Socialist president?

[Gydoben]

In the world of man, man is the means of production, not factories not hammers and nails these do not build independently of people.

If your mental blocks don't stop it from reaching you think what that means.

[Coccygia]

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.

If only I had the time to count all the folks in this thread that think Liberal=Socialist=Communist. But I'd probably need to use scientific notation.

Absolutely it could happen. Democrats and Republicans have been elected, and they are pretty much socialists. Maybe Socialists Lite (tm).

Republican=Socialist. Nice twist.

[Mike the Progressive]

In the world of man, man is the means of production, not factories not hammers and nails these do not build independently of people.

If your mental blocks don't stop it from reaching you think what that means.

And guess what factories are full of and who they are run by? Men. Some who physically put goods together, some who manage, some who clean the floors and some who sell the product through marketing.

So what's your point, again?

[Mike the Progressive]

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.

If only I had the time to count all the folks in this thread that think Liberal=Socialist=Communist. But I'd probably need to use scientific notation.

Ah, and if only I could count the times people think I hold the false opinion that socialism=communism, which I don't, which I never said. But thumbs up and thanks for trying!

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Anymore socialist than Obama and USA would be in no better state than N. Korea

[Mike the Progressive]

Anymore socialist than Obama and USA would be in no better state than N. Korea

Obama is not a socialist. He's a capitalist who believes in public programs, so do the Republicans. He's no more socialist than any of the Nordic countries are.

[Coccygia]

Anymore socialist than Obama and USA would be in no better state than N. Korea

Yep, scientific notation for sure, at this rate.

[Milks Empire]

Anymore socialist than Obama and USA would be in no better state than N. Korea

Yep, scientific notation for sure, at this rate.

It's almost 5:00 here; wanna go get drunk?

[Coccygia]

If only I had the time to count all the folks in this thread that think Liberal=Socialist=Communist. But I'd probably need to use scientific notation.

Ah, and if only I could count the times people think I hold the false opinion that socialism=communism, which I don't, which I never said. But thumbs up and thanks for trying!

If you don't think it stop saying it. It's very confusing.

[Mike the Progressive]

Ah, and if only I could count the times people think I hold the false opinion that socialism=communism, which I don't, which I never said. But thumbs up and thanks for trying!

If you don't think it stop saying it. It's very confusing.

When did I say it?

[Venus Orange]

There will never be a socialist president. America will skip straight from capitalism to communism as a gigantic "fuck you" to Marx and his theories.

I could easily see the USA going from Capitalism to Fascism. We have all of the precursors pretty well in place: vehement hatred of minorities, suppression of political viewpoints that deviate from the norm, various personal liberty suspending laws, ... I'm sure everyone's heard it time and time again. I think the USA is already the worst example of a Capitalist society.

I could see the US go around Fascism and go straight to Communism, but only if the revolutionary spirit increases by leftists, and a leftward sociopolitical trend continues. Occupy may have been pretty useless, but it did change a decent amount of things. Political figures adopted some Occupy rhetoric, minority parties and alternative political systems gained a boost (the first non-Ayn Rand movement in a while)... I highly doubt the US would be so easily persuaded into Communism or Socialism, but Fascism seems right around the corner. There's hope to avoid that, but not much, and who is to say Communism would necessarily be better? Our government is really good at fucking things up, we may not have our own Stalin, but it's not like having our own Khrushchev, Brezhnev, or Gorbachev would do us much good. (In fact, pretty sure all of those characters would be negatives.)

Unrelated: I think Stalin was the best and worst leader the USSR had. The policies of Khrushchev allowed for continued dilution of the USSR's political system. An Israeli famously predicted that in 35 years from the Khrushchev era, the Soviet Union would cease to be. He turned out to be about five years off. Stalin eliminated a lot of people but he also turned the USSR into a powerhouse of a state. Props there.

[Konzekwenzia]

Vote for me and you might get one.

"Third Way Social Democrat"

Tony Blair wasn't a socialist, and neither are you.

[Wamitoria]

I could easily see the USA going from Capitalism to Fascism.

Nah. We could easily slide into authoritarianism, but Fascism is pretty much limited to the '30s in terms of it's ability to garner actual support.

We have all of the precursors pretty well in place: vehement hatred of minorities, suppression of political viewpoints that deviate from the norm, various personal liberty suspending laws

You realize that all three of those have been much, much worse in the past right? Alien and Sedition Acts, Jim Crow, Espionage Act, etc.

[Mike the Progressive]

There will never be a socialist president. America will skip straight from capitalism to communism as a gigantic "fuck you" to Marx and his theories.

I could easily see the USA going from Capitalism to Fascism. We have all of the precursors pretty well in place: vehement hatred of minorities, suppression of political viewpoints that deviate from the norm, various personal liberty suspending laws, ... I'm sure everyone's heard it time and time again. I think the USA is already the worst example of a Capitalist society.

I could see the US go around Fascism and go straight to Communism, but only if the revolutionary spirit increases by leftists, and a leftward sociopolitical trend continues. Occupy may have been pretty useless, but it did change a decent amount of things. Political figures adopted some Occupy rhetoric, minority parties and alternative political systems gained a boost (the first non-Ayn Rand movement in a while)... I highly doubt the US would be so easily persuaded into Communism or Socialism, but Fascism seems right around the corner. There's hope to avoid that, but not much, and who is to say Communism would necessarily be better? Our government is really good at fucking things up, we may not have our own Stalin, but it's not like having our own Khrushchev, Brezhnev, or Gorbachev would do us much good. (In fact, pretty sure all of those characters would be negatives.)

