Talk Elections

Obama has created big government programs, policies, and oversight committees.  More recently, he has taken a more confrontational tone towards businesses, corporations, and capitalism with his "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that"

In addition, small business owners don't want to pay the new taxes/penalties for mandatory employee health care. 

But many liberals and 99% want to change capitalism and corporations, and prefer more government oversight than Obama has promised.  Many liberals support socialist programs and policies (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Knowing Obama's actions in the past 4 years, and his public statements, do you think Obama believes in Socialism?  Do you support socialism?

Socialism is government ownership over the primary means of production. Does Obama want the government to nationalize FedEx, Apple, WalMart, and Boeing? The question is absurd. Of course not. And no, I do not believe in Socialism. It was discredited decades ago.

Teddy Roosevelt took a stand against corporations? Does that mean he's a socialist? Learn the meaning of the word before accusing people of it. And no, like Obama, I'm not a socialist.

How exactly is either answer relevant to policy?

If "socialism" these days means cross subsidies, and government regulations over this and that, about 90% of the voters believe in "socialism" to some degree.  In fact, when you get down to brass tacks, and what is in fact practicable, the political football game is mostly being played somewhere between between center field and the 40 yard line on either side. So in that sense, the question is a "fail." It illuminates very little in either the asking or the answer.

No/No.

Progressive rhetoric does not equate to Socialism, so no, the President isn't a socialist.

No. He's more of a fascist, really

LOL

Everybody believes in socialism to an extent, seeing as most people don't mind government funding roads, police and fire. If none of those things were socialized, people would want for them to be socialized due to paying high fees to companies for those services.

Socialism, like capitalism, is not a yes/no sort of thing. Nearly every American politician favors some sort of mix of both.

No/Yes.

For once I wish the people who talk so much about socialism and its supposed dangers would actually take some time to learn what socialism is.

Everyone (except the survivalists tax dodgers hiding in the woods) is a socialist to some degree.

That's oversimplifying socialism.  There are some basic services like roads and police that citizens are willing to pay the government to do, or pay some private corporation to do, because it makes their lives easier and better and safer. 

The question is what is Big Government, and how many services and taxes can the Government force citizens to pay for with the excuse of "basic human requirement."  Then there is also individual choice of participating in government programs and personal freedom.   

Socialism can also refer to Government Over-spending.  For example, the Bush Government spent a lot of money, resources, and manpower for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and a vast majority of Americans disagreed with that Big Government policy, so they voted for Obama in 2008. 

In sum Milhouse, spending that you don't like is "socialism," and spending that you like isn't.  It would have been helpful if you had provided us with your rather sui generis yet narcissistic definition of the word in the first instance don't you think?

Not this bullsh**t again.

I would like to know what "belief in Socialism" is even supposed to mean. It's not a religion or even a totalitarian ideology (though several of the sort have thrived under the umbrella name... but if any of those are what's meant, the answer is so obviously "lolno/lolno" as to... uh... I can't think of a fitting simile.)

You want big government? Look at this diagram.

()

By 'believes in socialism' they mean - 'dares not to believe in neoliberal capitalism'.

I think they mean more that one is an economic agnostic regarding their blind faith, not that one is actually a 'socialist' (atheist).  Of course such distinctions are lost in their mush-brains.

No but he's not as hostile as I'd like him to be/Of course not.


Not believing in neoliberal capitalism isn't very much better than believing in socialism, opebo.

Well yeah, as that actually is a totalitarian ersatzreligion.

Precisely, Lewis, and here he is to prove that point:

What a f***ing idiotic question...

Please understand what socialism is... and not the paranoid American definition...

But if I humour you... no, he doesn't believe in socialism and neither do I

Obama is, by a global standard (and even an American one), much more right-wing than many of his supporters and opponents would care to admit.

Any government spending on services is socialism, period. Overspending has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, but gross mismanagement.

No, only retarded right-wingers think Obama is a socialist.

To the second part, not purely but by American standards probably.

The question is phrased strangely. It sounds more like you're asking if Obama believes if socialism exists. Either way, I "believe" in socialism, yes.

No/On a good day.

Socialism is a meme.

Its certainly a right wing attack on Obama.  But its also embraced by the extreme Liberals everywhere, on this forum, and of the 99%.  

socialism may be a pejorative or it may be seen as a good thing.  

THere are certainly many liberals that want Obama to be more socialist in his policies and enforcement.  

For instance, Universal Health Care is labeled as a socialist policy by both Liberals who strongly believe in it, and by conservatives who want it eliminated.  

Hahaha if Obama is a Socialist, then the Republicans are Communists.

Typical liberal...."I am better than you, I am smarter than you."

No, it's a stupid, stupid, stupid question because it has no baring in reality or fact.

