The Greens are not socialists?

[Art Vandelay]

So, apparently, some people think the Green Party is somehow not socialist. What possible characteristics of socialism are they lacking? They want to establish a universal welfare program, outlaw salaries more than ten times minimum wage (although, if they get their way, minimum wage will be more than $22/hour), eliminate private ownership of businesses, outlaw corporations, allow the government to outlaw any product it feels like, put taxes on wealth, inheritance, stock, bond, and currency transactions, and advertising, force states to allow closed shops, require all terminations to be for-cause, ban striker replacment, unemployement benefits for strikers, binding arbitration at union request, and equal treatment of part-time workers.

If the Green Party were to ever gain power, it would mean the complete evisceration of civil rights in favor of a socialist/communist agenda.

 

[Tmy]

The US already is socialist.

 

[Lonewulf]

The US already is socialist.

Yes and no.

As long as there is private property that is considered to be under the possession of individuals, it is, at the least, partly capitalist.

As long as there is publically distributed property, it is partly socialist.

We're not all of one or the other.

 

[shecky]

Okay.

So, why all the hand wringing over the Greens? Did the Repubs and Dems both decide to call it quits?

 

[Steven Howard]

So, apparently, some people think the Green Party is somehow not socialist.

I assume you mean the Green Party of the United States.

What possible characteristics of socialism are they lacking?

Let's find out:

They want to establish a universal welfare program

Yes

outlaw salaries more than ten times minimum wage (although, if they get their way, minimum wage will be more than $22/hour),

I did not find either of these positions in their published platform. They do say here that ". We support the enactment of living wage laws that apply to all workers. A major consequence of this law will be the lessening of the ever-widening gap between CEOs' income and workers' pay."

eliminate private ownership of businesses,

No.

outlaw corporations,

No.

allow the government to outlaw any product it feels like,

Can't the government already do that? And what does that have to do with socialism?

put taxes on wealth, inheritance, stock, bond, and currency transactions, and advertising,

Don't we already have those? And what does that have to do with socialism?

force states to allow closed shops,

I did not find this in their published platform.

require all terminations to be for-cause,

Nor this.

ban striker replacment,

No permanent replacement of striking workers.

unemployement benefits for strikers,

I did not find this in their published platform.

binding arbitration at union request,

Yes:

"Mediation must be the first available solution to labor - management disputes with an agreed-upon time limit."

and equal treatment of part-time workers.

I did not find this in their published platform. Also I do see:

"All workers, temporary or permanent, must be paid a living wage."

If the Green Party were to ever gain power, it would mean the complete evisceration of civil rights in favor of a socialist/communist agenda.

Only if by "civil rights" you mean "the right of corporations to act like 19th Century robber barons."

 

[UserGoogol]

force states to allow closed shops,

I did not find this in their published platform.

They support the repeal of the Taft-Hartley act, which placed several restrictions on unions including banning closed closed shops. Removing a federal ban is not exactly the same as forcing states to allowing it, but perhaps there's some other laws floating around I'm not aware of which would have that be the effect of it.

I think the Green Party might be too left-wing for me (or at least, too left-wing for me to throw away my vote on; I'm not going to vote for the least of three evils if it leads to the worst of three evils being elected) but I don't think they're exactly socialist. They might be classifiable as "Social Democrats," but they don't seem to have actual socialism in their agenda.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I assume you mean the Green Party of the United States.

I looked at http://greenparty.org/

Apparently they are different parties. Perhaps the GPUSA should pick a name that hasn't already been taken?


Here are some examples of anti-capitalist and anti-freedom policies of the GPUSA:

"The right to elect representatives to sit equally with management on the Board of Directors. "

"Labor has the first right to buy out a company that is for sale or is going bankrupt, or being outsourced to another state or another country. "

"Labor has the right to stock ownership and oversight of the investment of its own funds in the company where it works."

"Taxing electronic advertising sales to fund democratic media outlets. "

"Protect tenants with rent control laws, including vacancy control. "

"Prevent evictions without just cause. Restrict owner move-in evictions of long-term tenants, the elderly, and disabled persons. "

"Repeal all laws that criminalize any facet of homelessness or helping homeless persons."

Can't the government already do that? And what does that have to do with socialism?

