Socialist president?

[Ordo Drakul]

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.

You mean like Wilson using the Dept of Agriculture to see to it US farms are state-owned or state-controlled? Or Carter seeing to it the Dept of Education socialized 95% of US schools? Or maybe Hillarycare attempting to abscond with control of the healthcare industry or Obamacare's attempt at same, with regulation ensuring State-control if not ownership.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

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.

1) Yes, yes-and any incremental changes towards this anti-human goal isn't "real socialism", as you all 2) so shrilly shriek once the socialist scheme has failed. Honestly, devout socialists are worse than fundamentalist Christians or 3) Islamics when it comes to 4) subdividing themselves as to separate their "pure" ideals from the all too fatal realities of their ridiculous beliefs.

1) That statement is correct. How did any of the Democrats since Wilson advance the goal of worker control of the means of production?
Roosevelt was certainly a liberal, which is NOT socialism, and he promoted Keynesian-style economics with regards to the Great Depression, which is NOT socialism.
Wilson sent troops to assist the Whites in the Russian Civil War, which is not socialism or supprting socialism, last time I checked. FYI, the USSR can loosely be classed as an embryonic state until Lenin's death.
Truman hated the USSR's "communism" and socialism, as can be seen in the bolded quote here. Ctrl+F "socialism" should do it.
Carter was in no way a socialist, he just happened to be a liberal. NOT SOCIALISM, OK?
Clinton was a liberal with a social conscience, I think the term you're looking for is 'social democrat'. Social democrats are not socialists, they merely aim for a less exploitative capitalism.
Obama is NOT A SOCIALIST. I want to hear your counterarguments, I need entertaining.
2) No, 'incremental movements towards socialism', none of which you have actually shown evidence of, are called, in this instance, 'social liberalism and economic responsibility'. True 'incremental movements towards socialism' would be strongly supporting trade unions against corporations, full universal healthcare, a larger welfare state and nationalisation (I know it flies in the face of 'worker control' but gradually it would be possible to allow workers to take over the government's responsibilities) of various areas of the economy, such as water, electricity and transport.
3) They're called 'Muslims', last time I checked.
4) Explain that statement, because at the minute it would seem to be a load of unreconstructed BS.

[Blakk Metal]

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.

And any country with prices is capitalist.

[Mike the Progressive]

socialism is dead.

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

That's annoying. Because I never said the left was dead, just the desire or want for socialism.

[Silent Majority]

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

You mean like Wilson using the Dept of Agriculture to see to it US farms are state-owned or state-controlled? Or Carter seeing to it the Dept of Education socialized 95% of US schools? Or maybe Hillarycare attempting to abscond with control of the healthcare industry or Obamacare's attempt at same, with regulation ensuring State-control if not ownership.

As I understand it(and I'm admittedly not an expert) that's state capitalism, not socialism.


State ownership =/= worker control of the means of production

[Coccygia]

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.

So you consider North Korea and Cuba as "socialist"? And yet you think socialism =/= communism? That's some Cognitive Dissonance you got there, I'd say.

[Felix Terra]

Depends on America's definition of socialism. If it is "a fancy word for communism", then no. If it is "a comprimise between capitalism and communism", then possibly. My leaning is toward the second definition, but that's just me.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Depends on America's definition of socialism. If it is "a fancy word for communism", then no. If it is "a comprimise between capitalism and communism", then possibly. My leaning is toward the second definition, but that's just me.

Good, because the first definition is nonsense.

[Valourium]

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

I know this is way too late to correct you... But... Democrats are not socialists, and republicans are DEFINITELY not socialists. Democrats equally capitalist leftists, and republicans=anti-socialist capitalists. The closest thing to socialism that the republicans like is national socialism, which is fascism in all practicalities.

Americans will never knowingly vote for a socialist. If we do, they will be under the disguise of a liberal. That's where I have to agree with the American right.

[Communal Ecotopia]

I can't quite imagine it. If, in the long term, some sort of voting system other than First Past the Post is introduced, then maybe, but no third parties are likely anytime soon, socialist or not.

[Felix Terra]

Depends on America's definition of socialism. If it is "a fancy word for communism", then no. If it is "a comprimise between capitalism and communism", then possibly. My leaning is toward the second definition, but that's just me.

Good, because the first definition is nonsense.

Some people think that it's the proper definition. Not kidding.

[Milks Empire]

Good, because the first definition is nonsense.

Some people think that it's the proper definition. Not kidding.

This is America, where the media has fought in court for the right to make shit up and pass it off as what's actually happening!

