Socialist president?

[Eviliatopia]

The "working people" can not control the means of production.

Obviously, hence why cooperatives all devolve into dictatorships.

I should have ended this post with "... through State Ownership ". My mistake, miss

[Keronians]

I'm proving it to you, right now. Just because the State owns the means of production, does not mean that the workers own the means of production.

Of course it doesn't. But that's "Public" Ownership. And therefore, not Capitalism.

The motive is not profit.

Private ownership can include state ownership.

It can include a bit of State Ownership, but the direction has to stay private, to remain capitalist. If the State owns a very big part of a corporation, and if the "boss" has become the Government's docile puppet ( Remember Krupp ), that's pure corporatism.

The motive is not profit? It can very well be.

There is no logical reason for a state-controlled firm to not have a profit motive. Again, I ask why State ownership must equal public ownership in all cases.

[Socialist States Owen]

...did you read the rest of the post?

I did. And I agree that said notion is bloody absurd.

Okay, you just had me lost for a moment there

[Eviliatopia]

The motive is not profit? It can very well be.

State Enterprises, in socialist countries, had an official motive. The common well-being, the improvment of the nations' standard of living... something very original.

But not profit in itself and of itself.

There is no logical reason for a state-controlled firm to not have a profit motive.

Ah, we're talking about a "State controlled firm", now? Corporatism? Well, indeed it has a profit motive, but it also seeks "social cohesion". At least, that's what Fascist pretended.

You probably know that, because of Good Old Francisco's doubleplusgood Corporations

Again, I ask why State ownership must equal public ownership in all cases.

That's what the State claims! The State claims to get its legitimacy from the people, even ( or should I say, especially? ) dictatorships say that. Therefore, State Enterprises are referred to as "Public Ownership". I personally, would call it Collective Ownership of the Feudal kind, but I have to make my arguments clear to other people.

Libs like me are marginalized enough, don'tcha think?

[Milks Empire]

I did. And I agree that said notion is bloody absurd.

Okay, you just had me lost for a moment there

It still needed to be said, not for your sake, but for the sake of those who still don't get it.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

As long as they remain from the "Socialist Party", nope.

You think that americans wouldn't recognize a socialist agenda?

They've lamentably failed to recognise what an actual socialist agenda is thus far, as the fact that the GOP and the Republican Party as a whole tend to call Obama a 'socialist' or a 'commie', so I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to sneak an actual socialist agenda past them. They'll be so busy hating on Obama the Commie that they won't even see it coming.

Anyway You'd have to use of extreme violence to enslave someone in an AnCap society. And that would cause your death.

That's right, I forgot, AnCapLand is a magical place where everyone is nice to each other and always does what's best for everyone, and that any attempts to do so will be stopped by Robocop.

In a real world scenario, anarchy would not end up like an episode of Barney and Friends. Unless you care to tell me about the episode where a band of gun-toting thugs kidnap Barney and put him in a roving sex caravan against his will?

Or the episode where Barney is virtually enslaved by a corporation which, the armed forces naturally having being privatised, has the power to keep him there against his will and shoot him if he tries to leave?

AnCapLand, or as the rest of us call it, DelusionStan.

[Vistulange]

The USA unfortunately won't have a socialist president, because the good old US of A drills into every citizen that "SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM IS TEH EVULZ".

Why? "..."

"They oppress you! They take your rights! They...they don't let you buy your video games and DVD's and - and - "

Never occurs to anyone that that isn't socialism/communism.

The lost sons and grandsons of Albert Einstein...

[Wamitoria]

No. Not enough support and batshit insane positions.

[Wamitoria]

The USA unfortunately won't have a socialist president, because the good old US of A drills into every citizen that "SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM IS TEH EVULZ".

Why? "..."

"They oppress you! They take your rights! They...they don't let you buy your video games and DVD's and - and - "

Never occurs to anyone that that isn't socialism/communism.

No. That is not why. It's because the socialist parties in the US are full of ideological hardliners who have stupid positions.

[Socialist EU]

Obviously, hence why cooperatives all devolve into dictatorships.

I should have ended this post with "... through State Ownership ". My mistake, miss

I see you're just beginning to find out that socialism is not nearly as black and white as you like to portray it.

"All oppressing classes stand in need of two social functions to safeguard their rule: the function of the hangman and the function of the priest. The hangman is required to quell the protests and indignation of the oppressed..." The Collapse of the Second International

It's embarrassing to see a fellow European masochistically follow an ideology that doesn't have his own interests nor liberation at heart.

The other problem is that a pure capitalism cannot exist, its pure fantasy of the utopian kind. The fact is, late capitalism needs the state to survive, the military Keynesian reforms of the WWII are what saved capitalism!

Also, a socialist president isn't really desirable unless you want a social democracy, (and I believe there is a separate thread for that anyway). An elected president, whether "socialist" or not, is in effect, an elected monarch, which is why socialists advocate a collective leadership.

Libs (as in Libertarian/liberal) like me are marginalized enough, don'tcha think?

Ah, I see, so you're not an AnCap then? Btw, you're actually marginalising yourself, see above.

[Ordo Drakul]

We've had several presidents who were either socialists or certainly leaned that way-any Democrat of the twentieth century fits the bill adequately.

...No. We've been over this.

And You still aren't tired of being wrong?

[Wamitoria]

...No. We've been over this.

And You still aren't tired of being wrong?

No, you're the wrong one. Not a single American president has ever been a socialist.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

...No. We've been over this.

And You still aren't tired of being wrong?

