Any really think Obama is a socialist?

[Toke]

dualb:
I define Socialits as somebody who thinks that the free market and the Profit motive are basically evil. You don't find many of those in the US.

I think of it more like fire.
A good servant, but a nasty master.
Then comes endless discutions of how long a leash the goverment should give the marked.

 

[DC]

...
I define Socialits as somebody who thinks that the free market and the Profit motive are basically evil. You don't find many of those in the US.

I dont see free market as evil, i just dont belive in it, i dont think it would work.

The profit motive is also not evil. its very very important i think. its motivation.

i even belive in private property. but some services must be provided by the public and not by private companys. and some must be mixed, public and private.

but i would favor to limit income in an atempt to close the huge cap between rich and poor.

 

[Ocelot]

As a mild socialist myself, I don't recognise any requirement for socialism to be in oposition to the market economy. I live in a country governed by a traditionally socialist party, and vote for a party even more to the left of them.

I don't see socialist as a dirty word. It's easy from this side of the pond to form the conclusiosn that the only difference between socialism and communism is that communists eat babies.

I find it amazing that a country that is ostentatiously so much more christian than us can totally reject the Socialist message in the New testament.

 

[Furcifer]

Really?

I've watched Fox News for a few days now, and he's been called a socialist at least once per hour. Obviously, this reflects a rather significant percentage of the views on him. Yet I don't recall even conservatives here saying so. So if anyone thinks he is a socialist, by all means post it.

I've made comments to this effect in other threads and voted yes in the poll so I'll comment.
Most have flatly denied this, and rather vehemently. Americans get emotional when you suggest this. I'm not sure why?
Piggy, in another thread, made a rather detailed explanation of why Obama wasn't a Socialist. I agreed with most of what he said, but when asked to differentiate what was happening in the US from that in "Socialist" Canada he refused to comment.

That's all I'm asking, is what is different here in Canada that clearly defines us as Socialist?

My apologies to Cleon in advance, I'm not picking on you, it's just that you happened to reiterate many of the arguements I have heard over the last few months.

From Cleon on Wiki:

Well, except for the fact that Obama's policies don't involve "public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

We've got Walmart, GM, Bombardier, Safeway and Honda up here in Canada. I can't think of a state (province) owned production or distribution company?

From Cleon again:

There is no definition, implementation, or theory of socialism I am aware of that involves the government giving money to private organizations.

OK, but they didn't "give" did they? I mean they "bought". From what I have heard, the USG owns 80% of AIG. Isn't this "state ownership of an administration"? Unless I am in BC, if I go buy insurance it is from a privately owned company. Granted AIG isn't the only insurance company in the US, but you see my point here don't you? The Canadian Government isn't in the insurance business. (except for first-time home buyers, I think that is insured by a Government run program)

From Cleon again:

Unfortunately, the only way you can call Obama a "socialist" is if you're completely ignorant of what Obama's policies actually are, or if you're completely ignorant of what socialism actually is.

I'm not basing my views on what Obama's policies are, I'm going on what I've heard him say. He clearly stated about Wall Street:

"People just had this general attitude of entitlement," Obama told Tonight host Jay Leno. "The immediate bonuses that went to AIG were a problem, but we have to get back to an attitude where people know enough is enough. If we can get back to those values that built America, then I think we're going to be OK."

hmmm...from Socialism on Wiki:

snip...and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation. Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society.

So you have the "entitlement" on Wall Street and knowing "enough is enough" and "equality for all individuals". This seems pretty clear to me.

But wait. From Wiki:

The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organization, and many contemporary socialists share this belief.

What does Obama say, let's see:

"Ensuring that the US continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration."

"Together, we could open up government and invite citizens in, while connecting all of America to 21st century broadband. We could use technology to help achieve universal health care, to reach for a clean energy future, and to ensure that young Americans can compete -- and win -- in the global economy..."

"We will fire government managers who aren't getting results, we will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money, we will use technology and lessons from the private sector to improve efficiency across every level of government."

Obama said if elected his government would "harness technology to confront the biggest challenges that America faces".

I know what I know about Socialism. I don't claim to know everything, but if you listen to the words coming out of Obama's mouth, he's a Socialist.

 

[Toke]

So wanting improved technology and more competent goverment makes you a socialist.

Does that mean the republicans say no to improved technology and competent goverment.?

 

[Cleon]

That's all I'm asking, is what is different here in Canada that clearly defines us as Socialist?

My apologies to Cleon in advance, I'm not picking on you, it's just that you happened to reiterate many of the arguements I have heard over the last few months.

From Cleon on Wiki:


We've got Walmart, GM, Bombardier, Safeway and Honda up here in Canada. I can't think of a state (province) owned production or distribution company?

I'm probably the wrong person to pick on, as I don't see Canada as being particularly socialist, either.

