Socialist president?

[Der Landstreicher]

Mutualism is a form of socialism.

But requires a market economy.

Whether something has a market or not is irrelevant to whether it's socialism.

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.

If there's capitalism then there is not mutualism.

[Capitalist Running Dogs]

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.

I didn't say we had socialism. I said Obama is a Socialist following the path to Fascism. Please read first.

Oh, and DING! You win with the Beck and Faux News reference. That one always stings and totally validates your point on what I didn't say.

[The United Kingdom of Atlantium]

I don't think we will elect a direct Socialist President anytime soon. However, this country is more Fascist with the GOP policies and tactics that are engaged in the country. It reminds me of some of the History Chanel documentaries on Nazi Germany except the GOP goes after the poor, middle class and gays like the Nazi's did the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and Gays. Also, not to mention the uncanny similarities of the Nazi mysticism to the protestant religious fanatics who live a religious philosophy an think everyone should be force to believe the same way. Sometimes I wonder about the only difference with the religious fanatics of the GOP and the Taliban is one under takes violence the other political media bulling. In addition the perpetuation of a class society much like the one portrayed in the movie Titanic, where there is super rich and the poor, with the poor living from the scraps of the rich. So long as a biased Fascist News Corporation, opps! I mean Fox News Corporation blasting one sided views and pushing a party lead agenda. No it wont happen until America can think for themselves and stopping believing that each one is gonna live in a tax free, small government, all guaranteed human right utopia.

[Der Landstreicher]

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.

I didn't say we had socialism. I said Obama is a Socialist following the path to Fascism. Please read first.

Oh, and DING! You win with the Beck and Faux News reference. That one always stings and totally validates your point on what I didn't say.

If he was a socialist he would be supporting what I said, same principle.
He doesn't, therefor not a socialist.

[Eviliatopia]

Whether something has a market or not is irrelevant to whether it's socialism.

Agreed, but that proves that this form of socialism can co-exist with capitalism, under a free market.
Which makes it, therefore, the only decent form of socialism, because it suits with Voluntaryist ideals. No one is coerced in any way.

If there's capitalism then there is not mutualism.

A market can include private enterprises and associations of the mutualist kind. The two are not self-exclusive.

[Der Landstreicher]

Agreed, but that proves that this form of socialism can co-exist with capitalism, under a free market.

You can have coops, and that is socialism, but that doesn't make it mutualism.

A market can include private enterprises and associations of the mutualist kind. The two are not self-exclusive.

Yes but mutualism is more than just "coops in a market economy." It is a matter of social relations, not just economic organisation. Not to mention mutualist property rights are not based on Neo Lockean property rights. Mutualists support a form of "occupancy and use."

[Mike the Progressive]

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".

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.

Hmm, I don't recall ever saying communism was equal to socialism. Yet, that was your response to my post, "liberal=socialist=communist." But when did I say that? I only said socialism was dead or at least the idea of it and the desire for it. so again, what's confusing you, bud? Misread one of my posts? Saw that Tricky Dick flag and assumed I think communism, socialism and liberalism are all that same? It's okay, pal.

[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.

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/

Who wants socialism? Except a few thousand losers who bummed out in urban settings, three-quarters of which probably were so drugged out of their minds, had no idea what they were doing there anyway. What are you talking about? Where is socialism succeeding? The The French president isn't socialist. He's not talking about the workers taking control of the means of production. The Nordic countries? They certainly want and value property rights, they certainly value free trade.

Get over it. Aside from a few decaying parties (mostly in the US; the leftists parties of Europe do not believe in socialism, they believe in regulation and public programs), socialism is dead. Nobody supports it. People do want universal healthcare, they want a fairer economic system, they want safe bridges and new financial regulations, but none of that is socialism.

So yes, I know what socialism is and the idea of it, the desire for it is gone. Nobody serious is even debating it anymore. Now it's about different degrees of free-market capitalism versus the mixed economies of Sweden and Norway.

[Magmia]

Nope. Conservatives would never let that happen. I would expect to see the 2nd ammendmenters marching around with their guns around the WH if that were to happen.

Then again, we do have an openly Socialist senator so........

Nah, I still doubt it

[Cameroi]

many non-marxist countries have had them from time to time, without collapsing, nor becoming one party, nor any kind of tyrannies or dictatorships. france, for an obvious example, has had several of them.

[ConDemmed]

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/

socialism is dead.

Have you been reading Platypus in secret?
http://platypus1917.org/

[Silent Majority]

Nope. Conservatives would never let that happen. I would expect to see the 2nd ammendmenters marching around with their guns around the WH if that were to happen.

Then again, we do have an openly Socialist senator so........

Nah, I still doubt it

Bernie Sanders is a socialist in name only. He actually seems more like a left-wing populist to be honest, given that he has supported a few knee jerk reaction positions(like the surge to ban nuclear power after the incident in Japan), and his support of the pointless effort to audit the Federal Reserve.

