ace, I'm afraid of Sara Palin in exactly the way I worship and idolize Barack Obama. Precisely the same phenomenon at work in both cases: both attitudes are ascribed to me by the right, and that's the only place they exist.

I was and I am still afraid of Obama. I think he is a borderline socialist and he stated that government is the solution to our problems. I am not so much concerned about people idolizing Obama as I am concerned about the number of people who listen to his rhetoric and buy into it without asking some very basic questions regarding the inconsistencies. I am afraid of Nancy Pelosi, I think she is dishonest and obsessed with political power. I am afraid of Sotomayor, I think she has a hidden agenda. I think fear is normal, and if what you say is true concerning most liberals, I am even more confused concerning why some get so emotionally invested in taking her down.

Ask Loki.

That's going to be my standard response from now on whenever a right-winger insists that the world be consistent with his understanding of it rather than listening to anything anyone else says.

Do you have her number?

Socialism is a political and economic theory centered around the idea that means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned/regulated by the community. You can't think President Obama is borderline socialist if you don't know what socialism means.

Wow. You actually really DON'T read my posts, do you?

I mean, it SEEMED like you didn't, but... You actually have no idea what I'm referring to when I say "Ask Loki", do you?

I grant you, it was toward the end of the article I quoted, but still. Damn. I'm on ace's virtual ignore list. No god damn wonder.

Right, no argument here.


Wonder of wonders, Miracle of miracles, I agree with Will twice in one post!

You're right; knowing the definition of Socialism (as stated above) I cannot think of Mr. Obama as a borderline Socialist. The speed with which this Government, under his and his Party's control, is bringing means of Production (like car makers), Distribution (like car dealerships), and Exchange (like money supplies and banks) under the ownership/control of the State/community leads me to believe that Mr. Obama is a flaming, full-steam-ahead Socialist revolutionary. Even Hugo Chavez acknowledges this, congratulating Mr. Obama for having nationalized "nothing less than General Motors!" in the same TV broadcast in which he warned Fidel Castro to be careful of ending up on Obama's right.*

No, Mr. Obama isn't a "borderline" Socialist, he isn't a "borderline" anything. He's a Socialist, period, and his administration's actions in the economic arena over the past 6 months amply demonstrate this.

*Venezuela Chavez says Comrade Obama more left-wing | Reuters

I guess you don't understand the bailouts. Would you like to start a thread on it?

Your definition lacks precision. Based on the above definition capitalism would fall under your definition of socialism. The means of production, distribution and exchange under any economic system is owned/regulated by the community. Example: A corporation only exists based on community standards that allow it to exist. A corporation transacts business only based on community standards that allow it to transact business. Corporate ownership is grounded in members of a community. Consumers, employees (means of production) is the community. All other forms of business have similar characteristics. In the US, private property ownership only has value to the degree that the collective "community" allows for private ownership.

In my view socialism is a vague state between decentralized and centralized control of the means, distribution and exchange of production. In my view pure capitalism is total decentralization. Pure communism is total centralized control. I don't think any society can achieve pure states of either capitalism or communism. In my view a socialist lacks confidence in free market forces to create equilibrium. In my view Obama generally accepts free market concepts, but feels economic and social issues require more centralized control rather than less to create what is in his view, fairness.

So, you are correct - I don't know what "socialism" means to you. And as usual, rather than asking for elaboration, we throw around insults.

---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------


I am guilty of occasionally being obtuse. I don't read between the lines very well, and once we have established that I don't "get it", being cryptic doesn't help me. The reason I love my wife is that she goes real slow when....oh, never mind...let's just say she understands me.

---------- Post added at 10:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------

I am still giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. I need to see what he does under different economic conditions before I come to a firm conclusion.

Actually, socialism and so on aren't vague feelings or emotions that each can have their own definition of. Otherwise, it would actually be impossible to discuss politics.

Socialism, in its purest form, is the social ownership of the means of production. The community owns it not in some vague way, like "some members own it," or "based on community standards," but in very real and actual terms in which the means of production belong to the community as a whole. And not "some means," or for "some of the time."

How to get there is obviously a matter of debate, with the communists, in the traditional marxist sense, hoping to get there by making everything state property.