OK, but they didn't "give" did they? I mean they "bought". From what I have heard, the USG owns 80% of AIG. Isn't this "state ownership of an administration"? Unless I am in BC, if I go buy insurance it is from a privately owned company. Granted AIG isn't the only insurance company in the US, but you see my point here don't you? The Canadian Government isn't in the insurance business. (except for first-time home buyers, I think that is insured by a Government run program)

Well, if you'd read my other comment you'd see that I already addressed that:

The closest we've seen to "public or state ownership" involved the Federal Reserve using being issued stock warrants as a security on bailout loans (this was done to AIG, not sure if it was done to others). However, that was under the Bush Administration, not Obama, and AFAIK none of the warrants have been executed (nor are likely to be).

A "stock warrant" is not the same as a stock. It doesn't give them ownership. A stock warrant gives the Federal Reserve the right to buy up to 79.something% of AIG stock, if AIG defaults on the loan and the Fed decides to do so.

So no, the US government doesn't actually own 80% of AIG.

But again...That was the Bush administration, not Obama. And nobody is about to make the argument that Bush was a raging socialist.

I'm not basing my views on what Obama's policies are, I'm going on what I've heard him say. He clearly stated about Wall Street:


hmmm...from Socialism on Wiki:



So you have the "entitlement" on Wall Street and knowing "enough is enough" and "equality for all individuals". This seems pretty clear to me.

Well, first, I don't see anything in your quotation from Obama that fits within the definition of socialism you quoted. It might be clear to you, but I'm completely missing it.

Second, the part of the definition from Wiki you're focusing on ("a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation") is, as I said earlier, so vague as to be essentially useless.

"Equality for all individuals?" "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."

"A fair or egalitarian method of compensation?" What method of compensation couldn't be described by someone as "fair?"

I know what I know about Socialism. I don't claim to know everything, but if you listen to the words coming out of Obama's mouth, he's a Socialist.

I'm sorry, Obama's a socialist because he wants to promote science and technology?

By that logic, any IT or engineering firm should be suspected of being a communist plot.

 

[Furcifer]

So wanting improved technology and more competent goverment makes you a socialist.

Does that mean the republicans say no to improved technology and competent goverment.?

By making it a platform to run an election on, then enacting policy once elected? Yes, I guess so.

In my opinion it's hard to define a Socialist. As a Canadian I never really defined myself as one, yet US Customs did so when I entered the country one time (well I wasn't directly, but the guy in front of me from Tennessee who was returning from a visit to Toronto to see his girlfriend, without a passport and only his licence, was lectured on how "That was Socialist Cananda, and this was the U S of A, he needed a passport to get into this Country"????)

Anyways, I think Obama is leading the US on a much more Socialist course. Much more so than we see here in Canada.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm probably the wrong person to pick on, as I don't see Canada as being particularly socialist, either.

lol, me neither. I'm just using it in relation to things going on in the US and here in Canada.

A "stock warrant" is not the same as a stock. It doesn't give them ownership. A stock warrant gives the Federal Reserve the right to buy up to 79.something% of AIG stock, if AIG defaults on the loan and the Fed decides to do so.
So no, the US government doesn't actually own 80% of AIG.

Ahh, see, the media, it lies and spins. So they don't actually own it, yet.

Well, first, I don't see anything in your quotation from Obama that fits within the definition of socialism you quoted. It might be clear to you, but I'm completely missing it.

Socialism is a tricky thing to put a finger on. There are certainly varying degrees. Looking at key points, harnessing technology to improve society and social organization, egalitarian method of compensation, these seem to be what he is saying in his speaches. I thouht this back in November, but thought it was just me. Recently I've heard it spoken by others. It's not just me. If you don't see it in my quotes, what do you think the others saying "Socialist" are observing to make them say this?

Second, the part of the definition from Wiki you're focusing on ("a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation") is, as I said earlier, so vague as to be essentially useless.
"A fair or egalitarian method of compensation?" What method of compensation couldn't be described by someone as "fair?"

Perhaps to you, but then again there are busloads of people showing up on AIG execs doorsteps who have clearly identified what is "not fair". Last night Obama said it was "not fair" to tax my charitable contribution at the same rate as someone making $1M a year and donating large sums. This applies not only to compensation, but taxation as well.

I'm sorry, Obama's a socialist because he wants to promote science and technology?
By that logic, any IT or engineering firm should be suspected of being a communist plot.

lol, no! He's a Socialist because he wants to promoted science and technology as a way of saving the US economy
He's pursuing it much more agressively than Bush. If we establish to extremes on one side Socialism and on the other Capitalism, I'd put Bush on the Capitalist side and Obama on the Socialist side.

