberals supported for decades before the environmental movement started?

Yeah heaven forbid we stand in the way of you guys trampling the constitution. What could we possibly be thinking?

[diuretic]

Policies by pro-capitalist governments to ameliorate the more deleterious effects of capitalism on a country's population aren't socialist. They're insurance against rebellion. Most sensible capitalist economies have borrowed some ideas from socialism in order to smooth the rough edges.

The people Americans call "liberals" are just soft capitalists. There is nothing remotely socialist about Clinton or Obama.

[red states rule]

Policies by pro-capitalist governments to ameliorate the more deleterious effects of capitalism on a country's population aren't socialist. They're insurance against rebellion. Most sensible capitalist economies have borrowed some ideas from socialism in order to smooth the rough edges.

The people Americans call "liberals" are just soft capitalists. There is nothing remotely socialist about Clinton or Obama.

Libs here are socialists. They want more and more government control over the people, and corporations

Marx would be giddy over Barry and Hillary

[theHawk]

just a few

For some it is political, the failure of the Iraq war - many issues there including the corrupt regime we are propping up.
How are conservatives distracting from this? We're usually quite clear on how we feel about it, whether its in support or critizing the war or aspects of the war.



For jobs, the outsourcing of work, corporations using tax benefits to ship jobs overseas, the fight against unions

"Corporations using tax benefits to ship jobs overseas", not really sure what you mean by this. If a company is getting a tax break for shipping a job overseas, then I would say that is a classic example of how government fucks things up when it intervines with business. It is not a conservative idea to tax a company more for hiring a worker here in America as opposed to one overseas. A conservative would not try to "distract" from this issue because it is something we are against.
Unions can do good for workers, but they are getting way too powerful and are actually hurting the companies so bad, its putting them out of business. Just look at Ford and GM, the unions got their way decade after decade and now the companies are stuck owing long time workers so much money that its going to bankrupt them.



an unfair tax structure that supports the corporation or the wealthy

An "unfair" tax structure? The wealthy pay alot more in taxes than anyone else. Is it really fair for the 10% of the nation's citizens to fund 90% of the government funds? Are we supposed to have a tax structure that doesn't support the "coprorations" and wealthy? Are we supposed to have a tax structure that destroys them?



Environmental concerns

What environmental concerns? Conservatives have been pushing for us to be able to drill and refine our own oil, but wacko environmental groups won't allow it. So what happens? We buy our oil from 3rd world countries with very little or no environmental laws. So essencially what we end up doing is paying another country for destroying the environment. As a Christian conservative I can tell you I believe we need to preserve God's green earth, but liberal policies are simply continuing its debasement.




Immigration to benefit business

In case you haven't notice, quite a few conservatives want to shut down illegal immigration completely, even though there are many businesses that obviously directly benefit from it. I hardly see how conservative are "distracting" from this issue. Liberals are the ones who want open borders.



Education, lack of support
Why would you think conservatives are against education? We want a real education system that is going to teach our children to be responsible adults. Liberals have ruined the public education system in this country, and thats what we don't support.



Still think conservatives are 'distracting' from the issues?

[Kathianne]

Policies by pro-capitalist governments to ameliorate the more deleterious effects of capitalism on a country's population aren't socialist. They're insurance against rebellion. Most sensible capitalist economies have borrowed some ideas from socialism in order to smooth the rough edges.

The people Americans call "liberals" are just soft capitalists. There is nothing remotely socialist about Clinton or Obama.

Sure there is. Both would raise taxes at least 25% higher. That's nearly 1 out of every 5$ earned going to the government. That means for the average guy, the government better be ready to take care of all the needs. Problem with that, makes adults into children of the government. Needless to say, governments do not take 'orders' from the children.

[diuretic]

Libs here are socialists. They want more and more government control over the people, and corporations

Marx would be giddy over Barry and Hillary

A Marxist would dismiss the Democrats as the bourgoisie. There's nothing remotely socialist about either of them, they're defenders and extenders of capitalism.

[red states rule]

A Marxist would dismiss the Democrats as the bourgoisie. There's nothing remotely socialist about either of them, they're defenders and extenders of capitalism.

