Election 2012

[jsem]

Obama's socialism is pretty well-established. According to former roommate John Drew, Obama was an "ardent Marxist-Leninist" during his stay at Occidental College. Obama associated with Marxist professors and visited communist Frank Marshall Davis three times a week, as stated in his autobiography. Frank Marshall Davis may even be Obama's real father, as alleged in a new documentary. Continuing, Obama's associations with communists Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Bernardine Dohrn are well known and he participated in the far-left Chicago New Party and Progressive Chicago in the 90s. Obama has now surrounded himself with socialist/communists, including Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, and Rick Bookstaber who defends the idea of class warfare on his blog. And when you have a president saying things like "the free market doesn't work" and "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" it's plain as day.

"There can be no doubt that Obama is a socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition."
- Forbes Magazine

Also hefdaddy, don't forget that just a few years ago, liberals were extremely bitter towards George W. Bush, as they should have been. Obama supporters just can't figure out that they're the new Bush supporters.

First of all: Socialism =/= Communism, and it's quite a stretch to claim that Ayres, Alinsky and Dohrn are communists. It's like claiming Ralph Nader is a communist. I would say they are proponents of certain socialist ideas, and most of the US are actually in favor of them. That being said, none of them are going to ever be proponents of dismantling private property for the means of production.

All of them understand that capitalism is one of the only ways to produce considerable wealth, yet feel the wealth has to be distributed. So they want a bit of both. That doesn't make them full blown left-communists.

Furthermore, I want to point out that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is arguably one of the most fierce anarcho-capitalists out there, and he earned his Ph.D in Philosophy under prominent Marxist Jürgen Habermas in Frankfurt. So this guilt by association BS is not acceptable.

[kirksnosehair]

ReaPsTA:

It won't work here.   It will never work here. So it really doesn't matter.  But you've just asked me the equivalent of "how big is a piece of string?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism <--- as you'll see from that, the word has a very broad general meaning. 

I think we'd (maybe) under the right conditions, be able to build on (for example) the public school system, public library system, parks, roads, highways, etc, and grow into a democratic socialist state, but the word "socialism" is too poisoned here in the US for it to ever get any leverage, so it's a moot point. 

The larger point I was trying to make is people who don't really know how socialism actually works (or how it could work in the ideal configuration) throw it out as an epithet against Obama because they know that the typical uneducated voter will latch onto that word as if they called him a "satanist" and run with it.

[jsem]

You should see this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsx_GMj4k08

[ReaPsTA]

as you'll see from that, the word has a very broad general meaning.

If that's the case, then why are Obama's critics who call him a socialist wrong?

Ideal configuration doesn't matter.  Are Obama's politics socialist, or at least socialistic, or not?

I don't see how you can have it both ways.  Either socialism is a specific thing you can't accuse Obama of, or it's a broad thing that he's at least kinda doing.

[eric42434224]

as you'll see from that, the word has a very broad general meaning.

If that's the case, then why are Obama's critics who call him a socialist wrong?

Ideal configuration doesn't matter.  Are Obama's politics socialist, or at least socialistic, or not?

I don't see how you can have it both ways.  Either socialism is a specific thing you can't accuse Obama of, or it's a broad thing that he's at least kinda doing.

The problem is that every politician supports socialistic policies.  To single out Obama is dishonest.

[ReaPsTA]

The problem is that every politician supports socialistic policies.  To single out Obama is dishonest.

Fair to say in a sense.

But, Obama's the one who's put himself out there as wanting to reinvent how things are done.  If you're going to push for policies and attach yourself to them, haven't you earned the incoming criticism?

[eric42434224]

The problem is that every politician supports socialistic policies.  To single out Obama is dishonest.

Fair to say in a sense.

But, Obama's the one who's put himself out there as wanting to reinvent how things are done.  If you're going to push for policies and attach yourself to them, haven't you earned the incoming criticism?

Criticism on the specific policy for specific reasons, yes.  Calling him a socialist with the negative connotation is just being dishonest.
We have socialist policies in place...Medicare and medicaid being two obvious ones.  If people are so upset with Obama and his "socialist" health care policies, they should also be yelling for the end of Medicaid and Medicare too.
You can agree or disagree with Obama and his policies, but you need to criticize on the specific merits of the policy....calling him a Socialist is not only incorrect, it is lazy and dishonest.

[kirksnosehair]

as you'll see from that, the word has a very broad general meaning.

If that's the case, then why are Obama's critics who call him a socialist wrong?

