I don't get the impression that Obama wants GM or Chrysler to become like Amtrak, a corporation permanently owned or controlled by the Federal government. I think he really does want to get the Feds out of this business sooner than later. The longer the Feds own these companies, the more money they will have to dump into them.

Hope you're right. But why would Obama refuse to allow banks to repay the TARP money?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

Eric,

I read the Economist article this morning and thought it was bunk. Because there is more than one form of socialism. There is the socialism of ownership and the socialism of taxes and regulation. Known as Fascism. Which even more incendiary because people don't remember the economic relations of fascism. They only remember the Death Camps.

How about taxes of 104%? The "Gates of Vienna" article I linked to a few days ago in my article on Social Security is very informative.

how about "statism" ? that's mark levin's term for these centralizers in "Liberty and Tyranny"

Thomas Sowell was on Glenn Beck the other day talking about this very subject.

Statism is an effective term though Fascism is the specific Statist tactic at work here in America, not Socialism.

The other day while conversing with a 20-something about the individual Liberty and collective Tyranny I ask him if he was looking forward to giving complete control of his own destiny over to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and the Nanny-Statists who are organizing all communities revolt around one centralized government; before leaving I highly recommended to him the Conservative Manifesto Liberty and Tyranny.

As for the kooks, I recall that a least one group which brought the 'birth certificate' issue to the courts was led by a lifelong, loyal Democrat.

Just like it was during the Schivo event where Rev Jackson was front and center of the hospital, many seem to ignore just as many Lefties are 'kooks'.

When we accept the fallacy that 'kooks' only exist on the right then moderates-independents and all the others who never pay attention to anything other than Jon Stewart's anal cavity will never get a clue as to the fact that the Left is 'kookier' than the Right.

*revolve* not revolt

Does anyone know if Obama reads Italian?

"Does anyone know if Obama reads Italian?"

Only if it is written in double-speak.

Control the language and you control the debate.
I would suggest that's the whole point.

It's much easier to debate someone if you can attack them for what they say instead of having to respond to what they say.

Oh, and to answer the title question
Who owns socialism?
Nobody, it owns you.

which "right wing crank" called Obama a socialist?
and were they a crank or did the left define them as "cranks"

When will non liberals stop allowing the liberal to define them.

Obama is a socialist. He's proven that with his words and his actions.

does calling a socialist a socialist make me now a crank?

The word liberal used to be a toxic word. The left took it owned it and turned it around.

until those with voices on the right grow a backbone, our country is doomed to become another failed social experiment

I'm less concerned about whether Obama is a socialist than about whether America has elected an "idiotist." That is to say, someone who is fully aware of the disasters socialism can, and will, wreak...but who implements the program anyway.

Something tells me Obama wants to be the next face on Mount Rushmore. However, given the glide path he's on, he'll be lucky to avoid getting airbrushed out of photos and "disappeared" as happened in Soviet times.

Has anyone written an alternate history novel yet with a what-if theme based on Teddy Roosevelt and Wm. Howard Taft nationalizing the trusts instead of busting them?

I think it will help if we remember that there are two distinct but linked phenomena here:

1) The use of the term "socialist"
2) The repudiation of that term, and its user.

As thinking humans, we cannot escape our responsibility to at least lightly evaluate the arguments placed before us, rather than simply scoring the argument by counting label tags, reacting like Pavlov's dogs to different bell tones.

The evaluation of this matter is fairly straightforward:

First, is the use of the term "socialist" reasonable under the circumstances? That is to say, is it being used to describe policies, means or events plausibly associated with the phenomena of socialism?

The outcome of that evaluation will inform the next evaluation, which is the reasonableness of the repudiation. All too often, the repudiation is less interested in engaging the arguments of the user of the term "socialism", and more interested in entirely de-legitimizing the user of the term's frame of reference.

The proposition that the responsible use of the term "socialist" in current political discourse is illegitimate and therefore indicative of (take your pick) historical and economic ignorance/ right wing zealotry/etc is almost exclusively used by advocates and defenders of policies plausibly associated with...you guessed it...socialism. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen this proposition aired by any party you could deem to be anything like neutral or objective.

This is a telling thing: it suggests to me that those who advance the policies plausibly associated with "socialism" to be perfectly aware of the provenance of their agenda, and the American people's rejection of it.

Yes, the term "socialist" is sometimes used as a pejorative, a maneuver which is concerned with emotional inflamation rather than reason, but discussion is about reason. It is a simple fact that "socialism" and the constellation of phenomena that surround it exist, profoundly impacting both the historical record and current events, and we are right to be suspicious of those who would flush the whole thing down the memory hole as if it were some ancient, irrelevant historical footnote with no possible bearing on today's controversies.