Once again, in their own words

The latest example was Mrs. Obama's appearance in Harrisburg, Pa., where she told a group of mothers: "If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership, for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2001271/posts

[diuretic]

Sure there is. Both would raise taxes at least 25% higher. That's nearly 1 out of every 5$ earned going to the government. That means for the average guy, the government better be ready to take care of all the needs. Problem with that, makes adults into children of the government. Needless to say, governments do not take 'orders' from the children.

Tax policy isn't socialism Kathianne, you know that. Nowhere have I read any Democrat urging the social ownership of the means of production and I'm absolutely sure that none of them has attempted to analyse social change using the method of historical materialism. Nope, no socialists there.

[Kathianne]

Tax policy isn't socialism Kathianne, you know that. Nowhere have I read any Democrat urging the social ownership of the means of production and I'm absolutely sure that none of them has attempted to analyse social change using the method of historical materialism. Nope, no socialists there.

Really? What do you think 'national health care is?' 'Forced retirement plan?' I don't know enough about Australia, but knowing that the unions in France, Italy, Spain have been able to bring their productions to a halt makes it clear that they are definitely socialist states. Then there are mandated terms of work, hours, etc. It's not up to the employer or employee, but the government.

This is getting pretty close. Mind you, this doesn't mean that I think that all is fair, but it really is up to the corporate boards to run their business:

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-33000920080411


Obama denounces big corporate pay packages
Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:23am IST


....The first-term Illinois senator has introduced "say-on-pay" legislation that would give investors more of a voice in setting executive compensation packages.

He said the legislation needs to be approved immediately. He later acknowledged to reporters that getting the bill moving quickly in the Senate could be tough, although his spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said he would make it a priority if he is elected president in November.

....

[midcan5]

you guys are wrong. it started during the Wilson administration. That's where FDR got most of his government experience in the cabinet. I highly recommend reading Liberal Fascism for a decent recap of history.

I would recommend it if you like revisionist nonsense.

http://www.slate.com/id/2182871/

This is one of the best pieces on fascism and fascism can only be from the right spectrum as it is about the nation and not the individual.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismintroduction.php

[diuretic]

Kathianne - an economy can be capitalist but social policy can feature things such as universal health care or compulsory superannuation. Those features don't make an economic system socialist. It could be argued in the case of universal health care that businesses are being relieved of the burden of providing health insurance to employees (GM would like it I'm sure). And compulsory superannuation is really an acknowledgement that government-funded pension schemes won't be able to deal with the demands of the future.

In Australia we've had universal health care in the shape of a single-payer scheme for many years and it co-exists nicely with private health insurance. That co-existence doesn't suit the purists but for pragmatists like me it works well. I'm not saying it's without fault, it really does need a bit of a tune-up here in how it's funded but that doesn't take away from the social value of the mechanism itself.

As for compulsory superannuation. It used to be voluntary and frankly not a lot of people invested in it here. Fortunately for me when I turned 20 I was automatically placed in my occupational superannuation fund (I thank the visionary unionists who made that possible many years ago for us). I can tell you at 20 I wasn't thinking for a one minute about superannuation.

Some years ago our federal government saw that the government pension scheme wouldn't be able to bear the load placed on it by retiring baby-boomers (like me).

The government got together with the unions and the employers and mandated that 3% of the national wage case decision would be invested in compulsory superannuation. That meant that workers were enrolled in compulsory superannuation. That percentage has increased and there has been an interesting side-benefit.

Some of the occupational super funds are swimming in billions of dollars and that money is invested back into our economy while at the same time guaranteeing workers superannuation and taking the load off the federal government pension scheme.

It's been good policy.

As for Obama and corporate pay packages. I wonder just how much money any individual needs. I know it's largely a matter for shareholders but it seems to me that where people are earning fabulous amounts of money then can't possibly spend that the money isn't so much about use as display. I mean, how many Gulf Stream jets can an individual fly in at any given time?

I do think society, through regulation, has the right to place sensible and reasonable limits on the pay deals for corporate executives, even if it's only to save the shareholders from rapacious executives.

[avatar4321]

Tax policy isn't socialism Kathianne, you know that. Nowhere have I read any Democrat urging the social ownership of the means of production and I'm absolutely sure that none of them has attempted to analyse social change using the method of historical materialism. Nope, no socialists there.

National socialists are still socialists. Simply because they arent pure hearted marxists...