Ideal configuration doesn't matter.  Are Obama's politics socialist, or at least socialistic, or not?

I don't see how you can have it both ways.  Either socialism is a specific thing you can't accuse Obama of, or it's a broad thing that he's at least kinda doing.

Um, what?  I'm not having anything both ways.


0 <---- the amount of fucks I give if anyone calls Obama a socialist

[ReaPsTA]

0 <---- the amount of fucks I give if anyone calls Obama a socialist

What?

Anyone who calls Obama a socialist really needs to learn more about how socialism actually works, not just the dictionary definitions.

I count at least one or two fucks here.

Criticism on the specific policy for specific reasons, yes.  Calling him a socialist with the negative connotation is just being dishonest.

We have socialist policies in place...Medicare and medicaid being two obvious ones.  If people are so upset with Obama and his "socialist" health care policies, they should also be yelling for the end of Medicaid and Medicare too.

You can agree or disagree with Obama and his policies, but you need to criticize on the specific merits of the policy....calling him a Socialist is not only incorrect, it is lazy and dishonest.

Thing is, following politics is a full time job.  Most people can't actually do it.  Politics does affect us all the time though, whether we follow it or not.

The ACA passes and people worry that their healthcare will be affected negatively.  Are you going to spend hours on end researching everything?  Probably not since you spend time working.  So you look at Obama, who seems to be the one mostly responsible for it and criticize him.

What else are you supposed to do when you're emotionally trapped in a corner?

I'm not saying Obama should be called a socialist.  I'm not saying that most people who do this aren't being irrational.  I'm also not saying that some people don't do it out of malice or willful ignorance.  What I am saying is that when people feel pushed into a corner and feel the need to lash out, telling them they should shut up because they're wrong is the worst response possible.

[theseoafs]

Until the government starts taking control of the means of production, it won't be socialist. By socialist standards, Obama's social legislation, most of which is simply meant to heighten the minimum standard of living, is extremely tame.

[Cool Chris]

I think we'd (maybe) under the right conditions, be able to build on (for example) the public school system, public library system, parks, roads, highways, etc, and grow into a democratic socialist state..... 

Kirk... my old friend.... could you elaborate on this? I am curious about your vision (and not to just shoot it down).

- Khan

[kirksnosehair]

0 <---- the amount of fucks I give if anyone calls Obama a socialist

What?

Anyone who calls Obama a socialist really needs to learn more about how socialism actually works, not just the dictionary definitions.

I count at least one or two fucks here.

That's an interesting trick, you know, reading my mind like that. 


Again, I don't give a shit if people want to call him a socialist.  But from where I sit most of people who do it are clueless about what socialism really is.   They call him a "socialist" because they think it's an insult.  If you want to extrapolate that I somehow give a shit from that, well, then knock yourself out.

[Super Dude]

Until the government starts taking control of the means of production, it won't be socialist. By socialist standards, Obama's social legislation, most of which is simply meant to heighten the minimum standard of living, is extremely tame.

IIRC we're one of the only developed countries left that's as purely capitalist as we are.

[kirksnosehair]

I think we'd (maybe) under the right conditions, be able to build on (for example) the public school system, public library system, parks, roads, highways, etc, and grow into a democratic socialist state..... 

Kirk... my old friend.... could you elaborate on this? I am curious about your vision (and not to just shoot it down).

- Khan

Well, I think Socialism has earned a bad name because most states that have been socialist in our lifetimes have been enemies of the US and thus heavily castigated by the media and our politicians.  It is also true that many of those states have been communist or authoritarian states like the Soviet Union.  But there are some good ideas underneath all of the hysteria about it.


If you're really interested in it, you can start with the Wiki, which presents a pretty dry description, devoid of political axes being ground:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


I actually lean more towards Democratic Socialism.  You can read about that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism


There are plenty of references to additional reading materials, especially in the first link, if you're really interested.


Or you could also visit the website of the Democratic Socialists of America party here:
https://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html


They have a nice video on the front page (it's actually quite humorous - it was from the Daily Show) about this very topic as it relates to Obama.

[TL]

The problem is that when many Americans think of Socialism, they think of the Soviet Union, which was actually more of an authoritarian dictatorship.

They should be thinking more of countries like Sweden, France, Canada, etc. You know, countries that are doing considerably better than the US in categories across the board.
Also, as has been pointed out, the US has a lot of socialist policies on the books, many of which people would revolt over if you tried to take them away. It, like basically every other developed nation on earth, is 'mixed market', which is a combination of socialism and capitalism.

