The Administration's "Socialism"

[Agnapostate]

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

Liberalism and socialism are in fact antithetical because of the role of the welfare state in maintaining macroeconomic stabilization in general and sustaining the physical efficiency and employment of the working class, the latter constituting a sustainment of static efficiency. This role occurs in the context of the capitalist economy, which means that the welfare state is supporting the existence of the prevailing arrangement of the private ownership of the means of production. It's therefore ironically economic rightists who are greater allies of socialists, as their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.

[Kathianne]

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

Liberalism and socialism are in fact antithetical because of the role of the welfare state in maintaining macroeconomic stabilization in general and sustaining the physical efficiency and employment of the working class, the latter constituting a sustainment of static efficiency. This role occurs in the context of the capitalist economy, which means that the welfare state is supporting the existence of the prevailing arrangement of the private ownership of the means of production. It's therefore ironically economic rightists who are greater allies of socialists, as their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.

Ya know, most don't care about your nuance. If the government is buying banks, auto manufacturers, investment firms, now trying to co-op our health insurance, to our way of thinking it's socialism.

We don't give a rats ass about your phd thesis. We know it will result in a lower level of living for our children and their progeny, which is contradictory to the preamble goals.

[Agnapostate]

Ya know, most don't care about your nuance. If the government is buying banks, auto manufacturers, investment firms, now trying to co-op our health insurance, to our way of thinking it's socialism.

Then "your way of thinking" is a distortion of political economy, isn't it? In my way of thinking, it's unjust for a political economic ideology to be discredited because its opponents are intent on applying its name to ideologies unassociated with it. Regardless, nothing you mentioned is sufficient to constitute collective ownership or management of the means of production.


We don't give a rats ass about your phd thesis. We know it will result in a lower level of living for our children and their progeny, which is contradictory to the preamble goals.

To be honest, republican market socialism is probably more consistent with Americans' commitment to liberal democratic values and equity than our presently existing economic system of corporate capitalism. Why should we conclude that a formal political system of an unelected and dictatorial political regime controlling commonly needed resources is authoritarian, while ignoring the same state of affairs in the economic realm?

[Kathianne]

Then "your way of thinking" is a distortion of political economy, isn't it? In my way of thinking, it's unjust for a political economic ideology to be discredited because its opponents are intent on applying its name to ideologies unassociated with it. Regardless, nothing you mentioned is sufficient to constitute collective ownership or management of the means of production.


Regardless of your sensibilities, most of us only care about how 'it works.' Thus the term.


To be honest, republican market socialism is probably more consistent with Americans' commitment to liberal democratic values and equity than our presently existing economic system of corporate capitalism. Ok so far, but then...


Why should we conclude that a formal political system of an unelected and dictatorial political regime controlling commonly needed resources is authoritarian, while ignoring the same state of affairs in the economic realm?
What does this mean? What 'unelected'? Which 'Dictatorial?'

[Agnapostate]

Regardless of your sensibilities, most of us only care about how 'it works.' Thus the term.

I don't think so. I'm always depicted as the naive one who only considers theory without considering the practical applications of that theory, but that's probably the converse of reality. This reference to all state programs as "socialist" in nature is simply another major area (with the reference to Leninist ideology as "socialist" being the other), in which rightist economic fallacies are all too prevalent. I just want to challenge that.


What does this mean? What 'unelected'? Which 'Dictatorial?'

It's not directly relevant to the thread topic, but I'm referring to the process by which the financial class exercises oligopolistic control over resources needed by a substantially larger number of people. FF support for classical liberalism during their own lifetimes in agrarian settings where private ownership of land was relatively equitable (and that support is somewhat exaggerated anyway) has been disingenuously twisted into support for corporate capitalism, which is both de jure and de facto flatly undemocratic both in terms of the absence of public resource management and the hierarchical chain of command that characterizes internal firm structure.

[Kathianne]

I don't think so. I'm always depicted as the naive one who only considers theory without considering the practical applications of that theory, but that's probably the converse of reality. This reference to all state programs as "socialist" in nature is simply another major area (with the reference to Leninist ideology as "socialist" being the other), in which rightist economic fallacies are all too prevalent. I just want to challenge that.