[Communal Ecotopia]

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

Not even close...even the American welfare state is undeveloped compared to other advanced capitalist countries.

[Communal Ecotopia]

What I would say to your "thief": "What sort of benefits do I and society get if I do as you demand?" If he's a smart thief, he'll tell me that I have free health care, paid vacations, a genuine 35-40 hour work week, unemployment benefits if I need them, environmental and labor regulations, etc. If he is smart, I'm giving him the money. If he says, "well, I just want it," I kick him in the shins.

Why do I have a feeling you're both horribly warping the meaning of the word "slavery"?

If someone knocked at your door, saying that he will take 25, 40 or 50% of your income, if he said that he had the right to do so, would you give your money away? No, you wouldn't. And if he said that if you don't give him what he wants, he'll kidnapp you and detain you in some place, how would you call him?

You would call him a thief, a criminal.

That's what the State do, and such a structure should not be regarded differently from an individual.

Prove me wrong.

Can a person contract themselves into effective slavery?

What if someone freely decides to become a slave? That's an insane thing to imagine.

If he wants to claim coersion is slavery, than I can do so in the same, as AnCap is nothing BUT coersion.

AnCap is you associating with whomever you please. If you don't like Capitalism, you can go out on your own ( or more likely, with like-minded people ) and try something else. There is nothing coercive in AnCap. Contract is also a safety: you discuss your conditions of your job / association or whatever with your employer before signing it. Contract is your insurance for Freedom.

Not to mention there would almost certainly be actual slavery in AnCap society....

The fuck allows you to make such a claim? Slavery has always been implemented by a State. In an individualistic society, Slavery would be impossible: enslaving a free man is something extremely dangerous ( you risk retaliations ) and brutal ( we are civilized people, you know? ). Slave work is also masively ineffective. Tell me about the cotton shortage we have had since slavery was abolished!

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

[Communal Ecotopia]

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.

Far far less, I daresay...

[Fascismo (Ancient)]

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.

Far far less, I daresay...

The Nordic models of capitalism are absolutely nothing like Obama the US and the UK have their own brand of kamikaze capitalism they could learn a thing or two from more stable models but socialism will never take hold in America, the entire society would opt for an apocalyptic collapse before turning socialist.

[Der Landstreicher]

They certainly want and value property rights, they certainly value free trade.

There's nothing inherently socialist about being anti property right or anti free trade.

[Vistulange]

Ah, I'm no Brit, I'm Turkish. Thanks to the coups of '60 and 80', however, our left is a bumbling mess as well.

How can you consider the both dates equal even though you are a Turkish, and moreoever, a left-winger ?

I consider both dates equal because in my head, by default, the military is a strictly authoritarian and right-wing faction, at least in our country. In the case of the 27 May coup, it was the authoritarian side. With the 12 September coup, it was the right-wing side.

[Ryanisking]

We have one

[Milks Empire]

We have one

Umm... False.

[Silent Majority]

We have one

[Kemaliste]

How can you consider the both dates equal even though you are a Turkish, and moreoever, a left-winger ?

I consider both dates equal because in my head, by default, the military is a strictly authoritarian and right-wing faction, at least in our country. In the case of the 27 May coup, it was the authoritarian side. With the 12 September coup, it was the right-wing side.

27 May is not a coup, but a revolution. There were great youth movements all around the country against the oppressive Menderes government that was censoring newspapers and trying to close the opposition parties, which was the groundwork of the revolution. Even the chief of the general staff was a government puppet, but the officers supported revolutionary movements and they made the revolution together. It brought the most libertarian and modern constitution in Turkish history.

However, after the revolution, the left-winger officers were began to be liquidated, which instantly turned our great army into a hotbed of right-wing fascists, as you complain. 12 september is the counter-coup that was executed (as ordered by the US) to put an end to the socialist awakening in Turkey and destroy the principles and the reforms 27 May Revolution brought.

[Ryanisking]

We have one

Umm... False.

not he is far left than most democrats he is socialsing education more health care and restricting business growth ie pipline

[Milks Empire]

not he is far left than most democrats

Horseshit.

he is socialsing education

Source?

more health care

Forcing people to buy from the PRIVATE SECTOR is not socialism. Fascism, perhaps, but not socialism in the slightest.

and restricting business growth ie pipline

Fuck big business.

[Sedikal]

Umm... False.

not he is far left than most democrats he is socialsing education more health care and restricting business growth ie pipline

Just because he is far left Doesnt necessarily mean he is a socialist... But then again look at your flag what else would we expect.