Basically, anyone who actually thinks that Obama is going to try to turn the US into the Soviet Union is either lying, an idiot, or both. I mean, fuck, the man is at about the same point on the political spectrum as Ronald Reagan. By the standards of almost any other country, Obama is pretty conservative. The current Conservative party PM here in Canada, who is probably the most rightwing PM we've ever had, is to the left of Obama on many things. It's why when people in the US use socialism as a dirty word to try and discredit fairly conservative politicians, the rest of the developed world just laughs, and then goes back to their higher quality of life.

[Super Dude]

The problem is that when many Americans think of Socialism, they think of the Soviet Union, which was actually more of an authoritarian dictatorship.

They should be thinking more of countries like Sweden, France, Canada, etc. You know, countries that are doing considerably better than the US in categories across the board.
Also, as has been pointed out, the US has a lot of socialist policies on the books, many of which people would revolt over if you tried to take them away. It, like basically every other developed nation on earth, is 'mixed market', which is a combination of socialism and capitalism.

Basically, anyone who actually thinks that Obama is going to try to turn the US into the Soviet Union is either lying, an idiot, or both. I mean, fuck, the man is at about the same point on the political spectrum as Ronald Reagan. By the standards of almost any other country, Obama is pretty conservative. The current Conservative party PM here in Canada, who is probably the most rightwing PM we've ever had, is to the left of Obama on many things. It's why when people in the US use socialism as a dirty word to try and discredit fairly conservative politicians, the rest of the developed world just laughs, and then goes back to their higher quality of life.

Yeah, problem with that is that Republican politicians tell Americans that other socialist countries are just as bad. Like the "Do Not Euthanize" thing with old people in Sweden or the Netherlands or something.

[MasterShakezula]

I'm probably simplifying things, but didn't the implementation of socialist ideas during the depression and the 60s by Dems play a HUGE role in the U.S. being able to develop a large middle class and comfortable standard of living? 

Seems like dat evil COMMUNISM (as some like to refer to mild socialist ideas) has done plenty of good for the U.S., at least when it's actually been utilized. 

[Super Dude]

I'm probably simplifying things, but didn't the implementation of socialist ideas during the depression and the 60s by Dems play a HUGE role in the U.S. being able to develop a large middle class and comfortable standard of living? 

Seems like dat evil COMMUNISM (as some like to refer to mild socialist ideas) has done plenty of good for the U.S., at least when it's actually been utilized.

Why yes Cup, they did.

[MasterShakezula]

Are the republicans who dislike Obama and Co. for being socialist aware of this and have an agenda against the middle class?  Or are they just clueless?

I'm genuinely interested in what's behind their POV.

[TL]

Are the republicans who dislike Obama and Co. for being socialist aware of this and have an agenda against the middle class?  Or are they just clueless?

I'm genuinely interested in what's behind their POV.

Basically, the Republicans have made it their agenda to oppose Obama on everything (I'm not kidding. For example, Mitch McConnell literally said in an interview that it was their goal to make Obama a one term president), and they use inflammatory rhetoric and outright lies to try and accomplish that. Part of it is stirring up the idiotic fear some Americans have of socialism, or rather what those people think socialism is.

Basically, they're using kindergarten playground tactics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

Like, any politician who actually states that as their goal should be voted the hell out of office the next time they're up.

[El Barto]

Are the republicans who dislike Obama and Co. for being socialist aware of this and have an agenda against the middle class?  Or are they just clueless?

I'm genuinely interested in what's behind their POV.

Keep in mind, most of those republicans would consider FDR one of the worst presidents of the modern era, specifically because of the new deal. 

[Super Dude]

Are the republicans who dislike Obama and Co. for being socialist aware of this and have an agenda against the middle class?  Or are they just clueless?

I'm genuinely interested in what's behind their POV.

Keep in mind, most of those republicans would consider FDR one of the worst presidents of the modern era, specifically because of the new deal.

What can I say? They're rich people who will do anything to stay rich, even if it means causing the country to collapse for their benefit.

[snapple]

@Reap

you brought up valid points about this is Obama's to lose. However, I've just got that feeling. I've been staying away from politics at the moment. Well, I'm up to speed on things but I try not to think about it or spend a lot of time on it.

[Super Dude]

@Reap

you brought up valid points about this is Obama's to lose. However, I've just got that feeling. I've been staying away from politics at the moment. Well, I'm up to speed on things but I try not to think about it or spend a lot of time on it.