That's nothing to do with politics...

no/yes(worker owned production)

Fixed

State socialism is just one way of organizing this, its just the only one that has been tried full scale in a whole country. Modern Socialists mainly prefer non-statist solutions.

To your question "No/No". You tend to use Socialism to name everything you dont like in the same way left wingers use Fascism.

What? Ridiculous.

Not if it's set up to cuddle and benefit private "ensurers". If you must try and find an "ideology" that fits in (something I'd advise against) fascism would be your least ridiculous bet.

Jeez...
Various definitions exist, so ignoring everyone but your own doesn't give you the right to call someone stupid for using a slightly different definition. 
according to this list Obama would be a Socialist because he supports government providing every single good/service on the list.  He has personally overseen the implementation/expansion of Healthcare, Food, Hosing, and Energy.  "Clothing" is the only one without a specific program I'm aware of, but government checks obviously are used/justified for clothing purchases. 
()

Where the f*** does Obama say he wants the Government to provide all of that?

He is not a socialist/I am not a socialist

I presume that the idiot who drew that graph possess a neckbeard.

It does to poor people, who shouldn't receive such things under Freedomism, you see.

Crap... I completely forgot about that!

Do you think Romney believes in Nazism/Do you believe in Nazism?

Grow up.

you would have to meet most socialist requirements to be a Nazi.  I don't think Romney meets minimum thresholds of basic definitions, so no/no.  I can answer without getting emotionally unhinged.  Why can't you?   

Obama is a SOCIALIST.

FDR launched Social Security with the New Deal and the National Firearms Act.
LBJ doubled-down with the Great Society and the Gun Control Act.
Obama is doubling down with the massive bailouts and ObamaCare.

But it was George W. Bush who nationalized the banking and automotive sectors. Who's the socialist now?

They were nationalized?  Whoa, dude.  Whoa.

I exaggerate slightly, for effect. But seriously, what president in the last forty years has intervened a heavily in the market economy as Bush did in his final months?

Answer: Barack Obama

Bush engineered a program where assets would be bought from the banks and sold off for as much as possible (even a profit).  Obama turned that into buying equity stakes in the banks and regulating them stupidly. 

Obama gave the failing auto companies bailout money (for no reason) as did Bush I believe.  Obama than "bought" the companies while trampling over bankruptcy law, sckewing the bondholders, and giving the UAW a large chunk of the pie. 

So I think your quote would be true if it read like this:   
 

Scott doesn't strike me as 'emotionally unhinged'. He's responding to the ridiculousness of the question (and, I'd imagine, also the ridiculousness of using 'socialism' as some sort of moral or conversational equivalent of 'Nazism' or 'fascism' or even 'Soviet communism').

The Nazis were only in the loosest sense socialists, bro.

As Nathan said, the purpose for asking that was to underline the absurdity of the question, because in all honestly, the "he's a Nazi, he's a socialist" crap gets old when you've been hearing both sides make those baseless accusations toward each other for ten years.  Obama is no more a 'socialist' than Romney is a 'Nazi,' and to be quite honest, the word 'socialist' itself is so vague that simply referring to one as such doesn't mean much of anything.  From my own observation, it's generally used as a synonym for 'communist' or 'fascist' or 'Marxist' or what have you, none of which are terms that accurately characterize Obama's ideology.

If Obama's a socialist, so is Bush.

I hate elections.

Well, Nixon imposed wage and price controls 40 years ago.

The world had this argument for several decades during the twentieth century. In the early '90s, a general consensus was reached that a command-and-control economy was not an effective way to allocate resources. The only place in the world where socialism in the Cold War sense exists today is North Korea.

At some point, conservatives need to realize that they are trying to start an argument that no one else wants to have - because it ended nearly twenty years ago.

It doesn't matter what you think or feel, but the media and the right wing media discusses the Obama/Socialism issue. 

You're just upset because "Socialism" is seen as a perjorative just like being labeled a "Liberal" is seen negatively. 

Many Liberals embrace socialism, and actually prefer Obama to be more Socialist. 

You can stick your head in the sand, and call out names, but it doesn't stop the media from discussing whether Obama is a socialist or the merits of Socialism. 

You are clearly reacting in an immature emotional way, rather than seeing the reality of Obama's current political situation as it is viewed by both liberals and conservatives. 

Yeah, and Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents precisely because he ventured into Socialist policies of bailouts, and not to mention the Deficit spending Military Wars. 

Bottom line, huge government spending programs are unpopular for Obama, Bush, etc.

Ummmm, no. People are hypocrites. People like to take, take, take from government, but they don't like to pay for it...

Exactly... it's like the mentality... "I get benefits, but I deserve them... those people get entitlements and don't"

If those programs are socialist, then a HELL of a lot of Americans of all political stripes are socialists.