[avatar4321]

I would recommend it if you like revisionist nonsense.

http://www.slate.com/id/2182871/

This is one of the best pieces on fascism and fascism can only be from the right spectrum as it is about the nation and not the individual.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismintroduction.php

exactly what is it about handing over individual power from the individual to the state isnt liberal? Thats the entire premise of liberalism. Government taking control over everything. Its completely fascist.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne - an economy can be capitalist but social policy can feature things such as universal health care or compulsory superannuation. Those features don't make an economic system socialist. It could be argued in the case of universal health care that businesses are being relieved of the burden of providing health insurance to employees (GM would like it I'm sure). And compulsory superannuation is really an acknowledgement that government-funded pension schemes won't be able to deal with the demands of the future.

In Australia we've had universal health care in the shape of a single-payer scheme for many years and it co-exists nicely with private health insurance. That co-existence doesn't suit the purists but for pragmatists like me it works well. I'm not saying it's without fault, it really does need a bit of a tune-up here in how it's funded but that doesn't take away from the social value of the mechanism itself.

As for compulsory superannuation. It used to be voluntary and frankly not a lot of people invested in it here. Fortunately for me when I turned 20 I was automatically placed in my occupational superannuation fund (I thank the visionary unionists who made that possible many years ago for us). I can tell you at 20 I wasn't thinking for a one minute about superannuation.

Some years ago our federal government saw that the government pension scheme wouldn't be able to bear the load placed on it by retiring baby-boomers (like me).

The government got together with the unions and the employers and mandated that 3% of the national wage case decision would be invested in compulsory superannuation. That meant that workers were enrolled in compulsory superannuation. That percentage has increased and there has been an interesting side-benefit.

Some of the occupational super funds are swimming in billions of dollars and that money is invested back into our economy while at the same time guaranteeing workers superannuation and taking the load off the federal government pension scheme.

It's been good policy.

As for Obama and corporate pay packages. I wonder just how much money any individual needs. I know it's largely a matter for shareholders but it seems to me that where people are earning fabulous amounts of money then can't possibly spend that the money isn't so much about use as display. I mean, how many Gulf Stream jets can an individual fly in at any given time?

I do think society, through regulation, has the right to place sensible and reasonable limits on the pay deals for corporate executives, even if it's only to save the shareholders from rapacious executives.

If I'm hearing you right, you think there is some # that should be a threshold of what an individual should make? Sorry, I'm at the bottom here for middle class, maybe even lower than that, but I want my children and someday grandchildren to do better.

[diuretic]

National socialists are still socialists. Simply because they arent pure hearted marxists...

It's got nothing to do with purity of heart. If you're referring to Nazis then you'd know they specifically repudiated Marx and Engels. Their idea of national socialism was more along the lines of Mussolini's fascism.

[diuretic]

If I'm hearing you right, you think there is some # that should be a threshold of what an individual should make? Sorry, I'm at the bottom here for middle class, maybe even lower than that, but I want my children and someday grandchildren to do better.

I'm not arguing for a threshhold, just pointing out that some individuals in corporate positions are making such huge amounts of money as to have lost touch with reality. As I said, there comes a point when the money ceases to have any use-value and is simply a measure of status. What social value is that?

The argument for fabulous salaries for corporate types is that it's what the market will bear and to get the best you have to pay for the best and all the rest of it. But how much is the president paid as salary? Compared to even the boss of GE the president's job is far more responsible. I suppose if the shareholders are dumb enough to put up with it then that's their problem but we know who pays for these fabulous salaries in the end, it's the consumer.

[Kathianne]

I'm not arguing for a threshhold, just pointing out that some individuals in corporate positions are making such huge amounts of money as to have lost touch with reality. As I said, there comes a point when the money ceases to have any use-value and is simply a measure of status. What social value is that?

The argument for fabulous salaries for corporate types is that it's what the market will bear and to get the best you have to pay for the best and all the rest of it. But how much is the president paid as salary? Compared to even the boss of GE the president's job is far more responsible. I suppose if the shareholders are dumb enough to put up with it then that's their problem but we know who pays for these fabulous salaries in the end, it's the consumer.

I'm sorry, but the numbers on what you are addressing are so small as to be insignificant. It's the smack and that's it.

[actsnoblemartin]

to answer your question, im gonna say 1968 or 1972


When Did Liberalism Become Socialism? When Did This Happen?

Classic Liberalism:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others.

The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from evolutions in liberal thought during the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[7] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[8] which grants the state a more interventionist role in the economy, including a welfare state. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is actually closer to "conservatism" in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Social Liberalism:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social liberalism however sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals. [5] They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.