Socialism and capitalism themselves are not really related to centralization or decentralization. Adam Smith and others, for example, certainly envisioned a capitalism of small producers, and decentralization the norm. But anarchists also envisioned a socialism of decentralized communities. On the other hand, people like Hayek and Mises opposed any form of trust busting, de facto defending big corporation capitalism.

so yeah, you don't understand what socialism is. glad we cleared that up

You can't invent your own dictionary, your' "view" is entirely irrelevant. The definition I used was lifted from the dictionary on my desktop. It agrees with the several online dictionaries I know of and the several dictionaries on my book shelf. For good measure, I checked my encyclopedia and a few internet encyclopedias (not wiki) just to be sure. They're all in perfect agreement. They all disagree with you.

You need to drop this nonsensical "my view of the world is the correct view for me" thing. Facts are objectively verifiable. Disagreement with that statement isn't opinion, it's error.

The value of Pi has a precise definition. Socialism is a concept that is subject to interpretation. People do have problems discussing politics because many common terms have imprecise definitions.

So, what is the difference between socialism and communism?

"Decentralized communities?" Can you give an example of what you mean in the context of socialism?

That definition has no meaning in the practical sense of determining when socialism exist and when it does not. Can you give an example of "socialism" and the opposite of "socialism?

This does not disagree with me.

Socialism Definition | Definition of Socialism at Dictionary.com

I know what you think about me personally. Perhaps, a more in dept look at some of these concepts would help us communicate better. I generally do more than regurgitate what I read, in some cases I put some thought into complicated matters and concepts. Thousands of books have been written on these concepts, great minds have given these concepts thought - and you dismiss what I present based on a few internet encyclopedia references. O.k., I now better understand the level of discourse. Thanks

My god.

How can we be back on this? Obama a socialist? You're kidding me.

You mean to say that Obama is a socialist merely for employing a socialist technique during a crisis?

Newsflash! Virtually every economy on the planet employs socialist techniques!

News update! America remains today one of the most capitalist nations on the planet!

This just in! There is no such thing as a purely capitalist economy. There never has been, and there never will be.

...and now, will Obama continue to carry the nation down the road to communism? Or will the capitalist virtue save us all from oblivion? Your capital at stake...story at 11!

* * * * *

There is virtually no left-wing political power in America that isn't strongly tempered by centrist foundations.

There's never been a purely socialist government or economic system; all economies are mixed. NHS is a good example of a socialist program existing in a mixed economy. NHS is paid for collectively and is run by the DoH, which is answerable to Parliament, which is ultimately answerable to the people via elections.

As for the opposite.... I suppose it would be some kind of conservative libertarianism, but that's too vague to really make any kind of sense. I know people like to boil down political positions to some sort of spectrum illustration, but it's not that simple.
You know that you remind me of my uncle?! How could you know that? :paranoid:
President Obama is a socialist in the same way that he's a capitalist. He's both of those things. I'm both of those things, and you're both of those things, too.

You support having a publicly funded and run military, right? That's "socialist". You support a publicly funded and run fire response service, right? That's "socialist". You support the CDC, right? "Socialist".

Calling Barack Obama a socialist isn't the same thing as doing research and coming to the conclusion that he has made some socialist decisions. It's fear mongering; because there are a lot of very ignorant people in the US that equate socialism with totalitarianism or fascism, calling someone a socialist, even if partially true, isn't intended to say that "this individual occasionally sees the benefit in an economic system we already commonly use".

Socialism: a System of economic organization in which means of production are owned by, or under the control of, the State (Edited to add: or another organization or collective with a monopoly on the legitimated use of force). Some interpretations (anarcho-Socialism for instance) posit that such ownership/control would be exercised by worker's Unions or other collective organizations. In either case, Socialism is usually viewed as a transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism, although some theorists regard Socialism as the fullest possible implimentation of Collectivist principles and ideology which may be achieved at "society's" current stage of development.

Got any more snide intellectually-elitist comments, or would you prefer to debate the issue?

I understand the bailouts just fine. The Federal Gov't, in exchange for partial ownership of (and control over) the Corporations in question, "loaned" them (or outright gave them) incredible sums of stolen/printed money in order to keep them afloat. As a result, the Federal Gov't now owns shares of (ie State ownership of means of production) a significant number of banks, General Motors, Chrysler, etc. As a result, we see the Obama Regime throwing out CEOs, breaking contract law in the matter of pension funds and stock priority, forcing various degrees and types of product-modification (especially for car-makers) onto the Corporations in question, etc.