Ahaha.  Oh really, buddy?  I'm the one calling names?  I'm not the one who's asking loaded, counterproductive questions with the sole intention of trolling.  Words themselves are not inherently bad, but it is society and the media that make them perceived to be a certain way.  The word 'liberal' is simply not universally accepted as a negative term in the way that 'socialist' is, in spite of how you might like it to be.  Either you obviously have no concept of socialism as an ideology or you are just learning what it is, because otherwise you would not have opened a thread with such a fatuous, vague, blatantly hackish question like this.

I suggest you do your own homework and learn these terms instead of relying on Fox News for your political vocabulary.

I believe it exists, yeah.  I'd assume Obama does too.

No, because Obama is a multimillionaire and a Neocon.


Yes, I do.

This is seriously one of the worst threads I've ever had the displeasure of reading and everyone in this thread who says Obama is a socialist should be banned for trolling. I sincerely hope that none of you actually believe that Obama is a socialist. Believe me, if Obama were a socialist, you would wish he was as capitalist as he actually is. It's people like you all that make me ashamed to be a Republican, a Fiscal Conservative and wear the blue avatar. It literally pains me to read some of your posts. It makes me think 'I really hope this person is trolling, because if they're not, they belong in a mental hospital.' The idiocy of the right wing these days really knows no boundaries. Do I think the Republican Party is perfect? No way. Most of the politicians are idiots and/or whiter than white bread, but it's some of the GOP's cult-like followers, such as some of the posters in this thread, that really give me a visceral pain up and down my spine. Clearly you have no understanding of what socialism actually is. Stop turning on Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and repeating everything they say. I listen to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, but I don't go out and spew their talking points about as if they were factual. I try to do some research on the internet. The internet exists for more reasons than to sign up on political forums and spread lies about the Democratic Party, you know. Stop calling Obama a "socialcommumarxofascist" or whatever the standard neocon bullcrap term is. It makes no sense. Go on the internet and look up socialism, read about it, and I mean actually read about it. Let the knowledge flow throughout your system. I was taught an entire unit on socialism in school and it made me believe in socialism less than I had before. Because I came to the conclusion that it is an idiotic ideology that would never work in America and is nowadays only based on greed, troll-like class warfare and self-pity. I guarantee that if you read about socialism, learn what it is, and apply your knowledge to political debates, you will not become a commie pinko USSR-type socialist. If you do, whatever. You've opened your mind. I can guarantee you that watching (or even opening another tab and just listening) to a 5-20 minute video on YouTube informing you about socialism will not kill you. You will not die. Your heart will not implode, your brain will not melt, your bones will not turn into jello and your skin will not spontaneously combust. I'm sick of seeing these stupid threads and I'm sick of reading the same talking points over and over and over used by a different poster with a blue avatar from a different state. Stop. You're embarrassing your party and you're driving others to hate you and the Republican Party even more.

I'm a social democrat, and Obama is not even close to being a social democrat, let alone a socialist.

Newsflash, France just voted for a Socialist president.  This may surprise you, but not everyone believes being labeled a Socialist is a negative thing.  You're living in the past with the commies. 

Americans complain more about Activist Government than inactive governments.  When they see Big Government spending lots of taxpayer dollars on programs they don't agree with, such as war, or other things, then the public rises up. 

Whether its facism or socialism or anything that resembles greater Government involvement in the daily lives of citizens, people become skeptical.  Basically, anything resemebling authoritarianism, rather than personal freedom.

In terms of economic ideology, I consider President Obama a neo-mercantilist with some strong capitalist and relatively modest, social democratic influences. The recent interventions in the economy were nationalist and populist, not socialist, in nature - the state becoming involved in the markets to promote the national interest and nudge outcomes of market forces toward desirable ends - in this case in an appeal to "the masses" as opposed to "the elites." Barack, being a social liberalist and therefore not especially authoritarian at heart, is much more moderate in how far he runs with this stuff compared to the leaders of other, more clearly neo-mercantilist nations such as the PRC, Japan, Russia, and South Korea.

As for me, I basically take social liberal values to socialist conclusions, but reject the idea of nationalization of the economy as being tantamount to transferring ownership or even control of the means of production to the workers. The "size" of government has nothing to do with whether an economy is capitalist or socialist. Both models are compatible with many forms of government, ranging from anarchism at one extreme to totalitarianism at the other. It is simply that many people - especially Americans - have for decades been fed propaganda that socialism is an economic system of fear and authoritarian oppression whereas capitalism is one of freedom and democracy, which is a laughably false dichotomy.