Since the definition of Socialism is vague, I'm using it in relation to things I know to be Socialist. Since you pointed out you dont find Cananda very Socialist, then the US isn't either. If you consider Cananda as Socialist, then you have to consider the US as being that way as well.

 

[Cleon]

Perhaps to you, but then again there are busloads of people showing up on AIG execs doorsteps who have clearly identified what is "not fair". Last night Obama said it was "not fair" to tax my charitable contribution at the same rate as someone making $1M a year and donating large sums. This applies not only to compensation, but taxation as well.

Well...That doesn't help your case, any. In any given system of compensation there will be people saying it's fair and people saying it's not fair.

Which is why that definition of "socialism" is hopelessly vague.

lol, no! He's a Socialist because he wants to promoted science and technology as a way of saving the US economy

That still doesn't make any sense. In fact, that makes less sense... If it's a socialist concept to promote science and technology rolleyes, it doesn't matter if it's done to revive the economy or just because it's a good idea.

If Obama was focusing on tourism to revive the economy, that wouldn't make him a socialist.

If Obama was focusing on manufacturing to revive the economy, that wouldn't make him a socialist.

And just so, focusing on technology does not make him a socialist. Whether to "save the economy" or not.

He's pursuing it much more agressively than Bush.

So at what level of wanting to promote technology do you suddenly become a "socialist?"

To be 100% pure capitalist, do you have to be a complete Luddite?

If we establish to extremes on one side Socialism and on the other Capitalism, I'd put Bush on the Capitalist side and Obama on the Socialist side.

Reality is not binary. And so far I've seen nothing indicating Obama is a socialist. Promoting the use of technology--whether to save the economy or just for ****s and giggles--is not an indication of socialism. That's just silly.

Since the definition of Socialism is vague, I'm using it in relation to things I know to be Socialist. Since you pointed out you dont find Cananda very Socialist, then the US isn't either. If you consider Cananda as Socialist, then you have to consider the US as being that way as well.

I don't think the United States, Canada, Barack Obama, or George W. Bush are "socialist" in any meaningful sense of the term.

 

[Furcifer]

Well...That doesn't help your case, any. In any given system of compensation there will be people saying it's fair and people saying it's not fair.

Which is why that definition of "socialism" is hopelessly vague.

Fair enough. But that isn't the "definition" of socialism. It's just part of it. I'm not really prepared to budge on this, if the people decide enough is enough and picket on execs front door saying "Give me back my taxes you rich greedy bastard, you screwed up, you're not getting paid" I'm saying this is socialist, not capitalist. This a democratic socialism, the majority of people don't feel this is fair. Being vague on the definition means it can be applied as I see fit

That still doesn't make any sense. In fact, that makes less sense... If it's a socialist concept to promote science and technology rolleyes, it doesn't matter if it's done to revive the economy or just because it's a good idea.

lol, but it's at the roots of modern socialism. This concept was indoctrinated by the socialist viewpoint. It could have called itself "Goodideaism", but it didn't, it was Socialism.

If Obama was focusing on tourism to revive the economy, that wouldn't make him a socialist.

No, I guess that would make him a "tourismismist" I'd consider that Capitalist though. Unless the US government bought out the airlines and hotels across the country and decided to run them.

If Obama was focusing on manufacturing to revive the economy, that wouldn't make him a socialist.

And just so, focusing on technology does not make him a socialist. Whether to "save the economy" or not.

So at what level of wanting to promote technology do you suddenly become a "socialist?"

Well this is another key point. At what level. I say the level is when the President of the United States promotes it and pledges the support of his administration. When you and I do it, it's a good idea, when a leader does it it's socialism.

I don't think the United States, Canada, Barack Obama, or George W. Bush are "socialist" in any meaningful sense of the term.

At the end of the day I think we both agree on this. I won't call you a Socialist if you don't call me one. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

 

[quarky]

The U.S. is dependent on its military might for its power and wealth.
The military is hardly free-market capitalism. Its closer to a socialist organization.

 

[Cleon]

lol, but it's at the roots of modern socialism. This concept was indoctrinated by the socialist viewpoint. It could have called itself "Goodideaism", but it didn't, it was Socialism.

lol, but it isn't. There really isn't any connection between promotion of technology and socialism. It's just a silly idea.

You're basing this entire idea on something you distorted from Wikipedia:

The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organization, and many contemporary socialists share this belief.

Bolding yours.

This does not mean that promoting technology as a means to economic revitalization is indicative of socialism. It means that the early socialists supported technology, and many current socialists do as well.

The early socialists ate, drank, and breathed, too, but that doesn't mean that doing so makes you a socialist.

No, I guess that would make him a "tourismismist" I'd consider that Capitalist though. Unless the US government bought out the airlines and hotels across the country and decided to run them.

No, it would just make him a regular politician promoting tourism. Or manufacturing. Or whatever.