State ownership (share-holdership) + State control (see above) = Socialism, by Socialists' own definition.

Yes. If he were a Capitalist, he would employ Capitalist methods.

Which proves nothing except that "virtually every economy on the planet" is operating from the same baseline of barely-functional immorality; some simply happen to be slightly "less bad" than others.

"Healthiest patient in the Ebola Ward" is hardly something to aspire to.

You're two-thirds right here. There is not now, nor has their ever been, a lassaize faire economy. Whether or not one will exist in the future is yet to be seen.

You like honesty and Palin? There's a contradiction of all contradictions. She been honest just about as many times as Putin has "reared his ugly head" and invaded Alaskan air space.

I'll agree with her not pretending to be anyone's Governor any longer.

so, the fact that the US Government now has a stake in, what, 0.02% of the nation's corporations now equals "ZOMG SOCIALISM!"?

More like "The guy we didn't want to be president got elected ZOMG SOCIALISM!"

was it Socialism when GWB signed off on the first bailouts?

Originally the words were used interchangeably. But in the communist manifesto Marx talked about various forms of socialism (utopian socialism, i.e. anarchism, etc), and carved communism as a distinct form. Later Marxists started talking about the statist phase as socialism, with the end stage being communism proper.


Proudhon and others were anarchists who were completely against the state, but were socialists. They believed that communal property would come not through taking over the state, but through abolishing the state and private property. People would organize themselves in associations and local communities in a radical form of direct democracy. It is about as decentralized as it gets, but still all about social ownership of the means of production.

You're exaggerating and misrepresenting. The "partial ownership" you describe isn't ownership at all, but a small amount of influence for an insane amount of money. The CEO I'm assuming you're referring to, Rick Wagoner, resigned. It was not a "throwing out" of a CEO, but a request. He resigned before the money even reached GM. Why do you think it is you have to distort the truth in order to make your case?

It might be a more useful distinction to draw to say that Socialism is an economic theory, and Communism is a political theory that evolved from certain implementations of Socialism. Socialism is liberal (in the sense that it broadens individual say over government--while you're contributing everything you can and taking what you need, you're also an equal stakeholder and voice in decisionmaking and policy-setting) and Communism is conservative (in the sense that governmental control is consolidated in the hands of a very few individuals--in some cases just one individual).

That's actually just a hint of what those terms actually mean. What similarity they have to the same words when used by, say, Glenn Beck, I'm entirely unclear.

It's worth noting that the definition of Socialism doesn't mention anywhere that it's evil or scorn-worthy or un-Amurkin. That tone is added entirely by, say, Glenn Beck.

Are you really saying Social Democracies such as Sweden and Canada are barely functional and immoral? Wow. Your world view comes off as very blinkered.


A laissez faire economy, in my opinion, would be an unmitigated disaster.

I'm not sure you understand. If Obama didn't believe in capitalism, you'd have seen far more "change" than what you've already seen. Not believing in capitalism means not believing wealth belongs in the hands of individuals. He wouldn't be so keen on personally selling books he's authored and investing in bonds and securities.

How does tempering one's economy to ensure citizens aren't taken advantage of, harmed, or otherwise mistreated by market forces come off as being a barely functional immorality? America has the wealthiest economy in human history. If it weren't officially a mixed economy, as it had definitely become in the 20th century, I doubt it would have achieved what it has achieved over the past 100 years. Certainly better than what the amorality of laissez-faire would have achieved.

I don't know what you're talking about. A mixed economy has far-reaching stabilizing factors that work to prevent the unrest or destabilization that would happen otherwise. One merely has to look at 19th century America to realize how important socialist aspects of our economies are to the wider public.

A purely capitalist or lassiez-faire economy is about as feasible as a purely communist economy, and we all know how attempts at those fared.

Oh hey! Canada's banking system is SOCIALIST! It's a DISASTER! :rolleyes:

Bank Profits 2008: How the "Big Six" churned out record earnings

It almost was. (Read: 19th-century America.)

Your point was that I did not know what the term meant. I said the definition lacked precision. Your examples illustrate my point. Some terms or concepts can be precisly defined like Pi, other can not be like socialism.


