Socialism: the Great American Boogyman

[judoka_uk]

I'm just saying that words like "socialism" are often used in a redundant and hyperbolic way. Unless we decide to reject the Third Way, then it might be more relevant.

Yes the term 'socialism' is liberally applied by those on the right, in the same those on the left apply 'capitalism' liberally to anything vaguely private or involving money.

Although most European social democrats still have as part of their party manifesto or constitution a clause that dedicates them to eventually achieving full socialism. The British Labour party only removed theirs, Clause IV, in 1995.

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

There are many people in constituency and parliamentary Labour party who still believe in this and would like to see in re-instated.

I'm skipping ahead here because the first page was enough to get me into a rage.

I FUCKING HATE people who confuse Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) with Welfare State Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state).

HUGE. FUCKING. DIFFERENCE.

Using wikipedia definitions, because those are the ones you choose.

Welfare state: " It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life."

You can't pretend not to understand why people see socialism in the welfare state, surely.

Pre-Hitler Germany and pre-Franco Spain.

There are lots of people making parallels with the 1920s and 30s at the moment 99.99% of them are ahistorical.

This is one of them. If America was a country that was a nascent democracy, had groups of heavily armed demobbed soldiers staging periodic revolutions on the streets, was experiencing severe economic depression and a Dolchstoßlegende then you might be able to draw parallels, but really what you're doing is playing rather fast and loose with historical precedent.

Fixed. The Cult of Reagan which has been fostered in the Republican Party is analogous to the Cult of Mary in the Catholic Church, which is all the more interesting when you consider how the Party sold out to the fundamentalists in the late 1970s.

The Reagan admiration in the Republican party is similar to the admiration for Thatcher in the Tory party. And its not without justification, because both achieved the incredible feat of defeating the Keynesian collectivist consensus that existed before their premierships. Thatcher's achievement was, of course, much more significant that Reagans, because she was facing down what was practically a socialist state. Also she won 3 elections and he party won a 4th election after he departure securing an unprecedented 18 years of Tory government.

[danno]

Although most European social democrats still have as part of their party manifesto or constitution a clause that dedicates them to eventually achieving full socialism. The British Labour party only removed theirs, Clause IV, in 1995.

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

I consider it a powerless vestigial limb. Social democracy was originally supposed to be a transitional period to true socialism (that's how I understand it, anyway). Very few people take that seriously any more. We got half way and realised it's better.

The fact it was removed shows that I think.

There are many people in constituency and parliamentary Labour party who still believe in this and would like to see in re-instated.

There are crazies in every party.

[P Marsh]

Fixed. The Cult of Reagan which has been fostered in the Republican Party is analogous to the Cult of Mary in the Catholic Church, which is all the more interesting when you consider how the Party sold out to the fundamentalists in the late 1970s.

The comment about Lincoln was more an allusion to the fact that the Republican Party has won the lion's share of elections post Civil War simply for being the party which presided over the unification of the nation.

Reagan isn't really an idol or idea of the Republicans but more of a myth or fable to invoke. His policies and actions as president are grossly warped or even the complete opposite as what they are claimed to be now while his time in office could be summed up as mediocre at best. Ironically his profession as an actor could be seen as foreshadowing to his current legacy of being just a face that the Republican party stamps on anything that they approve of.

[Robstafarian]

Reagan isn't really an idol or idea of the Republicans but more of a myth or fable to invoke. His policies and actions as president are grossly warped or even the complete opposite as what they are claimed to be now while his time in office could be summed up as mediocre at best. Ironically his profession as an actor could be seen as foreshadowing to his current legacy of being just a face that the Republican party stamps on anything that they approve of.

Yes, most of what you said is why I wrote what I did. Perhaps I should have elaborated, but I was hurried enough that I chose to wait for people to pose questions.

[elipson]

There are lots of people making parallels with the 1920s and 30s at the moment 99.99% of them are ahistorical.

This is one of them. If America was a country that was a nascent democracy, had groups of heavily armed demobbed soldiers staging periodic revolutions on the streets, was experiencing severe economic depression and a Dolchstoßlegende then you might be able to draw parallels, but really what you're doing is playing rather fast and loose with historical precedent.

He asked for a historical example of gridlock being bad for countries. I gave two salient ones. I didn't say America was going to collapse under Fascist rule.

Using wikipedia definitions, because those are the ones you choose.

Welfare state: " It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life."

You can't pretend not to understand why people see socialism in the welfare state, surely.

And you can't pretend that an "equal distribution of wealth" is not vastly different than an economy that is 100% State controlled and directed. Redistributing income via taxation in a fundamentally Capitalist state is NOT the same as a State Controlled Economy. This is the root of the American Misunderstanding about socialism in American politics.

[mike321]

I looked into the example of Germany. Did not really stack up. If a minority In Congress delays legislation we still have a president with full executive powers. The obstruction in the senate is a rule of the senate; not a constitutional requirement; in other words the majority agrees to it. Finally, the minority in this case is much larger than the 15% that caused so much trouble in Germany. The opposition dem or repub both represent large sections of the us population.