We're All Socialists Now, Comrade

[RDK]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

As much as I may like Obama when you stand him up next to John McCain, who embodies the downhill spiral conservative politics has taken in the last few decades, I can't shake the feeling that things are either going to get a lot better or a lot, lot worse.

Because I usually lean towards Libertarianism in my politics (although Objectivism and Libertarianism mean two completely different things; there's no need to differentiate right now, as the term serves its purpose; I will do so in another thread shortly), I started out lukewarm towards Obama and his leftist policies.

However, I quickly realized that given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing murderer (the Democratic party and liberal economic theory as a whole), and a rotten, ever-stronger, and ambitious murderer (the religious right; I.E., the modern Republican party), it is immoral and impractical to vote for the latter.

The fact that the GOP is now bemoaning Obama's so-called "socialist" plans is equally disturbing, given that, under a conservative Republican administration, our government has effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industry, and has been the catalyst for the largest expansion of welfare in the last 30 years (prescription drugs).

What do you think? Is the Obama administration heralding in a new age of European-style statism? Are we bound to descend into socialist policies that will eventually destroy our economy and, ultimately, our country? More importantly, why are American politics in such a sorry state today?

 

[manhunter098]

I wouldnt say that Socialist policies will end a nation, it has worked well in Europe and Canada, but the systems they have in place there might not be suitable for the US, and if they arent the damages caused by trying could cause all sorts of economic problems, and given the fact that the government rarely ever gives back an industry that it acquires it could force us into a sorry state of affairs until someone is willing to end those programs.

The problem with American politics however is written in the constitution, the winner takes all system we have now in the House of Representatives forces us into a two party system, and nothing else is possible aside from that until we change the way we elect our officials. I guess maybe television, making it so that the candidate with the best campaign rather than the best platform wins, and we really dont have a smart enough population for them to actually pick the candidate that suits their financial and social interests the best.

 

[Aesir]

Most European countries practice mixed economies, though Norway is the closest thing to socialism in Europe right now (or maybe that's Sweden?). Obviously I'm not going to take the Socialist charge seriously because in American Politics is more about scaring the population into collectivism then anything else. (the red scare, oooooh spooky.)

I generally like the idea of mixing Capitalism with Socialism. (I'm a progressive so that might be why.)

What do you think? Is the Obama administration heralding in a new age of European-style statism? Are we bound to descend into socialist policies that will eventually destroy our economy and, ultimately, our country? More importantly, why are American politics in such a sorry state today?

I think he's moving toward a mixed economy but I don't think it'll be the end of America. This wouldn't be the first time we've leaned toward Progressive policies, FDR tried it with his new deal proposals and they were generally good for economy.


The problem with American politics though; the two major parties don't really represent the people who vote for them. How often do Democrats represent Progressives? then ask your self how often do Republicans represent Libertarians?

The only two parties that represent these two groups: The Libertarian Party(Libertarians), and the Green Party (progressives).

Generally we just need to get more voices into the debates, they might not win but they'll push the two major parties to actually represent what they're suppose to represent.

 

[Crimson King]

The US will NEVER work as a socialist country. Period.

Generally speaking, Americans like the at least chance of wealth, progression of monetary gains and advancement, and the fact that they can innovate on an idea to become even wealthier. We are a selfish nation, and we are a large nation.

You cannot compare European socialism, with the US. The US is the third largest country by a large margin from the fourth largest country. Large populations cannot sustain a socialist economy. China is a capitalistic, communism that is working hard to cap, and curb growth numbers.

Is what Obama doing going to end the country? Not likely. It will make the economy appear more stable if he pumps enough money, but that works to delay the crashes instead of prevent them.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

What do you think? Is the Obama administration heralding in a new age of European-style statism? Are we bound to descend into socialist policies that will eventually destroy our economy and, ultimately, our country?