It's not directly relevant to the thread topic, but I'm referring to the process by which the financial class exercises oligopolistic control over resources needed by a substantially larger number of people. FF support for classical liberalism during their own lifetimes in agrarian settings where private ownership of land was relatively equitable (and that support is somewhat exaggerated anyway) has been disingenuously twisted into support for corporate capitalism, which is both de jure and de facto flatly undemocratic both in terms of the absence of public resource management and the hierarchical chain of command that characterizes internal firm structure.

Funny this. My first part was that you were attributing more practicality than was there.

Last part, you fail on all counts.

[Agnapostate]

Funny this. My first part was that you were attributing more practicality than was there.

Last part, you fail on all counts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument


2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade

It can be a tricky concept, but you might want to look into it. :poke:

[Agnapostate]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/09/top-u-s-socialist-says-barack-obama-is-not-one-of-them/


So if the United States has elected a socialist president, the socialists must be pretty excited, right? Claiming just a single U.S. Senator (Vermonter Bernie Sanders) and exactly zero members of the House of Representatives as their own, putting a socialist in the White House would represent the greatest achievement of any socialist alive today.

But there's just one problem. The socialists won't claim Obama as their own. They won't even call him a socialist.

Frank Llewellyn, the National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America, the country's largest socialist organization, said Obama is most definitely not one of them. "He's not any kind of socialist at all," Llewellyn told me this week. He called the president "a market guy," which is hardly a compliment coming from a man with serious reservations about market capitalism.

"He's not challenging the power of the corporations," Llewellyn added. "The banking reforms that have been suggested are not particularly far reaching. He says we must have room for innovation, but we had innovation -- look where it got us. So I just...I can't..I mean it's laugh out loud, really."

Llewellyn offered his belief that Republicans have historically called opponents "socialists" in order to stop moderate reforms, and that the new stickiness of the Obama/socialist association is one part misinformation, one part ignorance. "The Republicans are doing the same thing they did when Roosevelt was president -- confusing somebody who is trying to save capitalism from itself with somebody who is trying to destroy it. (Obama) is not trying to destroy capitalism."

Llewellyn did, however, have kind words for GOP Chairman Michael Steele, to whom he suggested -- and it sounded only half-in-jest -- he owes a thank you note. "We have more media attention as a result of this stuff than anything else in the last 10 years," he said.

I as a socialist can't help but laugh either. ;)

[Agnapostate]

I see that this same foolishness is being repeated URL deleted. Don't post like again, or you won't be posting here either. Since the time for lack of arrogance is past us...I'd eviscerate any righthist in that thread if I could post there.

[Agnapostate]

URL deleted. Don't post like again, or you won't be posting here either.

Didn't realize you were an admin, dear...prolly cause you're not. ;)

But anyhoo, yeah, let's get on topic. I'd like to express my gratitude to everyone for abandoning the inaccurate usage of the term "socialist" to describe the liberal democratic capitalist administration. It's really enriched the value and nature of our debates. :salute:

[BoogyMan]

I would have to disagree that your nuanced take on socialism is apropos today. What you seem to be claiming is that what looks, sounds, walks, quacks, and stinks like a duck, isn't a duck.

Mr. Obama holds and desires a grand expansion of governmental power over the lives of the American people and that includes the socialization of large parts of the private sector. His views on the "equitable redistribution of wealth" alone besot him with the stink of socialism.

[HogTrash]

Liberal democrats believe it is possible to combine capitalism, democracy and socialism and make it work in a republic.

Anyone who has been paying attention for the last 100 years knows this to be impossible.

Socialism is a weed that will not be satisfied in one small part of the garden.

It will take root and spread untill the entire garden is no longer productive.

Socialism/communism is a failed and destructive system to civilization.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. — socialist, n., adj. — socialistic, adj

[emmett]

Didn't realize you were an admin, dear...prolly cause you're not. ;)

But anyhoo, yeah, let's get on topic. I'd like to express my gratitude to everyone for abandoning the inaccurate usage of the term "socialist" to describe the liberal democratic capitalist administration. It's really enriched the value and nature of our debates. :salute:


Just show me one (1) example of a system such as you describe that has survived and is still in use today. They all failed!

[Little-Acorn]

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

(rest of tired, long-debunked talking points deleted)

Another socialist using old dictionary definitions to pretend actual socialism is anything other than a dictatorship run for the benefit of the powerful.

(yawn) He'll probably be telling us that liberals support liberty next........

[jimnyc]

Didn't realize you were an admin, dear...prolly cause you're not.

It is clearly marked under her username, which shows up in every post, that she is a member of staff here.