Social liberals, therefore, support a mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided or guaranteed public services.(ex: some social liberals defend obligatory universal health insurance, with the state paying a basic health insurance to the most poor of the society). Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central concept. In the process, it expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, etc...

Modern liberalism in the United States is highly similar to the European definition of social liberalism. The agendas of European social liberals and modern American liberals tend to be almost identical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_liberalism)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Classical Liberalism morphed into Social Liberalism starting in about 1877 and culminated with FDR:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause(s) of the shift in liberalism in the United States "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism" has been a subject of study among scholars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Social Liberalism or Social Democracy?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social liberalism versus social democracy

The basic ideological difference between social liberalism and social democracy lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual.

Social liberals value liberty, rights and freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible (subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the State does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, social liberals tend to trust that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.

Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism, and (especially in democratic socialist forms) typically favours a more community-based view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without transforming the nature of the State itself. Having rejected the revolutionary approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the democratic process instead, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong skepticism for capitalism, which they believe needs to be regulated (or at least "managed") for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may, potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_liberalism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama and Clinton sound a lot more like advocates of social democracy (aka, socialism) instead of social liberalism. They depend more on the state for things like healthcare, college education, redistribution of wealth, etc...

What do the Democratic socialists say?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions make private business more responsible.

What can young people do to move the US towards socialism?

Young people are needed in today’s struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and irresponsible multinational corporations. Schools, Colleges and Universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed.

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, did Obama's speech writer write this? This sounds remarkably similar to Obama's campaign and speeches. Has Obama every been connected to the Democratic Socialists?

Why yes he has... As I posted in my "Summary of Obama's Ties to Socialism" thread:

Obama attended meetings with the "Chicago Democratic Socialists of America"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996 Barack Obama attended one of their meetings:

"Over three hundred people attended the first of two Town Meetings on Economic Insecurity on February 25 in Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago. Entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America", the meeting was sponsored by the UofC DSA Youth Section, Chicago DSA and University Democrats. The panelists were Toni Preckwinkle, Alderman of Chicago's 4th Ward; Barack Obama, candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District; Professor William Julius Wilson, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago; Professor Michael Dawson, University of Chicago; and Professor Joseph Schwartz, Temple University and a member of DSA's National Political Committee."

"A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the "social wage" approach used by many social democratic labor parties. "

Source: Chicago Democratic Socialists Website:
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Obama Speaks at Socialist Leader Saul Mendelson's Funderal:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Chicago DSA Website: "Saul Mendelson - You joined the Socialist movement at the age of 18. You chaired the Socialist Club at the University of Chicago. You taught and inspired students at DuSable High School. You fought in the civil rights struggles with the NAACP, with CORE, and with the Negro American Labor Council. You have held fast to your belief in democratic socialism."

"At the memorial service held at the 1st Unitarian Church on South Woodlawn, speaker after speaker recounted Saul's contributions. The service was ably MC'd by a retired colleague, Bob Clark. I spoke first and was followed by Saul's friend Deborah Meier, a MacArthur Genius Grant recipient who is now starting a new school in Boston. Amy Isaacs, National Director of the ADA, spoke of what Saul had meant on foreign affairs to the ADA. Other speakers included Senator Carol Moseley Braun, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, State Senator Barak Obama, Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie and a good friend from New York, Myra Russell. The concluding remarks were made by an old friend, Harriet Lefley, who is now Professor of Psychology at the University of Miami Medical School."

Source: Chicago Democratic Socialists Website:
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng58.html#anchor868634
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Obama Endorses Bernie Sanders, the only openly socialist senator in the US Senate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sanders is the first self-described socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Obama endorsing Sanders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIlIpOkRh2A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AND the Democratic Socialists Endorse Obama:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election
Barack Obama

Source: Chicago Democratic Socialists Website:
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in summary:

Classic Liberalism: Popular from the founding fathers up until FDR.
Social Liberalism: Popular mainly from FDR until today.
Social Democracy (aka Socialism): Popularized by Obama and Clinton in this election.

I have been reluctant to call Obama a socialist or Marxist or communist directly in the past. I think it's time to call him what he is...

Barak Obama is a Democratic Socialist. If anyone can prove me wrong on that, have at it.