How does decreasing one's exposure to developments equate to having a better sense for the outcome than someone who pays consistent attention?

[snapple]

@Reap

you brought up valid points about this is Obama's to lose. However, I've just got that feeling. I've been staying away from politics at the moment. Well, I'm up to speed on things but I try not to think about it or spend a lot of time on it.

How does decreasing one's exposure to developments equate to having a better sense for the outcome than someone who pays consistent attention?

Oh, I was just saying I had a feeling. Like, those ridiculous notions that something is going to happen. Nothing really formed with evidence.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

Doesn't this sound even a little bit with how Obama is working with big businesses who need government assistance?  At least in theory, the government is the community's representative.  Isn't any business regulation socialism to some degree?

I don't think that makes it fair to call him a socialist though. There's a huge difference between "Obama does some things that are socialist to a degree" and "Obama is a socialist".

What I'm trying to suggest though is that the claim isn't without basis in reality.  People see socialism in Obama's policies and bring it up.  They're told that they're being idiots.  Then they see more socialism, and are again told they are being idiots.  When you're prevented from having any logical recourse, you turn to name calling.  It's like when a parent tells their child "you're going to do it because I told you so."  When you tell them they're not allowed to think logically, they eventually don't bother.

This dynamic is happening in American politics.  The left is trying to say it's beyond criticism, which is part of why the right has given up on trying to rationally offer any.

Saying that there is socialism in Obama's policies absolutely has a basis in reality. Calling Obama a socialist does not.

In my experience, Republicans rarely say the former. They only say the latter. I'm not saying there are no stupid Democrats. On the contrary, I know a lot of really stupid Democrats. It's just that the Republicans I've met are typically much, much worse, and they're not worse because they're on the defensive. Usually, they're on the offensive. Hell, I just got back from a baseball game where my girlfriend's grand-ma yelled, "Give us our country back!" and half the stadium cheered.

[Super Dude]

Doesn't this sound even a little bit with how Obama is working with big businesses who need government assistance?  At least in theory, the government is the community's representative.  Isn't any business regulation socialism to some degree?

I don't think that makes it fair to call him a socialist though. There's a huge difference between "Obama does some things that are socialist to a degree" and "Obama is a socialist".

What I'm trying to suggest though is that the claim isn't without basis in reality.  People see socialism in Obama's policies and bring it up.  They're told that they're being idiots.  Then they see more socialism, and are again told they are being idiots.  When you're prevented from having any logical recourse, you turn to name calling.  It's like when a parent tells their child "you're going to do it because I told you so."  When you tell them they're not allowed to think logically, they eventually don't bother.

This dynamic is happening in American politics.  The left is trying to say it's beyond criticism, which is part of why the right has given up on trying to rationally offer any.

Saying that there is socialism in Obama's policies absolutely has a basis in reality. Calling Obama a socialist does not.

In my experience, Republicans rarely say the former. They only say the latter. I'm not saying there are no stupid Democrats. On the contrary, I know a lot of really stupid Democrats. It's just that the Republicans I've met are typically much, much worse, and they're not worse because they're on the defensive. Usually, they're on the offensive. Hell, I just got back from a baseball game where my girlfriend's grand-ma yelled, "Give us our country back!" and half the stadium cheered.

Honestly, I'd say that describes the Democratic electorate more than the politicians themselves.

[ReaPsTA]

@Reap

you brought up valid points about this is Obama's to lose. However, I've just got that feeling. I've been staying away from politics at the moment. Well, I'm up to speed on things but I try not to think about it or spend a lot of time on it.

How does decreasing one's exposure to developments equate to having a better sense for the outcome than someone who pays consistent attention?

Oh, I was just saying I had a feeling. Like, those ridiculous notions that something is going to happen. Nothing really formed with evidence.

I... think I see what you're doing here?

[ReaPsTA]

Basically, the Republicans have made it their agenda to oppose Obama on everything (I'm not kidding. For example, Mitch McConnell literally said in an interview that it was their goal to make Obama a one term president), and they use inflammatory rhetoric and outright lies to try and accomplish that. Part of it is stirring up the idiotic fear some Americans have of socialism, or rather what those people think socialism is.

Basically, they're using kindergarten playground tactics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

Like, any politician who actually states that as their goal should be voted the hell out of office the next time they're up.

Think of the calculation from their point of view.  Think of two courses of action:

 - Work with Obama and accept that letting him have victories will cause him to look good and probably be re-elected.