Yes, I think there are many legitimate roles for government.

I did not actually call Obama a socialist. I said he is a "borderline socialist", and I meant that in a pejorative manner not in a objective measurable manner, because I do not like the tone he is setting with his economic policy.

Who was it that created Homeland Security? The largest increase in government, at all levels, from fed to local. Doesn't sound like someone who believes in less government.

You live in fear, that's a choice. A bad one.

She stepped down as governor. Was that the right thing for her to do or not?

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

If we started on an individual level perhaps getting to corporations later, in some cases the government is taxing 30%-40% of a persons earned income taking into consideration all forms of taxes. The government can take your real estate through eminent domain. The government can control your wages, where you work, when you work, if you work. The government can take your children if they feel you are inadequate. The government can control what you eat. In my county, they even tell us when we can wash our cars. so, how you come up with "0.2% stake", would prove to be interesting. the government is in every aspect of our lives.

---------- Post added at 02:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 PM ----------

Isn't there a difference between having fears and "living in fear". I am getting tired of people pretending they don't have normal emotions and normal emotional responses to issues. Are you actually suggesting that you have no fears?

I was simply responding to someone's claim that the GM bailout was a sign that the Government was interested in owning every corporation in the country as part of a grand Socialist agenda.

Everything else you mentioned (taxes, eminent domain, etc., etc.) is in no way unique to Democrats or Obama, so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with it

It's his usual point, I think. "Obama = Bad".

None of those things weren't equally true in prior administrations, but you didn't hear ace or like-thinkers bitching about it when their guy was behind the big desk.

The best thing she could do is simply come forward and say "My lies and unethical behavior have been huge negative to the people of Alaska, therefore I resign."

coincidentally, that's also the last thing she would do

In all fairness that's the last thing any politician would do.

Obama is something that is recent, the fact that government is too intrusive in our lives has been a major concern of my for about 20 years. I have had that concern regardless of the political party controlling Washington, I was a Libertarian for many of the past 20 years. At least with the Republicans there was some pretense that they supported less government, Obama/Pelosi/Reid just take it over the top.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------

I thought my question was simple.

"She stepped down as governor. Was that the right thing for her to do or not?"

---------- Post added at 07:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

Really?

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to Step Down - washingtonpost.com

I don't know about you, but I respect a person who is honest and isn't just going through the motions. If you want politicians to fake it while their heart and mind is somewhere else, I guess you get what you deserve - fake politicians.

That's as simply of an answer as you're going to get from me. If you want you want yes or no answers to complex questions you should watch courtroom dramas on your TV.



Yep, really. In anticipation of your next question- yes, that includes dems and Obama.

Using a broader view of the question, I am not clear on your expectations for a politician. If a politician knows that they can not give their full professional attention to the job they were elected to do for whatever the issue is (within reason - I am not saying a person should resign because of something like a short-term illness), do you expect them to resign or continue?

Personally I don't expect much of politicians. I think by the time they're elected to any office of any importance they've likely sold out to the point they're not worthy of the position they've been elected. Yes, that includes Obama. He's done stuff I'm not thrilled with and he's not taken action on issues he promised he would. Do I prefer his policies over that of Bush, Cheney, McCain or Palin? Without a doubt.

I don't really see what this has to do with the thread.

Let me ask you a question. You seem to think it's the right thing for Palin to step down and I think you're saying, in your opinion, Hutchison's doing the right thing by stepping down to take a shot at another office, right? So if McCain/Palin had won would you be complaining that neither stepped down from their offices during the race? Or is it really basically as Rat said- Obama=bad?

sorry ,just got in, has anyone got any light to shed on the divorce rumors? I'm getting nothing but battles between political spokespeople (who are as trustworthy as gov' sanford around a colombian set of curves) and bloggers/media outlets...

I think it was the right thing for Palin to step down for a number of reasons, one being her stepping down is in the best interest of the state.

I think it is honorable for Hutchinson to step down to devote her full energy to running for governor without any pretense, it is refreshing.

if McCain/Palin had won my view of them on this issue, in particular McCain would be the same compared to Obama/Biden. Seems like McCain has been running for President for about 20 years. Generally I have a problem with incumbent senators who run for president complaining about issues that they can have a direct impact on. I rarely support a sitting senator for president.