[Forster Keys]

Nope. Conservatives would never let that happen. I would expect to see the 2nd ammendmenters marching around with their guns around the WH if that were to happen.

Then again, we do have an openly Socialist senator so........

Nah, I still doubt it

Bernie Sanders is a socialist in name only. He actually seems more like a left-wing populist to be honest, given that he has supported a few knee jerk reaction positions(like the surge to ban nuclear power after the incident in Japan), and his support of the pointless effort to audit the Federal Reserve.

Anti-nuclear tendencies abound in socialist parties world wide.

[Milks Empire]

Bernie Sanders is a socialist in name only. He actually seems more like a left-wing populist to be honest, given that he has supported a few knee jerk reaction positions(like the surge to ban nuclear power after the incident in Japan), and his support of the pointless effort to audit the Federal Reserve.

Anti-nuclear tendencies abound in socialist parties world wide.

He did sell out and back the fascist health care bill though.

[Disserbia]

Not this two party system. Even if they did get onto a main party ticket, their agenda and policy would have to be so severely compromised they would no longer be socialists. The only way a socialist could be in power in the current political environment was if they entered office under a more moderate administration and slowly steered the country left. It would be very hard to do this successfully in only 8 years.

[Forster Keys]

Anti-nuclear tendencies abound in socialist parties world wide.

He did sell out and back the fascist health care bill though.

What? I believe we should provide health care to fascists too.

[Seleucas]

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.

Not now, no, but as the US falls apart it might happen eventually.

[Ordo Drakul]

Not this two party system. Even if they did get onto a main party ticket, their agenda and policy would have to be so severely compromised they would no longer be socialists. The only way a socialist could be in power in the current political environment was if they entered office under a more moderate administration and slowly steered the country left. It would be very hard to do this successfully in only 8 years.

Which is exactly what the Democrats have done since the dawn of the twentieth century-you can't find a Democratic President since Wilson who fails to meet the requirements of a socialist to anyone but another socialist.

[Milks Empire]

Not this two party system. Even if they did get onto a main party ticket, their agenda and policy would have to be so severely compromised they would no longer be socialists. The only way a socialist could be in power in the current political environment was if they entered office under a more moderate administration and slowly steered the country left. It would be very hard to do this successfully in only 8 years.

Which is exactly what the Democrats have done since the dawn of the twentieth century-you can't find a Democratic President since Wilson who fails to meet the requirements of a socialist to anyone but another socialist.

The single solitary requirement to be a socialist is the belief that the means of production must be held and run by working people in common. If you don't have that, you do not have socialism. Full stop.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Not this two party system. Even if they did get onto a main party ticket, their agenda and policy would have to be so severely compromised they would no longer be socialists. The only way a socialist could be in power in the current political environment was if they entered office under a more moderate administration and slowly steered the country left. It would be very hard to do this successfully in only 8 years.

Which is exactly what the Democrats have done since the dawn of the twentieth century-you can't find a Democratic President since Wilson who fails to meet the requirements of a socialist to anyone but another socialist.

What are the requirements of a socialist, in your eyes? Because I have a strong suspicion that they're incorrect.

[Calimera]

Bleehhh, socialist is a little too. Centre-left is OK.
And please, not a socialist during a crises!

[Ordo Drakul]

Which is exactly what the Democrats have done since the dawn of the twentieth century-you can't find a Democratic President since Wilson who fails to meet the requirements of a socialist to anyone but another socialist.

The single solitary requirement to be a socialist is the belief that the means of production must be held and run by working people in common. If you don't have that, you do not have socialism. Full stop.

Yes, yes-and any incremental changes towards this anti-human goal isn't "real socialism", as you all so shrilly shriek once the socialist scheme has failed. Honestly, devout socialists are worse than fundamentalist Christians or Islamics when it comes to subdividing themselves as to separate their "pure" ideals from the all too fatal realities of their ridiculous beliefs.

[Alaje]

The USA will never be Socialist, our culture is too greedy and we've been conditioned to hate Socialism since the Cold War. I find this to be unfortunate.

BTW no one in the US government can be accurately labeled a Socialist/Commie/Fascist....they're just rich bastards that want your tax dollars to full their pockets.

[Silent Majority]

Yes, yes-and any incremental changes towards this anti-human goal isn't "real socialism"

Please name one incremental change towards the working class controlling the means of production that has been implemented by a US president.

[Alaje]

Not this two party system. Even if they did get onto a main party ticket, their agenda and policy would have to be so severely compromised they would no longer be socialists. The only way a socialist could be in power in the current political environment was if they entered office under a more moderate administration and slowly steered the country left. It would be very hard to do this successfully in only 8 years.

Which is exactly what the Democrats have done since the dawn of the twentieth century-you can't find a Democratic President since Wilson who fails to meet the requirements of a socialist to anyone but another socialist.

The US Democrats are only pseudo-Socialist at best, they're primarily Liberals.