Watch what you're saying. In case you didn't know the EU has been the worlds strongest economy power (with 1/3 of the world economy coming from the EU alone) for the last five years. Even if the world economy isn't at its best at the moment the US economy is still a joke compared to the EU and right now it doesn't look like it's gonna change anytime soon. And lol @ the "European-style statism" comment. At least we don't throw some billion dollars spent on military stuff out of our windows and we don't just start war with other countries (not to mention leading war with two countries at once) - part of it for no reason. If that's what you're referring to then heralding that statism is something that you could only dream of.
I mean the dollar isn't worth a **** these days, the car industry (one of the few industries I remember the US ever being big at) is collapsing and so is basically the entire economy.

But hey let's rather talk down the EU economy ignoring the fact that you're far behing right now! You must be confusing "statism" with "progress" because it took the EU not even 10 years to surpass the US economy, who didn't make any progress at all. Way to go, USA!
Also as european I find the title of the topic extremely distrubing. The comrade "comment" is very insensitive, especially if you write a paragraph about the european socialism as if it were linked to communism and its crimes.

...

I don't have much to say about this topic except that it's not going to get any better unless you're ready to change. If you keep things going the way they are now you shouldn't expect too much. At least what you call the "european socialism" has been proven to be successful in only 10 years. But yeah you shouldn't even try it because you're the great US and we're only the EU.

 

[RDK]

Watch what you're saying. In case you didn't know the EU has been the worlds strongest economy power (with 1/3 of the world economy coming from the EU alone) for the last five years. Even if the world economy isn't at its best at the moment the US economy is still a joke compared to the EU and right now it doesn't look like it's gonna change anytime soon.

Did I ever say our economy wasn't a joke? Despite what you seem to think, I'm not c0ckriding the U.S. economy, nor am I looking down on Europe's progress as a world economic power.

America's economy is in great need of a revamp, and that's the point of this thread.

And lol @ the "European-style statism" comment. At least we don't throw some billion dollars spent on military stuff out of our windows and we don't just start war with other countries (not to mention leading war with two countries at once) - part of it for no reason. If that's what you're referring to then heralding that statism is something that you could only dream of.

If you would have actually read my post, I addressed the very problems you pointed out with America's last administration. If I had my way, Bush would have been impeached and convicted a while ago.

But then again, you skipped over what my post was really about and got personally offended by the term "European statism". Gimme a break, and actually read before flaming.

But hey let's rather talk down the EU economy ignoring the fact that you're far behing right now! You must be confusing "statism" with "progress" because it took the EU not even 10 years to surpass the US economy, who didn't make any progress at all. Way to go, USA!
Also as european I find the title of the topic extremely distrubing. The comrade "comment" is very insensitive, especially if you write a paragraph about the european socialism as if it were linked to communism and its crimes.

Socialism done wrong invariably leads to communism. Are you honestly going to refute that point with me?

 

[Aesir]

I'm pretty sure RDK's first post was a mix of sarcasm (European Statism) and literal truth about how screwed up America is right now.

Then again I could be wrong.

Socialism done wrong invariably leads to communism. Are you honestly going to refute that point with me?

Unfortunately this is the case, though I doubt this'll ever happen in America. Libertarians won't allow it, and progressives won't allow it. It's those liberals and conservatives you gotta watch out for.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I wasn't offended by the term "European statism". I just found the term ridicoulus, since it doesn't apply at all. What offended me was the "comrade" in the topic title. You used the word socialist two times....once in the title as a referrence to communism and then in the paragraph with the EU. Guess to what conclusion that leads? I think you get the picture.

Socialism done wrong invariably leads to communism. Are you honestly going to refute that point with me?

Woah, way to miss my point. I'm not talking about the relation of socialism and communism at all. I was referring to the OP which basically put the whole EU on the level of communists. Whether you did it intentionally or not: You did it.

We're All Socialists Now, Comrade

Is the Obama administration heralding in a new age of European-style statism? Are we bound to descend into socialist policies that will eventually destroy our economy and, ultimately, our country?

