Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Is Obama a Socialist?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darth Marley wrote:
mdeininger wrote:
while I do highly doubt he is, remind me, why would it be bad if Obama were a socialist?


It would be bad, because it would mean he is an idiot.
It would mean that someone with no understanding of economics is at the helm.

I love the counter-arguments so far though;

He isn't a socialist.
You don't know what socialist means.
There is nothing wrong with being a socialist.
And Bush was a socialist too!


and the argument for: he just is, in spite of not fitting most of the criteria of being a socialist! The meagre evidence for this is a speech years ago which says he favours redistribution of wealth (a socialist ideal in its extreme form. not nearly attained by having a 35% tax bracket), a bank bailout (oh how the socialists love that!) and a GM takeover (che written all over that one!), which was subsequently sold back to private hands.

obamacare? you can see the deft hand of castro behind that one! how could obama hide it! (Romney care isn't much different, but that is another story).

if he is a socialist, the workers should run. I think y'all need to visit a library, take out the encyclopedia and read about socialism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darth Marley
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
Darth Marley wrote:
mdeininger wrote:
while I do highly doubt he is, remind me, why would it be bad if Obama were a socialist?


It would be bad, because it would mean he is an idiot.
It would mean that someone with no understanding of economics is at the helm.

I love the counter-arguments so far though;

He isn't a socialist.
You don't know what socialist means.
There is nothing wrong with being a socialist.
And Bush was a socialist too!


and the argument for: he just is, in spite of not fitting most of the criteria of being a socialist! The meagre evidence for this is a speech years ago which says he favours redistribution of wealth (a socialist ideal in its extreme form. not nearly attained by having a 35% tax bracket), a bank bailout (oh how the socialists love that!) and a GM takeover (che written all over that one!), which was subsequently sold back to private hands.

obamacare? you can see the deft hand of castro behind that one! how could obama hide it! (Romney care isn't much different, but that is another story).

if he is a socialist, the workers should run. I think y'all need to visit a library, take out the encyclopedia and read about socialism.


Quibble about the definition of socialism all you like.
If you looked at the organizations Obama has allied with, it tells a different story.
If you read his autobiography, a tilt to socialism is clear.

Is he ideologically a pure socialist? No.
Do his policies tilt towards the socialist agenda? Yes.

Thankfully, Obama has not been more radical in pursuit of those policy goals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darth Marley wrote:

Quibble about the definition of socialism all you like.
If you looked at the organizations Obama has allied with, it tells a different story.
If you read his autobiography, a tilt to socialism is clear.

Is he ideologically a pure socialist? No.
Do his policies tilt towards the socialist agenda? Yes.

Thankfully, Obama has not been more radical in pursuit of those policy goals.


quibble? tilt?

here is my criteria for being a socialist, and feel free to point out where I am wrong. As president, you would need to nationalise huge swathes of the economy. Say a few entire industries. You would do that to put the "means of production" into the hands of the workers, not to restructure companies' debts and sell the companies back to the private sector. Further, to qualify as a socialist, you wouldn't copy your republican opponent's health care plan (surely, Mitt Romney is NOT a socialist, or is he? you never know with this crowd) and try to institute that nationally. Oh, I have actually read the communist manifesto, nowhere does it say that bank bailouts put the red on your shirts.

The former I mention are cues from socialists who took power. Castro and Chavez. Castro is a commie, he nationalised the whole economy, chavez is a socialist.

Compare my criteria for being a socialist to the right wingers here: he made a speech about redistribution in 1999. Nice.

he is more socialist than Romney, but that isn't very meaningful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The political nous of the average American can be painful to experience. Capitalism is inherently destructive of resources, environments, and societies and it cannot exist without periodic socialist interventions, like the governors on a machine which would otherwise keep accelerating until it tore itself apart.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
Muso wrote:
anyNiXwilldo wrote:
juniper wrote:

then you don't know what a socialist is.


BINGO! When has O ever suggested that workers own the means of production? NEVER!


O'RLY?

Quote:
The AWU's, (UAW), received a 17% ownership stake in GM, (65% in Chrysler), in lieu of the money GM owed for union health and pension commitments. At the time this equated to about 40 cents on the dollar, but in reality stock shares could be sold at levels that would not only make the health and pension funds whole - but possibly generate a profit. *Note: Unions made an initial stock sale, (a portion of their shares), right after the IPO, at a rate that generated a $4 billion profit to the funds


great example :roll:

according to that article Bush is also a socialist as he started the bailout procedure.


Bush didn't hand ownership of Chrysler over to the UAW, that was Obama. And I used it as an example because it directly contradicted anyNiXwilldo's false claim.
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
Bush didn't hand ownership of Chrysler over to the UAW, that was Obama. And I used it as an example because it directly contradicted anyNiXwilldo's false claim.