 - Undermine Obama as much as possible and make him look useless, turning the public against him.

If you believe that his merely being president is sufficiently destructive to the nation, you take the second option.  I'm not saying they should, just that it's not thoughtless.

In my experience, Republicans rarely say the former. They only say the latter. I'm not saying there are no stupid Democrats. On the contrary, I know a lot of really stupid Democrats. It's just that the Republicans I've met are typically much, much worse, and they're not worse because they're on the defensive. Usually, they're on the offensive. Hell, I just got back from a baseball game where my girlfriend's grand-ma yelled, "Give us our country back!" and half the stadium cheered.

I know I'm being repetitive, but when half a stadium full of people acts this way, why aren't you listening and taking that seriously instead of making a rolling laughter face?

Remember, these people vote.  Are you going to say they shouldn't be able to?

Honestly, I'd say that describes the Democratic electorate more than the politicians themselves.

What do you mean?

Are the republicans who dislike Obama and Co. for being socialist aware of this and have an agenda against the middle class?  Or are they just clueless?

I'm genuinely interested in what's behind their POV.

Keep in mind, most of those republicans would consider FDR one of the worst presidents of the modern era, specifically because of the new deal.

What can I say? They're rich people who will do anything to stay rich, even if it means causing the country to collapse for their benefit.

Only Rich people are Republicans and/or people who think FDR wasn't a good president.

[TL]

Honestly, at this point, what America needs is for the Democrats to become the right wing party (staying exactly where they currently are politically), the Republicans to just go away, and an actual left wing party to form. Obviously it won't happen, but it would be a huge step forward.

[Super Dude]

Honestly, I'd say that describes the Democratic electorate more than the politicians themselves.

What do you mean?

I mean - and I hate to sell out my fellows but it's true - most of the Democrats I've met who don't hold public office are morons. They take the liberalism way too far, or they're all ideology and don't know enough about the issues they're passionate about to understand what they're even supporting, or they're condescending. And this is me speaking as a self-proclaimed Democrat. I am proud to say that most DTF liberals are not of this stock, but very sad to say that all too many who I've met IRL totally fit this bill, 100%.

I'm not saying Republicans are any better, and it probably goes without saying that I have a number of issues with the Republican electorate, but...this why we should all aspire to moderate politics.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I know I'm being repetitive, but when half a stadium full of people acts this way, why aren't you listening and taking that seriously instead of making a rolling laughter face?

Because everyone I've ever talked to who acts that way is not a person to be taken seriously. Everyone I've ever talked to who acts that way has been a person I couldn't sit down with and have an intelligent discussion.

I understand the broader point of what you're saying: This group of people can vote, so no matter how ridiculous I think they are, they're still influential and therefore important. I get that, and it's 100 percent true. But everytime I've ever tried to take them seriously and talk to them, I've left wanting to pull my hair out and kill myself. Sometimes all you can do is make a rolling laughter face or you'll go crazy.

[Super Dude]

Or as I see it: just because everyone else is doing it (thinks it) doesn't mean it's right.

And that's not to say there aren't times that the majority is right, but I don't take that for granted. If people always thought that way, we might still be living with Jim Crow and Social Darwinism.

[kirksnosehair]

The problem is that when many Americans think of Socialism, they think of the Soviet Union, which was actually more of an authoritarian dictatorship.

They should be thinking more of countries like Sweden, France, Canada, etc. You know, countries that are doing considerably better than the US in categories across the board.
Also, as has been pointed out, the US has a lot of socialist policies on the books, many of which people would revolt over if you tried to take them away. It, like basically every other developed nation on earth, is 'mixed market', which is a combination of socialism and capitalism.

Basically, anyone who actually thinks that Obama is going to try to turn the US into the Soviet Union is either lying, an idiot, or both. I mean, fuck, the man is at about the same point on the political spectrum as Ronald Reagan. By the standards of almost any other country, Obama is pretty conservative. The current Conservative party PM here in Canada, who is probably the most rightwing PM we've ever had, is to the left of Obama on many things. It's why when people in the US use socialism as a dirty word to try and discredit fairly conservative politicians, the rest of the developed world just laughs, and then goes back to their higher quality of life.

 


This is really all I was trying to say.  For me, personally, Obama has been a little bit disappointing because I had hoped that he was actually as liberal as his enemies were making him out to be.  The truth, however, is he's anything but. 

[rumborak]

The real danger for the US is that they waste so much of their political energy on these Pyrrhic battles, and what really needs to be done and decided falls by the wayside.

rumborak