Socialism? Why does no one use that word? It's too mild. We've gone beyond that. Socialism is what the right wing's been yammering about since Roosevelt. It crept into every element of our society. No one paid much attention. As a result, that's behind us.

Now, as M. Simon says, we're outward bound to statism and the unholy Communist-Fascist convergence...and the War on Terrorism and restoring economic stability are its twin justifications. Except controlling/monitoring ordinary citizens and establishing absolute govt. supremacy are its objectives...not finding terrorists or restoring prosperity.

This is why the left pulled out all the stops to get Obama elected They saw the golden opportunity to advance their agenda had arrived. The measures enacted by Bush in response to the WOT gave them the tools to control the populace while, at the same time, the financial havoc wreaked by Frank, Dodd, Pelosi an Reid gave them justification for taking over the economy. This is their time.

May God help us.

You fail to figure out that the left has done a good job of stigmatizing those who use the word "socialist" just as they did a good job of stigmatizing anti-communists, just as everybody has done a great job of stigmatizing opponents of gay marriage as bigots. The effort to tar opponents of high taxes using the Marian Wright Edelman refrain, "but it's for the children," was a similar effort.

Once you're successfully labeled, the argument is over with. It isn't about your ideas, it's about the "fact" that you're a kook, socially unacceptable, and beyond the realm of decency; beneath debate.

As long as you buy into the oppositions premises, you will lose the debate.

Read Gramsci's Prison Diaries. Seriously. It'll make sense to you then. Until then, I suggest you quit giving a shit whether anonymous liberals on the web think you're a kook. You may be a kook, but they're socialists. Employing neo-marxist tactics. Have the courage to call things what they are. The branding effort only succeeds if you buy into it and agree two plus two is whatever they say it is.

As some others have mentioned, what we're seeing with Obama is not socialism. It is fascism, straight up. While both are in the realm of totalitarianism, fascism is the more accurate description.

While the effect on the individual (and society) often feels the same, the definitions are unique:

Fascism: Central planning and control of business and economy through coercion and intimidation:

Fascists explicitly promoted their ideology as a "Third Position" between capitalism and communism. Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level. Fascists advocated a new national multi-class economic system that is labeled as either national corporatism, national socialism or national syndicalism. Common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.

Socialism: State/Party ownership / nationalization of business / property.

Ownership/nationalization of all business isn't required for fascism. "Central control" versus "central ownership" is the key difference.

The central planning aspect of automobile companies (regulating their products and using coercion and threats) is fascism. Ditto for schemes to overtly regulate and control energy use and health insurance.

Read Obama's books. He tells us he sought out Marxist professors in college. Look at his friends. Ayers and Wright. Listen to what he said in an off-prompter moment to Joe the Plumber. Spread the wealth. It's interesting that he has told us in clear language what he is, yet we worry that we call him what he told us he is?

I gotta say, I'm kinda diggin' "idiotism" as described above. But then, I'm a right-wing kook, and therefore unreasonable.

Eric,
Another avenue to consider in a general sense regarding socialism: at what scale is it ok. In this sense I am talking about how many people in the group.

To a degree, families are structured in a socialist fashion. Somewhat larger than that is also probably not a problem as long as the association is voluntary. Beyond the optimal tribe size it starts to break down since you aren't being a burden or a supporter of a friend or relative, but a stranger.

Do we want socialism?

Does it matter what we want? 52% of American POTUS voters asked for it, and Obama and Congress are dedicated to implementing it. Arguing about whether it's more rightly called socialism or fascism is re-arranging the desk chairs on the Titanic.

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.

Sinclair Lewis

I think the Left has been so focused on flag wrapped crosses that they didn't recognize fascism when it walked in the front door promising Hope and Change.

I'll never understand the outrage at Obama and the Feds for taking over car companies and banks (all deserved), but nary a peep when yesterday the Secretary of Education along with 46 states and DC announced plans for a national education standard. Are our children's minds less important than our money and the car we drive? No one may want the stigma of socialism but Americans bought into long before the takeover of the banks and the auto industry. But now they are forced to admit the obvious and they don't want to.