Socialism is about the government making production decisions, rather than leaving them up to the market.

Don't we already have those? And what does that have to do with socialism?

No. It interferes with capitalism and freedom of speech.

No permanent replacement of striking workers.

So.. what? They can hire replacement workers, but have to fire them as soon as the strikers want to come back to work?

Only if by "civil rights" you mean "the right of corporations to act like 19th Century robber barons."

Letting people decide what to do with their property doesn't mean letting them act like robber barons. The Green Party would let unions act like robber barons.

 

[DanishDynamite]

In short, as usual, you had no clue what you were mumbling about.
Some advice: Before mounting your high horse to fight the good fight, get a clue what you are talking about.

 

[firecoins]

In short, as usual, you had no clue what you were mumbling about.
Some advice: Before mounting your high horse to fight the good fight, get a clue what you are talking about.

a very productive post I see. Would you like to expand on why someone doesn't know what they are talking about?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

There's nothing of substance here.
I call troll.

 

[DanishDynamite]

a very productive post I see. Would you like to expand on why someone doesn't know what they are talking about?

By all means. The supposedly knowledgable Art Vandelay managed to misunderstand what "Green Party" was being refered to.

 

[DanishDynamite]

There's nothing of substance here.
I call troll.

Indeed, there is nothing of substance here.

 

[Art Vandelay]

There's nothing of substance here.
I call troll.

Pot, kettle.

By all means. The supposedly knowledgable Art Vandelay managed to misunderstand what "Green Party" was being refered to.

Yeah, only an idiot would be confused between "Green Party of the United States" and "Green Party USA".


Do you have anything of substance to contribute?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you have anything of substance to contribute?

I do:

Socialism is about the government making production decisions, rather than leaving them up to the market.

Name one society that leaves production decisions up to the market.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, only an idiot would be confused between "Green Party of the United States" and "Green Party USA".

Yeah. They should come up with new colors... or just a catchier name. Like, "The Botaniphile Party" or something.

 

[Geckko]

I do:



Name one society that leaves production decisions up to the market.

What do you mean?

 

[CFLarsen]

What do you mean?

.....øeh....what do you mean?

If Art Vandelay can't name one, then all societies are, according to him, "socialist", which render his criticism a wee bit useless.

 

[Beerina]

Here are some examples of anti-capitalist and anti-freedom policies of the GPUSA:

"The right to elect representatives to sit equally with management on the Board of Directors. "

The right to strip other's rights. What else is new?

"Labor has the first right to buy out a company that is for sale or is going bankrupt, or being outsourced to another state or another country. "

This from the World Recordkeeping of Cluelessness Department.

"Labor has the right to stock ownership and oversight of the investment of its own funds in the company where it works."

"Labor", like any free person or group of people, has the right to buy stocks on the open market like anybody else. What about "where it doesn't work"? Then what have you authorized the angry, power hungry men with police to do?

"Taxing electronic advertising sales to fund democratic media outlets. "

Ahhhh, yes. The old "we lose elections because we can't get our message out, not because people don't like our message."

"Protect tenants with rent control laws, including vacancy control. "

There's a 4 year waiting list for apartments in the Netherlands because it's unprofitable to build apartments there. Thanks, angry people doing "what feels right". Thanks!

"Prevent evictions without just cause.

I sure hope "being a deadbeat" counts as just cause.

"Repeal all laws that criminalize any facet of homelessness or helping homeless persons."

Note that "offering" to wash your windshield could technically remain illegal. Is "stinking vomitaciously and deliberately standing next to people to get them to pay you money" something that would be protected?

 

[Geckko]

.....øeh....what do you mean?

If Art Vandelay can't name one, then all societies are, according to him, "socialist", which render his criticism a wee bit useless.

Well, I would have thought that nearly all societies leave the majority of production decisions to the market.

Am I missing something?

 

[WildCat]

Well, I would have thought that nearly all societies leave the majority of production decisions to the market.

Am I missing something?

Yes, where Claus defines his position so that all governments control production. Which tack he will take, I don't know. Maybe because the Fed controls how much money is printed, maybe because certain products are regulated counts, or whatever silly hyper-pedantic argument (a hallmark of Claus) he chooses.