Well this is another key point. At what level. I say the level is when the President of the United States promotes it and pledges the support of his administration. When you and I do it, it's a good idea, when a leader does it it's socialism.

A silly idea doesn't get less silly with repetition.

There is nothing about the promotion of technology, by a private individual or a politician, that translates to "socialism."

 

[Furcifer]

lol, but it isn't. There really isn't any connection between promotion of technology and socialism. It's just a silly idea.

You're basing this entire idea on something you distorted from Wikipedia:

If it were only me. There are many others echoing this on TV and in the media. I'm sure they aren't basing this soley on his promotion of technology. As it came to light more recently I think it stems from Obama's expressed views on taxtation of the upper class, Wall Street fat cats (for lack of a better term) and their "entitlement", his over all "Main Street" approach to things, hie views on stem cell research and his promotion of technology as a way out of the mire. It's not only the latter by any means, but a culmination of things said and done over the past few months.

There is nothing about the promotion of technology, by a private individual or a politician, that translates to "socialism."

As I've said, this is in addition to the miriad of other "Social" views expressed over the last few months. You get a general sense of this.

I think in the next little while you will see him address this in an interview. When pressed, I think he will deny being a "Socialist" but admit much of what hasd been coined by or attributed to "Socialism" as the correct path for the United States of America at this time. It'll be spun as Capitalism with government responsibility and over sight for the benefit of all Americans.

 

[gnome]

The internal logic that I have heard in some places seems to go like this:

First, equate socialism with communism. Not too much of a stretch for some people who think both are a bad idea or that one leads to the other.

Second, frame every political belief around rejection of socialism/communism. Whatever it is you don't like, it's communism, helps communism, leads to communism, is a direct effort by communists to destroy our society, or is enacted by people who are stupid because they are communists, or because they don't realize they're being cleverly manipulated by communists.

So the world becomes divided into your preferred politics and communism. Therefore, anything you don't like becomes communism. Actual academic Karl-Marx communism isn't popular anymore, so all your enemies decided to destroy society in some other way, so it's the same evil gang using different tricks. But they can't wait until they take over on the ruins of our destroyed way of life and set up a Stalinist society.

You don't like the president, therefore he is a communist.

 

[Cleon]

If it were only me. There are many others echoing this on TV and in the media. I'm sure they aren't basing this soley on his promotion of technology.

Now, they're basing it solely on their need to pin Obama with a negative label. Nothing more.

As I've said, this is in addition to the miriad of other "Social" views expressed over the last few months. You get a general sense of this.

No, I don't.

It'll be spun as Capitalism with government responsibility and over sight for the benefit of all Americans.

Right, that's "spin."

 

[Darat]

The problem with the "extended" definition of "socialist" in this thread is twofold. First of all it pretty much means everyone can be labelled a socialist, rendering the word pretty useless and secondly the word is not being used by the rest of the world in this way so it does nothing but hinder communication.

 

[Furcifer]

Now, they're basing it solely on their need to pin Obama with a negative label. Nothing more.

That's your assumption however. I like the guy, I think he's doing good things. I'm just outting him as a closet Socialist

No, I don't.

lol, yes you do, you're just in denial.

Right, that's "spin."

I think it is. There's an underpinning of socialism here, I can smell it.

 

[Furcifer]

The problem with the "extended" definition of "socialist" in this thread is twofold. First of all it pretty much means everyone can be labelled a socialist, rendering the word pretty useless and secondly the word is not being used by the rest of the world in this way so it does nothing but hinder communication.

As a Canadian and having been labelled a Socialist, I am at liberty to extend said definition to Obama. If the American media is using the term as some sort of ignominy, I want an apology!

 

[Cleon]

That's your assumption however.

No assumption needed. They're throwing the label out as much as possible, without substantiation, in the hope that the label will "stick."

Ergo, it's reasonable to conclude that it's nothing more than a run-of-the-mill propaganda campaign.

I like the guy, I think he's doing good things. I'm just outting him as a closet Socialist

If by "outing" you mean "throwing out a bunch of garbage in justification of something that is refuted by reality," then yes, yes you are.

lol, yes you do, you're just in denial.

lol, you've moved on from spewing garbage to simple lying. Congrats.

I think it is.

Then you think incorrectly.

There's an underpinning of socialism here, I can smell it.

Odor, like the desire to promote technology, is not an indicator of socialism.


You fail.

 

[leftysergeant]

Actually, seeing where capitalism always gets us, I see nothing wrong with being a socialist. We need a little more tweaking of our ecconomic system to make it viable long-term. I just don't think Obama goes far enough. Too much of our commons has been privatized for recovery to be assured.

Still, he's better than the nincompoops who are selling our highways to foreign companies.

To a neocon, anyone who thinks there is such a thing as a commons is a Communist.

Neoconservatism is a learning disability.