Obama did it to protect the interests of the Bourgeois. This is fundamentally an issue of class stuggle. It had nothing to do with protecting the workers.

Quote:
It is now clear that the central issue in the debate over whether to extend a bailout to the US auto industry is the destruction of the conditions of auto workers. Whether it takes the form of a government loan or the bankruptcy of one or more of Detroit's Big Three carmakers, the aim is to create conditions which will rip up existing labor agreements and drive auto workers back to conditions of poverty and ruthless exploitation which existed prior to the industrial battles that built the United Auto Workers union in the 1930s.

...............

The fact that the state has been forced to intervene in the economy is an implicit acknowledgement of the failure of the capitalist system. The bailouts organized by the two big business parties, however, have nothing to do with protecting the interests of ordinary working people. On the contrary, they are a massive theft of taxpayer money to secure the interests and private fortunes of the capitalist class, which is responsible for the economic disaster


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n17.shtml
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:

Bush didn't hand ownership of Chrysler over to the UAW, that was Obama. And I used it as an example because it directly contradicted anyNiXwilldo's false claim.


I didn't say bush did, just that he was guilty of similar things.

What you say about the admin and UAW are bad, I agree. You have a party whose balls are held by unions; surely you aren't surprised in your money driven elections. That still doesn't make him a socialist though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

authoritarian, probably not a socialist, and definitely not a liberal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
The political nous of the average American can be painful to experience. Capitalism is inherently destructive of resources, environments, and societies and it cannot exist without periodic socialist interventions, like the governors on a machine which would otherwise keep accelerating until it tore itself apart.

This is a fair statement, although I wouldn't say "periodic interventions"; I'd say "limited concessions, or reforms". It's also true of economic collectivism (i.e., socialism, marxism, communism, etc.). It cannot exist without capitalist concessions or reforms. Both extremes are doomed to failure.

But that's not really of much interest, because only idiots and academics argue for extreme positions. The problem is that both systems, and the tug-of-war between them, drive an inexorable descent into authoritarianism and deprivation of the individual.

Take your pick: George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four, or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. I'd rather avoid both, while you're unwittingly devoting all your energy to arguing for the former over the latter.
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
authoritarian, probably not a socialist, and definitely not a liberal.

Anybody watched Dreams From My Real Father?
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Take your pick: George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four, or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. I'd rather avoid both, while you're unwittingly devoting all your energy to arguing for the former over the latter.


What I would argue for is a kind of capitalism where power and ownership are widely spread in lots of small shares rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. That would prevent privileged elites from manipulating the economic and political environment to help themselves and hurt everyone else. We'd all be part of the elite, inasmuch as there would be any elite at all. We'd all be stakeholders - and free to improve our stakes through individual effort.

The only way to achieve that is by redistributing resources equally when the original owner no longer has any use for them (on account of being dead).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Take your pick: George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four, or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. I'd rather avoid both, while you're unwittingly devoting all your energy to arguing for the former over the latter.


What I would argue for is a kind of capitalism where power and ownership are widely spread in lots of small shares rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. That would prevent privileged elites from manipulating the economic and political environment to help themselves and hurt everyone else. We'd all be part of the elite, inasmuch as there would be any elite at all. We'd all be stakeholders - and free to improve our stakes through individual effort.

The only way to achieve that is by redistributing resources equally when the original owner no longer has any use for them (on account of being dead).

It's a matter of degrees. Your description seems absolutist and describes extreme economic egalitarianism. I think more of a balance is necessary.

While some degree of economic egalitarianism is desirable, to prevent excessive concentration of resources and deprivation, absolute egalitarianism is contrary to human nature, destroying "liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and the creative economic fire it engenders, to such a degree as to render everyone into a vast herd of miserable drones sharing equally in deprivation, the likes of which Nineteen Eighty Four portrayed very well (and which history provides us ample examples of).

Furthermore, economics is not the only dimension of reality. Economic authoritarianism, whether it comes in the form of unfettered socialism or corporatism, relies upon social authoritarianism as its mechanism. One leads to the other, and we find our behavior and even what we think and believe being controlled. We see this throughout history, and it's on the increase right now.

One leads to the other. So we need a careful balance of wealth-generating capitalism and equality-maintaining socialism, along with specific protections of human freedom at the individual level.

Those who argue for one extreme or the other are either populist demagogues seeking to manipulate the ignorant, or they are the ignorant themselves, being manipulated.
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16104
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Split off and merged batshit crazy partisan commie, because, well, everyone knows that was inappropriate.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum