Obama policies are 'technically' socialist.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Given that I'm probably the only card-carrying member of a socialist party on this forum I find it comical that anyone could think that Obama is a socialist, or that the policies he proposes come anywhere close to those typical of socialist parties in Europe for example.

Watermark comes closest in his own unique way to describing what socialism means today to those who wear that label, and as he rightly pointed out it's quite different to the 19th century definitions that Dixie quoted in his opening post.

When compared with the policies followed by mainstream socialist and social democractic parties, Obama is very much right-of-centre. He is a progressive, for sure, but in the mould of an Amercian Liberal which is a world away from what we're used to here in Europe.

I just really have the point of view that most of the modern socialist parties in Europe aren't all that socialist. They abandoned the far left a long time ago, about as soon as the got into power. So, possibly, you could say that the meaning of socialism itself has changed into a more moderate one.

But the Labour party in Britian has embraced Thatcherism, and the Socialist party in France stopped running on nationalizing industry in the mid-80's. They are certainly to the left, but they've embraced capitalism as well, and just want to fix its flaws rather than entirely replace it. Which, IMHO, just isn't true socialism.

And Obama is well, well to the right of any of them.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The 'technical' dictionary definition:

Socialism
Socialism\, n.

Socialism of the chair [G. katheder socialismus], a term applied about 1872, at first in ridicule, to a group of German political economists who advocated state aid for the betterment of the working classes.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Since Socialism is also "technically" defined by American Heriatage ditionary as '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,' let's also look at the "technical" definition of 'Communism.'

Communism
Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------

So here are the 'technical' definitions to compare with Obama's ideology of 'spreading the wealth around' to make things 'fair.'

Clearly, his policies amount to pure unadulterated Socialism, and Communism. While the left will paint the characterization as 'extremist rhetoric' and insist the policies are not what they 'technically' are, any intelligent person can read these 'technical' definitions, and see that Obama's agenda is precisely as described, and appropriately labeled as "socialist" policy.

Liberals will argue that it's not 'socialism' because the state doesn't control production and distribution completely, however, the 'technical' definition given by American Heritage indicates 'socialism' is the phase between 'capitalism' and 'communism', where the state does not yet totally control these aspects.

Well technically then, according to your definition, Bush is a socialist too.

Oh wait. I forgot. If it's a bail out of wall street, chrysler or farm subsidies it's not socialism.......it's.....well just what exactly is it?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Given that I'm probably the only card-carrying member of a socialist party on this forum I find it comical that anyone could think that Obama is a socialist, or that the policies he proposes come anywhere close to those typical of socialist parties in Europe for example.

Watermark comes closest in his own unique way to describing what socialism means today to those who wear that label, and as he rightly pointed out it's quite different to the 19th century definitions that Dixie quoted in his opening post.

When compared with the policies followed by mainstream socialist and social democractic parties, Obama is very much right-of-centre. He is a progressive, for sure, but in the mould of an Amercian Liberal which is a world away from what we're used to here in Europe.

Exactly! If I was to make a historical comparison, policy wise, to Obama, it would be Teddy Roosevelt.

But keep in mind, as I keep hammering away at. When your a far right wing extremist like Dixie anything even approaching the middle is a communist by comparison.