The kind of socialism I believe in may be interpreted as democratic or market socialism, a form of welfare capitalism, or as some sort of mixed system. A lot of opinions circulate out there about what is and is not capitalist or socialist, after all, and no amount of deliberation here in this thread is going to build up consensus in bringing all of those opinions into harmony. But what I will say is the most hardcore rightists and leftists on economic matters - purists who refuse to mix models at all - are an extremely small minority indeed. Also, variations of liberalism and socialism are not (and never were) the only major political-economic ideologies competing on the global stage.

Stop.

You have a great opportunity to set a misconception straight. Why has your only contribution to this thread thus far been a pair of curt, uninformative reminders of your appalling lack of tact? O.o

()

Perhaps Obama is triangulating Classical Liberalism --  Anarchocommunism --and-- Socialism

In hindsight, incidentally, the neo-mercantilist pitch was a stupid idea and seems to have been an ill-conceived ramble on my part for tying in statist behavior with a non-socialist paradigm of political economy. Keynesianism is capitalist though, so I don't know why I opted to complicate things so much. Oh well. xD

What is the graph supposed to mean?

Al is right, trying to re-invent terms that clearly only work in a historical context is dumb.

This. However, Obama is undeniably anti-business, does not demonstrate an understanding and appreciation of markets, and believes strongly in government intervention in the form of regulatory burdens along with the subsidization of failed/failing/will-fail entities at the expense of successful entities. Obama is not openly socialist, but that may be solely due to political constraints. Or maybe not. In your heart, you know he's not forthright.

It's a basic two axis graph.  "Statists" could also be called individual liberty and "in favor of private property" could be called economic liberty.  The lines are depicting the general development or evolution of these "isms" from one to another over recent (300 years or so) history.  I think it does a perticularly good job of showing classical liberalism's relationship to everything and also how Fascism/Nazism isn't right of center whatsoever it is "right" relative to socialism/communism.  Most people don't understand that relative relationship to each other or have any concept of a useful spectrum, so this is somewhat helpful.       

How anyone could take a chart like that even half seriously is beyond me.

This.

When business leaders go and beg for corporate welfare, why shouldn't they be given conditions? And trying to save entities that're circling the drain stops a weak business from further weakening the market from top to bottom.

When Obama gets call a socialist, it just doesn't add up. It's just a hackish line because the GOP has no better, substantive attack on policies like the auto bailout. In yours guts, you know they're nuts.

I think you just don't like charts

I for one love charts, but I don't like that chart.

Typically it is correct form to state a reason or make an argument for your opinion, that way you don't look like childish hacks.  Maybe you three could try it, or come back when you're grownups.   

If something is self-evidently idiotic to the extent that that chart happens to be, then there is no point in going to the trouble of pointing out what is wrong with it. This is because the only people who don't already understand that, yes, the chart is clearly the product of a diseased mind, are the sort of people who are generally not worth engaging with in any detail.

I do so hope that things are clear now.

...and yet you wrote 5 lines instead of naming a single thing. Pathetic. 

The point is there's no need to 'name' anything as the 'problems' with that remarkable chart are obvious to anyone with three functioning brain cells and occasional access to logical thought. If you can look at it and not see the 'problems' immediately, then...

You actually understood that mess of a chart?  You clearly are a better man than I. I looked at it, and got a headache, and required "medication" myself. Nothing is so obfuscatory than this ideologically Venn diagram boxing mania. I hate it!

No, no, no. That reaction means that you understood it (at the level at which understanding it matters) as well!

I'm not in love with the thing, but it has some really nice elements.  If Plato had reflected on the last 300 years he would have come up with something like that.  So to use words like "idiotic" and "diseased mind" is really quite remarkable.

YOU've heard of Plato? That's a funny joke...

"The benefits of a classical education"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7-ma9fX0f4

Seriously though, I probably read half his work by the time I was 15.

this is good stuff.  Iraq invasion = socialism.

a relevant point -- the contemporary GOP more closely resembles a Soviet bloc Communist party than it does the 'traditional' political parties of the New Deal thru Reagan period.

it looks like it is out of Lacanian psychoanalysis

It looks like it's out of the Kennedy-era RAND Corporation is what it looks like.

No one who likes to actually understand what different ideologies are all about is going to have a modicum of respect for anybody who thinks that charts might be helpful in the endeavour.

Why?  First thing you should do after something complex (600+ page book, an election, troubleshooting a piece of equipment worth hundreds of thousands, etc) is fit all the important information on a single piece of paper.  A map or a chart is a common end result of mastery.    

Obama certainly has some socialistic views, but every President has views of one kind or other.

Any President still has to have Congressional support to implement their views.

Lay off the PCP, kiddo.

You need help.

I mean, seriously? This must be trolling, this has to be an act. Plato? Charts? Plato of the Charts? Time Travelling Plato of the Charts? Mind you, he would probably have been arrested for being a nonce were he to do that. Which would be amusing, I suppose. So someone needs to get working on that time machine!

Must these things contradict?