[Agnapostate]

I would have to disagree that your nuanced take on socialism is apropos today. What you seem to be claiming is that what looks, sounds, walks, quacks, and stinks like a duck, isn't a duck.

Mr. Obama holds and desires a grand expansion of governmental power over the lives of the American people and that includes the socialization of large parts of the private sector. His views on the "equitable redistribution of wealth" alone besot him with the stink of socialism.

"Redistribution of wealth" is not a sufficient condition for socialism, and in the context of the capitalist economy, acts as a direct impediment to its establishment. For example, consider the progressive taxation and redistribution of those assets to social welfare programs, a trend that inspires rightist loathing. The diminishing rate of marginal utility ensures that capital flight will be minimized among the financial class, especially since the financial assets of the wealthiest would have gone unused anyway. Meanwhile, the social welfare programs themselves are maintaining the physical efficiency of the working class, and functioning as a means of crude appeasement, preventing them from adopting more radical sentiments and possibly considering violent insurrection against capitalism.


Liberal democrats believe it is possible to combine capitalism, democracy and socialism and make it work in a republic.

Anyone who has been paying attention for the last 100 years knows this to be impossible.

We certainly do, since capitalism entails the private ownership of the means of production, and socialism entails the public ownership of the means of production. While the former involves ownership and control by a small upper class elite, the latter involves ownership and control by a democratic populace, so as to fulfill the conditions of "public" ownership. Liberal democrats, as with the social democrats of Western and Northern Europe, are firmly dedicated to the preservation of the private ownership of the means of production. Their agenda is thus incompatible with socialism, which is why we recognize liberals as our greatest foes. The rightist agenda would be more welcome to socialists, as it would destabilize capitalism and build support for an alternative economic system.


Socialism is a weed that will not be satisfied in one small part of the garden.

It will take root and spread untill the entire garden is no longer productive.

Socialism/communism is a failed and destructive system to civilization.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

Any definition of socialism that involves "government ownership of the means of production" is obviously not sufficiently inclusive, as this eliminates anarchism and democratic market socialism from consideration. Even standard republican socialists don't envision the implementation of anything near Stalinism, however, as this is regarded as a pseudo-socialist ideology.


Just show me one (1) example of a system such as you describe that has survived and is still in use today. They all failed!

The cornerstone of the economic system that I advocate, workers' ownership and management of economic structure, has experienced success even in the context of the capitalist labor market. So long as labor cooperatives exist, so long as the Argentine factory recovery movement continues, so long as the Israeli kibbutzim stand, and so long as the Zapatistas of Chiapas go undefeated, it will be apparent that workers' ownership and management represents a far preferable organization structure than the private authoritarianism that capitalism entails.

In contrast to propertarians' illusions of "free markets," however, socialism has actually existed. Laissez-faire capitalism has not and cannot. Regardless, that's not relevant to this thread.


Another socialist using old dictionary definitions to pretend actual socialism is anything other than a dictatorship run for the benefit of the powerful.

(yawn) He'll probably be telling us that liberals support liberty next........

Another democrat/republican using old dictionary definitions to pretend that the "People's Republic" of China is just an authoritarian country calling itself a "people's republic to appeal to populist sentiments.

(yawn) He'll probably be telling us that an authoritarian dictatorship's self-descriptions can never be wrong next.


It is clearly marked under her username, which shows up in every post, that she is a member of staff here.

I'd assumed that the usual detachment between admins' forming policy and mods' enforcing policy was present here, and wanted to make sure that there was no unilateral imposition of some made-up rule, since the mod in question has repeated slanderous allegations about me in the past. Thanks for clarifying.

[Agnapostate]

There are two threads that every misinformed anti-socialist should read in order to correct the "government = socialism" fallacy. One of them is mine and is from the Ron Paul Forums, and contains my evisceration of every economic rightist there before I was banned for "advocating communism" (apparently, tolerance of dissenting viewpoints isn't "in" among libertarians anymore).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213233

The second is from Comrade Reiver, a market socialist whose knowledge of economics eclipses that of all the ignorant anti-socialists on Political Forum:

http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/100934-us-socialist-country.html

I found this quote of his particularly insightful:

"'Fascism is socialism' does have a positive spillover. It leads to the 'government is liberalism is fascism is socialism is communism' complete circle. Those completely ignorant of political economy then have the means to make comment, even it has no bearing on reality. See it like Teletubbies, with a baby language designed to aid early learning."