Socialist president?

[Eviliatopia]

Yup, just look at Reagan. He sure was a crypto-commie.

Sure he was, he used to be a Democrat and he was known as "progressive" when he was young. Then, he joined the Evil, RED Republicans.

And on top of this, he got NeoCon supports. NeoCon thinkers are all former marxists.

Reagan was a Goddamn Communist.

[Risottia]

Yup, just look at Reagan. He sure was a crypto-commie.

Sure he was, he used to be a Democrat and he was known as "progressive" when he was young. Then, he joined the Evil, RED Republicans.

And on top of this, he got NeoCon supports. And NeoCon thinkers are all former marxists.

Reagan was a Goddamn Communist.

Exactly. Let's start a campaign for the Damnation Memoriae of Reagan! That evil commie CHEATED the God-fearing American Silent Majority!

[Eviliatopia]

Exactly. Let's start a campaign for the Damnation Memoriae of Reagan! That evil commie CHEATED the God-fearing American Silent Majority!

Methinks that he sold weapons to murderous fascists in order to make the USSR look good. And the Star Wars program was aimed at killing the credibility of the God-blessed nation we vulgarily call America ( epic success, btw). What a traitor...

[Risottia]

Exactly. Let's start a campaign for the Damnation Memoriae of Reagan! That evil commie CHEATED the God-fearing American Silent Majority!

Methinks that he sold weapons to murderous fascists in order to make the USSR look good. ...

Nah, he merely wanted the Capital of Bolshevism to be moved from Moscow to Washington. He hated the Russians and the Cubans for living in a more socialist society than America - that's why Reagan pushed up the US governmental debt, to ruin the future of the US workers so that they'd push for a revolution.
But the sheeple kept their head down...

[Svalbar]

No, we have a European one.

Yet your governments can still prevent the publishing and sale of videogames that you deem offensive.

Would not videogames in usa be banned because of like us flag burnings in the game.

[Souseiseki]

Socialism is shit, and has failed in every country it was implemented.

i dunno man. if i started kill every leader that was half decent and trying to destroy any country of another ideology things would look pretty bad for them too.

tell me about the failures of burkina faso

e: b-b-b-b-b-but X wasn't a REAL privatization free market socialist country

[The Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church]

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

This post doesn't make sense. Both parties are strongly right wing and anti-democratic. Neither of those two ideologies are compatible with socialism.

[Eviliatopia]

e: b-b-b-b-b-but X wasn't a REAL privatization free market socialist country

I agree with everything you said before. Point is that, actually socialist leaders have existed, did a terrible job at governing their countries, comitted a lot of atrocities and destroyed economies and livelihoods... But still, they raised a great consensus among the Socialist Internationale.

You should give me examples of Libertarian Dictators ( lolol ) and AnCap "Great Leaders" of the kind DM suggested recently.

This is gonna be fun.

[Socialist EU]

Socialism 'Official communism'/"Stalinism" is shit, and has failed in every country it was implemented. Cooperatives, under a Capitalist Market, have nothing to do with Socialism, they are just free associations of voluntary workers. Incidentally, that's called Mutualism within the market.

I can understand why you'd think that, there are historical reasons why 1917 turned out the way it did, it failed to become international, that's a key point, this is the lesson, there is no such thing as 'socialism in one country'.
Your second point is correct, but there's no reason for socialists to oppose co-ops, in fact we would support co-ops.

Because the Capitalist Western World is currently dominated by evil christian oppressors and by fascist coppers who routinely shoot protestors on sight?

Strawman fail, you know I never said that and neither did Lenin, although times were more oppressive, (relatively speaking) during his period.

[Eviliatopia]

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

This post doesn't make sense. Both parties are strongly right wing and anti-democratic. Neither of those two ideologies are compatible with socialism.

He was being overly dramatic, and he should have used the word Statist. However, the political clique that is currently dominating american politics, NeoConservatives, have socialist ideological backgrounds. They have a strong belief in State Interventionism, although not in a way that could suit socialists nor social democrats.

[Socialist EU]

e: b-b-b-b-b-but X wasn't a REAL privatization free market socialist country

I agree with everything you said before. Point is that, actually socialist Stalinist leaders have existed, did a terrible job at governing their countries, comitted a lot of atrocities and destroyed economies and livelihoods... But still, they raised a great consensus among the Socialist Internationale.

You should give me examples of Libertarian Dictators ( lolol ) and AnCap "Great Leaders" of the kind DM suggested recently.

This is gonna be fun.

Fixed, and yes it will, because by definition there never will be such leaders, besides which, Ancaps have yet to articulate what they mean by Libertarian capitalism, Evil, just admit that you're a classical liberal, and you'll have a much easier time explaining your ideology.

[Socialist EU]

This post doesn't make sense. Both parties are strongly right wing and anti-democratic. Neither of those two ideologies are compatible with socialism.

He was being overly dramatic, and he should have used the word Statist. However, the political clique that is currently dominating american politics, NeoConservatives, have socialist ideological backgrounds. They have a strong belief in State Interventionism, although not in a way that could suit socialists nor social democrats.

Source?