Name one. Go on, I need to laugh this evening. Name ONE socialist president of the United States. Just one. Bearing in mind that socialism is a socioeconomic system based around workers' control of the means of production.

[Genivaria]

Vote for me and you might get one.

[Milks Empire]

...No. We've been over this.

And You still aren't tired of being wrong?

As TFST has said, I have said, and others have said, there has not been one US president in history who has ever advocated for direct worker control over the means of production. Therefore, the appropriate question is this: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

And You still aren't tired of being wrong?

As OtFST has said, I have said, and others have said, there has not been one US president in history who has ever advocated for direct worker control over the means of production. Therefore, the appropriate question is this: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Please, call me TFST if you want to abbreviate (I know it's easier) - the O is a highly unfortunate typo from the nation's formation. And we all know he's wrong, I'm just waiting for his response.

[Milks Empire]

Please, call me TFST if you want to abbreviate (I know it's easier) - the O is a highly unfortunate typo from the nation's formation. And we all know he's wrong, I'm just waiting for his response.

Oops...

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Please, call me TFST if you want to abbreviate (I know it's easier) - the O is a highly unfortunate typo from the nation's formation. And we all know he's wrong, I'm just waiting for his response.

Oops...

The oops is all mine for making a nation at 10pm at night, without noticing the two "Of"s then going to bed.

[Milks Empire]

Oops...

The oops is all mine for making a nation at 10pm at night, without noticing the two "Of"s then going to bed.

Oh late night shenanigans.

[Death Metal]

Only insane people can enslave others. Slave owners are thieves, mentally ill killers, and rapists.

And yet, you fail to explain how these people cannot exist in an AnCap society, or how they would be prevented from banding together to seize what they want while gunning down everyone who resists (and some who don't, because they're sociopaths and thus don't give a fuck).

This is because, as history shows, this is what will happen.

The BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME of an AnCap society is a return to feudal serfdorm. Your more likely outcomes are less in line with pre-Magna Carta society and more in line with Somalia and North Korea. Only unlike North Korea, it wouldn't be Dear Leader, it'd be Dear CEO you would be starving to death for the prosperity of.

Of course, it's also possible that someone could take all the mentally ill to a large building where they cannot escape from, and are never heard from again. But after oddly colored smoke billows from their smokestacks... who will the proprietors of the building come for next?

"Work will set you free"- A fitting slogan for the AnCap mindset.

[Ordo Drakul]

And You still aren't tired of being wrong?

As TFST has said, I have said, and others have said, there has not been one US president in history who has ever advocated for direct worker control over the means of production. Therefore, the appropriate question is this: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Woodrow Wilson-started American socialism under his "progressive" policies
FDR-commandeered the private sector during the Great Depression, compounding it with his socialist policies
LBJ-the "Great Society" was a socialist pill for an illness no one had
Clinton-attempted the usurpation of 1/8th the US economy in the guise of his socialist health care scheme
Obama-passed his own health care scheme, stacked his administration with tired old sixties socialist radicals.
Those five prove that not ONE president has had socialist tendancies, but all of them are socialists who moved the country incrementally towards socialism.

[Milks Empire]

As TFST has said, I have said, and others have said, there has not been one US president in history who has ever advocated for direct worker control over the means of production. Therefore, the appropriate question is this: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Woodrow Wilson-started American socialism under his "progressive" policies
FDR-commandeered the private sector during the Great Depression, compounding it with his socialist policies
LBJ-the "Great Society" was a socialist pill for an illness no one had
Clinton-attempted the usurpation of 1/8th the US economy in the guise of his socialist health care scheme
Obama-passed his own health care scheme, stacked his administration with tired old sixties socialist radicals.
Those five prove that not ONE president has had socialist tendancies, but all of them are socialists who moved the country incrementally towards socialism.

None of those put the means of production into the hands of working people. They are therefore NOT socialism. You lose.

[Wamitoria]

As TFST has said, I have said, and others have said, there has not been one US president in history who has ever advocated for direct worker control over the means of production. Therefore, the appropriate question is this: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Woodrow Wilson-started American socialism under his "progressive" policies
FDR-commandeered the private sector during the Great Depression, compounding it with his socialist policies
LBJ-the "Great Society" was a socialist pill for an illness no one had
Clinton-attempted the usurpation of 1/8th the US economy in the guise of his socialist health care scheme
Obama-passed his own health care scheme, stacked his administration with tired old sixties socialist radicals.
Those five prove that not ONE president has had socialist tendancies, but all of them are socialists who moved the country incrementally towards socialism.

Lol

Honestly dude, I don't know what you're talking about.

[Blakk Metal]

But of course we've already got a socialist president! Just ask the Tea Party. They'll tell ya how they oppose the president because he's a socialist, and they'll tell you how unfair it is that there's a Socialist History Month in February, that the Socialist Panthers blocked the polls in Philadelphia or some place, and how much they loved the movies "School of Rock" and "Nacho Libre", starring the hilarious, chubby comedian, Jack Socialist. And their favorite song is "Paranoid", by the band Socialist Sabbath.

I'll try to sigg that.

[Mike the Progressive]

No. Americans are frankly unable to understand socialism, and a socialist president is impossible while a certain political party has given the very word a pejorative meaning.

It's not that at all. It's America and the world does not want socialism. They don't. They want capitalism, they may want different degrees of it, but they want property rights, they want free trade and free movement, they want the option between union membership or not. Socialism is dead, except in Cuba and North Korea. Both of which are trying to shed it off anyway.

So no, because the socialist party in the US is still stuck in the 1880s-1910s and fighting a battle that has already been lost.