Sorry but if you read these lines you can't deny that you use the word socialist (ir rather comrade) very carelessly. The title basically says: Socialist = Communist and EU = socialism.

...

I didn't skip the whole post at all btw in fact I commented on it

 

[Darxmarth23]

We aren't really a socialist government nor will we ever be. As CrimsonKing said above, we would never work as a socialist government unless there were some drastic changes. Besides if any uber-socialist thing wants to get passed then the legislative branch will see it coming a mile away.

 

[Jam Stunna]

We really are headed towards European statism. Like RDK said, the really funny thing is that BOTH parties are pushing us in that direction. They have different ideological justifications, but the end result is the same: more power in the hands of the Federal government.

Full disclosure: I receive several forms of government assistance, and I see nothing wrong with lending a helping hand when it's necessary. However, there are people who want government-issued health care; they strive for that. I want to get off the state's roll as soon as humanely possible, while other people seem to be getting in line for handouts.

It's not the state being willing to help that I see as the problem, it's when the state becomes the solution to everyone's problem. Instead of budgeting, making smart decisions, living within our means and accepting the consequences of our actions (you know, being responsible), we've started f*cking up big time and then going to the Feds to fix it. Like CK said, all of this bailout stuff won't fix the problem, because it's actually postponing the fix that is going on now.

It's just a matter of pride. I feel ashamed that I can't provide everything my family needs on my own. I can't fathom why other people don't feel the same way.

 

[Aesir]

Full disclosure: I receive several forms of government assistance, and I see nothing wrong with lending a helping hand when it's necessary. However, there are people who want government-issued health care; they strive for that. I want to get off the state's roll as soon as humanely possible, while other people seem to be getting in line for handouts.

This might be semantics but Government run =/= Government funded. Most systems of universal health care usually have the government picking up the tab and that's where government involvement ends, (though communism sure made us think otherwise didn't it? lol). After that people are free to do whatever they want with it, there's many different universal health care systems. The argument for Government funded health care though: Health care should be a fundamental right for everyone much like education, and safety (police, fire department, ect...)

I don't mean to put you on the spot but does that mean you're going to send your child to a private school? since a public school would still be on the states roll.

 

[Jam Stunna]

If I can afford it, I am. I suppose that's my main point: If a person legitimately can't afford something, then I have no problem with government stepping in to help (such as free public education). But if you can afford private sector goods, why wouldn't you use them? You'd have to be out of your mind to send your child to public school when you can afford private ones.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What do you think? Is the Obama administration heralding in a new age of European-style statism? Are we bound to descend into socialist policies that will eventually destroy our economy and, ultimately, our country? More importantly, why are American politics in such a sorry state today?[/COLOR]

Before I state my opinion on this, let me just take issue with certain implications of statism, and socialism being equated.

Statism is a political philosophy of strong government controls on both the economy and personal liberties.

Socialism is a philosophy of strong economic controls, but as little as possible in the way of controls on personal liberty.

Because you have to take an opposite stance in terms of personal liberties, it's impossible for the two to be equated.



Now then, in regards to the topic, while it's a possibility, that's only if we detour from the philosophy which is guiding the bail-out and stimulus in the first place. This philosophy is an idea of regulated capitalism.

As most people know, capitalism naturally has boom and bust cycles. These boom and bust cycles vary widely in magnitude.

The problem, a bust can result in massive destablization of a country, and will if it's strong enough. In terms of politics, it's simply not practical to risk your country's ability to function by leaving it at the mercy of a strong bust.

That's where regulations and bailouts come in, the idea is to decrease the magnitude of bust cycles. Generally this comes at the expense of decreasing the power of boom cycles considerably.


So, that's the idea, regulated capitalism. Since we're in an especially heavy bust cycle, under regulated capitalism, this is the proper time for the government to intervene. Once the bust has been moderated enough to not be a major threat to our country, if we continue with regulated capitalism, the government should back down in terms of interference.