Unrelated: I think Stalin was the best and worst leader the USSR had. The policies of Khrushchev allowed for continued dilution of the USSR's political system. An Israeli famously predicted that in 35 years from the Khrushchev era, the Soviet Union would cease to be. He turned out to be about five years off. Stalin eliminated a lot of people but he also turned the USSR into a powerhouse of a state. Props there.

What?

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Anymore socialist than Obama and USA would be in no better state than N. Korea

Obama is not a socialist. He's a capitalist who believes in public programs, so do the Republicans. He's no more socialist than any of the Nordic countries are.

No TRUE capitalist harbors faith in public programs.

[Meryuma]

Obama is not a socialist. He's a capitalist who believes in public programs, so do the Republicans. He's no more socialist than any of the Nordic countries are.

No TRUE capitalist harbors faith in public programs.

That could literally be a textbook example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

[Blakk Metal]

Obama is not a socialist. He's a capitalist who believes in public programs, so do the Republicans. He's no more socialist than any of the Nordic countries are.

No TRVE KVLT capitalist harbors faith in public programs Jesus.

[Socialist EU]

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.

Firstly, North Korea has never been socialist,(a kind of hybrid Confucian, bureaucratic socialism) and Cuba was and is bureaucratic and only ever been mildly socialist.
Yep, Mike, you're a huge expert on socialism.
Secondly, who wants capitalism? The people losing their homes in the US?

http://occupyforeclosure.org/
http://www.occupyourhomes.org/

[Blakk Metal]

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.

Firstly, North Korea has never been socialist,(a kind of hybrid Confucian, bureaucratic socialism) and Cuba was and is bureaucratic and only ever been mildly socialist.
Yep, Mike, you're a huge expert on socialism.
Secondly, who wants capitalism? The people losing their homes in the US?

http://occupyforeclosure.org/
http://www.occupyourhomes.org/

1. Look at the underlined
2. Socialism still eliminates property rights and free trade.

[Meryuma]

Firstly, North Korea has never been socialist,(a kind of hybrid Confucian, bureaucratic socialism) and Cuba was and is bureaucratic and only ever been mildly socialist.
Yep, Mike, you're a huge expert on socialism.
Secondly, who wants capitalism? The people losing their homes in the US?

http://occupyforeclosure.org/
http://www.occupyourhomes.org/

1. Look at the underlined
2. Socialism still eliminates property rights and free trade.

Have you ever heard of mutualism?

[Coccygia]

If you don't think it stop saying it. It's very confusing.

When did I say it?

Socialism is dead, except in Cuba and North Korea.

It's probably statements like this that have me so "confused".

[Socialist EU]

Firstly, North Korea has never been socialist,(a kind of hybrid Confucian, bureaucratic socialism) and Cuba was and is bureaucratic and only ever been mildly socialist.
Yep, Mike, you're a huge expert on socialism.
Secondly, who wants capitalism? The people losing their homes in the US?

http://occupyforeclosure.org/
http://www.occupyourhomes.org/

1. Look at the underlined
2. Socialism still eliminates property rights and free trade.

Where's your point?

The first point, if you read my post says, Cuba was and is in other words it is bureaucratic...and only ever been mildly socialist , ever been = meaning in the past. On North Korea, I think you're wrong, the US,Russia, S.Korea and Japan have no interest in seeing the current N.K. regime collapse.

[New Matawan]

Closest we've ever gotten to a Socialist president.

[Venus Orange]

I could easily see the USA going from Capitalism to Fascism.

Nah. We could easily slide into authoritarianism, but Fascism is pretty much limited to the '30s in terms of it's ability to garner actual support.

We have all of the precursors pretty well in place: vehement hatred of minorities, suppression of political viewpoints that deviate from the norm, various personal liberty suspending laws

You realize that all three of those have been much, much worse in the past right? Alien and Sedition Acts, Jim Crow, Espionage Act, etc.

I'll make note since that seems a common point of contention that to me, Fascism of a hundred years ago seemed to be nationalistic/authoritarian right having major power. So, easily slide into authoritarianism is a lot more accurate than "actual" Fascism. Nationalist/patriotic authoritarianism is a lot like Fascism of yore.

As to the second point, I can concede that yes, things have been much worse than they are now.

In 1945, though, the income tax on the top earners was 94%... even at the worst of times, it seemed to have been a bunch of government asshats restricting freedoms. Now it seems the corporations and the wealthy are the ones buying government and creating their own system. We seem only granted the freedoms they wish. To me, corporate control is much worse than bureaucratic control. (Although a good bit of former discrimination wasn't done by soulless bureaucrats...)

[Wamitoria]

(Image)

Closest we've ever gotten to a Socialist president.

And even then, he was a social democrat.

Nationalist/patriotic authoritarianism is a lot like Fascism of yore.

That's the problem, it really isn't. Fascism takes power quickly, and is totalitarian. The sort of authoritarianism that appears to be cropping up in the west (actually, it isn't in the US) it a gradual process.