[Eviliatopia]

I can understand why you'd think that, there are historical reasons why 1917 turned out the way it did, it failed to become international

Thankfully, because the spread of Leninist Socialism would have led to catastrophic results all across the world. If the Mensheviks had won, though, I can imagine that Russia would have become a mixed-economy nation, with a big welfare State, very much like Germany.

that's a key point, this is the lesson, there is no such thing as 'socialism in one country'.

Whoa, whoa! This is a strong source of disagreement among Socialists. Nice to see that you're on the good side of the fence, though.

Your second point is correct, but there's no reason for socialists to oppose co-ops, in fact we would support co-ops.

There is indeed nothing wrong with Mutualism. We call that Free Market Socialism. When the USSR started to collapse slowly, the legalization of free cooperatives, to replace the tired old State enterprises, allowed the workers to reach a much higher level of personal freedom.

[Laissez-Faire]

He was being overly dramatic, and he should have used the word Statist. However, the political clique that is currently dominating american politics, NeoConservatives, have socialist ideological backgrounds. They have a strong belief in State Interventionism, although not in a way that could suit socialists nor social democrats.

Source?

Bailouts, Individual Mandates, and a whole variety of other pet projects have been objects of the Bush-era Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

(I should also add that these items have been part of, at the least, the economics of government involvement, and at most, Keynesian economics)

[Eviliatopia]

Source?

here

Intellectually, neoconservatives have been strongly influenced by a diverse range of thinkers from Max Shachtman's strongly anti- Soviet version of Trotskyism* (in the area of international policy) to the elitist, ostensibly neo- Platonic** ideas of Leo Strauss.

[Socialist EU]

I can understand why you'd think that, there are historical reasons why 1917 turned out the way it did, it failed to become international

Thankfully, because the spread of Leninist Socialism would have led to catastrophic results all across the world. If the Mensheviks had won, though, I can imagine that Russia would have become a mixed-economy nation, with a big welfare State, very much like Germany.

that's a key point, this is the lesson, there is no such thing as 'socialism in one country'.

Whoa, whoa! This is a strong source of disagreement among Socialists. Nice to see that you're on the good side of the fence, though.

At least we agree on something then, I do find the left-nationalists annoying, and I consider it healthy for socialists to openly disagree with each other, both myself and a Scottish comrade were annoyed at the constant strict 'party line' being spouted out at the Marxism 2012 sales pitch. The older comrades of this 'festival' prey on the conformist young.

[Eviliatopia]

Fixed, and yes it will, because by definition there never will be such leaders

So, you reject "State Socialism" and all its historical outcomes as truly socialist?

Ancaps have yet to articulate what they mean by Libertarian capitalism

A strictly private form of Capitalism that can not co-exist with interventionism and favoritism, nor with collectivist goals of any kind.

Evil, just admit that you're a classical liberal, and you'll have a much easier time explaining your ideology.

No, I am a fully blown anarchist. I push individualism to its logical conclusion: the rejection of any monopoly of force and coercion over a given territory, in more simple words, I do not trust Governments. I believe, unlike Classical Liberals, that the State has no legitimacy, and is nothing more than an association of criminals and thieves ( as Lysander Spooner said ) that dishonestly claims to answer to the people.

[Socialist EU]

Source?

Bailouts, Individual Mandates, and a whole variety of other pet projects have been objects of the Bush-era Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

(I should also add that these items have been part of, at the least, the economics of government involvement, and at most, Keynesian economics)

Yes, of course what you said proves nothing about their so-called 'socialist backgrounds', nice try.
left-Keynesian =/= Socialism,(international socialism)
Left-Keynesian = left-nationalist

[Der Landstreicher]

that's called Mutualism within the market.

Mutualism is a form of socialism.

[Capitalist Running Dogs]

I was looking around in the socialist party of America's track recorded and got to thinking "could one of are guys actually win a presidential election?"

I thought this would make good conversation amoung my fellow NSers so I'm putting this thread out. Personally I don't think it will happen so or if it does the person will probably not be affiliated with the socialist party.

Already been done. Obama. All it took was no one in the media to question his background and politics. But hey, he kinda wrote two books about his fantasy life so he was cool.

But now he is tending towards Fascism which is what happens to most Socialists who gain power.

[Der Landstreicher]

I was looking around in the socialist party of America's track recorded and got to thinking "could one of are guys actually win a presidential election?"

I thought this would make good conversation amoung my fellow NSers so I'm putting this thread out. Personally I don't think it will happen so or if it does the person will probably not be affiliated with the socialist party.

Already been done. Obama. All it took was no one in the media to question his background and politics. But hey, he kinda wrote two books about his fantasy life so he was cool.

But now he is tending towards Fascism which is what happens to most Socialists who gain power.

Socialism ='s worker ownership of the means of production.
Do we have that? No you say? Then we don't have socialism, no matter what Glenn Beck or Fox News tells you.

[Ordo Drakul]

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.

No socialist has EVER put the means of the production into anyone's hands but their own.

[Der Landstreicher]

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

No socialist has EVER put the means of the production into anyone's hands but their own.

Socialism doesn't require a political official do such.

[Frinskalland]

Perhaps, once.

[Eviliatopia]

Mutualism is a form of socialism.

But requires a market economy.