Two questions for right wingers:

Okay, well socialism is a word for a category of economic systems all advocating collective ownership over the MOP. They can be right wing (though they typically aren't), left wing, authoritarian, libertarian, so on.

So right off the bat, your definition is wrong.
 
Well, I'm not strictly a 'right' winger, but I'll answer.

To the first, it depends on your terms. Is Obama an absolute socialist? No. But relatively speaking, in comparison to his other political contemporaries, he's certainly MORE socialist than we're used to. Of course it's hard to peg down whether that's because of his actual socialist ideas, or if they're merely extensions of his authoritarian ones. In this he can be compared (though admittedly poorly) to Stalin, if only because he mixes both authoritarianism and relative socialism.

As for what socialism is, that can go on forever. So to try and put it succinctly, it is a social and economic policy where the government has at least a partial hand in determining the economy at a national level.
 
Team Zimmerman 2013 said:
Well, I'm not strictly a 'right' winger, but I'll answer.

To the first, it depends on your terms. Is Obama an absolute socialist? No. But relatively speaking, in comparison to his other political contemporaries, he's certainly MORE socialist than we're used to. Of course it's hard to peg down whether that's because of his actual socialist ideas, or if they're merely extensions of his authoritarian ones. In this he can be compared (though admittedly poorly) to Stalin, if only because he mixes both authoritarianism and relative socialism.

As for what socialism is, that can go on forever. So to try and put it succinctly, it is a social and economic policy where the government has at least a partial hand in determining the economy at a national level.
Click to expand...



Socialism requires common ownership. This can be achieved through government ownership, but the government must be controlled democratically. You can say Obama's an authoritarian, which he is, but that doesn't make him a socialist.

He also has policies of enforcing the authority of private sector corporations - bailouts, subsidies, tax cuts, CU. And combining this with the fact that the government isn't controlled democratically, the power he exerts over the the private sector doesn't even put him near socialism.

Personally, I just view the president as a liberal state capitalist. He presides over a polyarchy; his foreign policy is militaristic; he provides government welfare to both individuals and corporations; he has no intention of increasing the budget for prosecution of corporate crime, has no intention of nationalizing or collectivizing corporations, or even establishing any kind of WPA; he's presented no meaningful opposition to the current state of campaign finance, or the media's use to shut down contrarian views. The list goes on. Bottom line, this man is not a socialist - he's nowhere close.

EDIT: And to further underscore this, Obama doesn't carry any of the characteristic rhetoric and motives of a socialist. The modern socialist is a person who carries intense disillusionment over capitalism's ability to address the problems it's created for the poor and workers. His/her policies and motivations are addressing the growing inequality and stagnation faced globally. His/her solution is a radical shift towards democratic control over the private sector and government, and programs that cause a widespread shift of power - very class oriented. Excuse me, but none of Obama's policies and rhetoric suggest that he's of this sort.

But good post. :)
 
Last edited:
Rose Captain said:
Socialism requires common ownership. This can be achieved through government ownership, but the government must be controlled democratically. You can say Obama's an authoritarian, which he is, but that doesn't make him a socialist.
Click to expand...
No, authoritarianism isn't exclusive to socialism or socialist policies, but in this specific instance (I.E. Obama) they do overlap considerably (again, relatively speaking)

He also has policies of enforcing the authority of private sector corporations - bailouts, subsidies, tax cuts, CU. And combining this with the fact that the government isn't controlled democratically, the power he exerts over the the private sector doesn't even put him near socialism.
Click to expand...
Well, that would depend on how you view democracy. At least partially, the bailouts for example, put more controlling interest in the hands over government and therefore (theoretically) more control in the hands of the people. Not full on Marxist socialism, but certainly a step towards it (not to imply that socialism is the said goal for that step).
 
Team Zimmerman 2013 said:
No, authoritarianism isn't exclusive to socialism or socialist policies, but in this specific instance (I.E. Obama) they do overlap considerably (again, relatively speaking)

Well, that would depend on how you view democracy. At least partially, the bailouts for example, put more controlling interest in the hands over government and therefore (theoretically) more control in the hands of the people. Not full on Marxist socialism, but certainly a step towards it (not to imply that socialism is the said goal for that step).
Click to expand...

I think there's considerable overlap between socialism and liberalism. The relationship between the two is fairly complex, but most moderate socialists will agree with me on that point. Historically, they were competitors in Europe, with socialists (the revolutionary kind) having more influence in brutal states, but liberal policies being used to quell the tide of socialist discontent in states where the revolution wasn't as urgent. Liberalism almost played a similar role to fascism, with pro-establishment minorities using it as a maintenance tactic - the same could be said about modern USA.

So my view is basically this: Liberalism is currently the most anti-socialist ideology within the US, primarily based on it's tendency to mimic socialism on the surface. Welfare, government intervention in the private sector, opposition to voter ID laws, social programs, without looking a bit further into US policy, these all seem pretty great - and do a wonderful job of mimicking the appeal of socialism. So when a socialist proposes programmes, liberals tell the demos that the benefits of these programmes will happen, so long as you vote correctly. And, due to the nature of our propaganda machine, folks aren't able to see what liberals are actually doing (and how far from what socialists propose these liberal policies actually are.)

So you're exactly right in saying Obama's policies are a step towards socialism. He's a capitalist, a statist, and someone who moves inches towards socialism to prevent it from occurring.
 
Rose Captain said:
Is Obama a socialist?
What is socialism?

:chesh:
Click to expand...

Actually to be perfectly accurate identifying Obama I’d say he is a Left-Wing, Authoritarian Communist Sympathizer & Neo-Socialist.

Modern political ideological philosophies are hybridized conglomerates of past traditional philosophies. Neo-Capitalism has become Cronyism and more of a Capitalist/Government conspiracy and bribery scam incorporating Neo-Socialism which of course is Social Engineering through Social Bribery.

Since pure socialism, (in any traditional sense), has proven itself to be the folly and farce it actually is because sane people recognize it’s absolute incompatibility with human nature, certain elements of it are still incorporated into modern philosophies. However, it quickly becomes apparent to sane people that it cannot be successful in any manner without force or bribery. The communist tied to implement it through “force” and the neo-capitalist try to implement it through bribery and force.

Obama and the majority of Democrats are NEO-Socialist more akin to traditional communism.

Modern Neo-Conservatives like Leo Strauss, Norman Podhoretz, John, Irving Kristol ,William, Donald Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, and the majority of modern day Republicans are more akin to traditional fascism.

Libertarians on the other hand are Traditionalist Constitutionalist and really the only philosophy still loyal to the political philosophy incorporated in the American Constitution. The vast majority of libertarians still believe in actual limited federal government, state’s rights, the gold standard, foreign non-interventionism, individual rights, individualism, pure capitalism, human rights, minority rights, women’s rights, social volunteerism, and minding one’s own fucking business as opposed to sticking one’s fucking nose into everybody else’s business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top