What is funny about Sinclair Lewis and that quote is that Obama was elected wrapping himself in the flag and carrying the cross. He is perfectly willing to use Christianity as it suits him and many Christians that I know told me he was a more sincere Christian than McCain. The flag he wrapped himself in was the American one associated with the idea of equality, or one nation, with liberty and justice for all. Only for liberals, justice is not blind, but peeps out from the blindfold to check your race and ethnicity, not mention political associations.
Actually, pointing out that socialism or its variant, fascism, is where we are headed is like pointing out the iceberg while on the Titanic, never mind the deck chairs. I don't care what you call it, it looks like looming disaster to me.

Frightening, yes, to see the lights dimming on that Shining City Upon a Hill. Am wondering: Would that other s word, Mark Steyn's "statism," clear out the cobwebs and still get the job done?

I find the term Statist gets the point across without the hyperbolic connotation. Everyone understands the concept of those who would thrust the government into every corner of our lives.

Great article! Quoted at Ushanka.us.

I'm not so sure that anything Obama's done yet amounts to an 'ism' of any sort. What we've seen so far is the Democrats throwing government money at those who threw private money at them; a 'payoff', in other words, remarkable only for its transparency.

Well, Obama did promise us that.

Do not fret. Barack Obama is a dirty dirty socialist and the measure of that will be the consequences of his policies. The hyperinflation and the gas you can't afford and the prospects for your children that involve taking a bus into the hood to change lightbulbs or something and from what you understand a lunch will be provided.

The word what we should fret the loss of is propaganda I think.

If only socialism were deligitimized. Instead you have 'communist chic' complete with Che t-shirts. I don't care for the conspiracy theorists on either side of the debate. But I believe what I believe and don't really care what tribal group that others try to fit me in because of it. That, author and commentators, is individualism it would be good if those who talk the talk would walk the walk more.

Obama is a Kerensky but fortunately the US has institutions that are better rooted in society than Kerensky had to work with. We can still survive this but we need to seriously examine what we are trying to conserve and the type of action that would restore and truly improve the society made by the spirit of 1776.

Cringing about the use of an economic term is not helping.

I'm sorry, but this whole discussion drips of the too-clever excuses of losers, afraid of the bully, rationalizing why they should pretend the bully is not as bad as he really is.

Advice to those trying to excuse their timidity: Call it socialism and be done with it.

Or if you want to look like your being subtle, call it a blob-like, philosophically-incoherent national socialism suited to the early 21st century gringo herd. A few parts of the Spanish falange, another scoop or two of imported Italian fascism, more than a few handfuls of pre-Thatcher British socialism, all dolloped over a slab of government-as-protection-racket, long ago marinated in Bismarckian statism. Garnish heavily with sycophantism, nature-as-good-mother, faux-scandals. Serve tepid.

Didn't everybody get the memo?

[url=http://tinyurl.com/lknsgw]http://tinyurl.com/lknsgw[/url]

There are two trends here; ownership and control. Yes, once you go over 50% ownership, you technically (and legally under most circumstances) do "own" the business.

That said, many times, control is more important than ownership. For example, if you own zero stock, but have the contractual rights through a debt to determine the company's spending, hire and fire management, direct the company's product development, appoint directors, etc. you are potentially in a better position than a shareholder to dictate what the business does.

Control the banks, so any business that needs money has to go to the government, tax and regulate energy to compel business and individuals to "go green" (regardless of actual economic benefit or cost), nationalize health care to change business and consumer behavior on food, exercise, etc. and finally leave a debt so large that our children and grandchildren are enslaved for the next 50 years paying the interest to Goldman Sachs and foreign creditors. You don't need to own much to accomplish that.

If I were to categorize government approaches to economy in a non-pejoritive way, I would do so as follows:

- Capitalism: limited government regulation of private enterprise
- Fascism: government collusion with private enterprise
- Socialism: government ownership of "necessary" services
- Communism: complete government control of economy

I honestly believe we have been dancing on the edge of fascism like Gollum with the ring in the Crack of Doom, and of late have fallen over the edge. But, again, "fascism" is another love that dare not speak its name.

Semantic manipulation has been a classic feature of Marxist-Leninist strategy since its formulation by Lenin in a number of his works and then elaborated by Stalin, particularly in his The Foundations of Leninism. Think of the way in which the Red Army "liberated" Eastern Europe from the Wehrmacht, and established "people's democratic republics." Or "United Nations." And so on and on. If you would like to understand better how the Soviet secret services engaged in this on a massive scale throughout the 20th century there are many books to read, but one of the better ones is Double Lives by Stephen Koch.

One must also consider that the proliferation of conspiracy theories which seemingly no normal person would believe in is not the result of the activity of strange broken little maniacs in their mother's basements, but an intentional strategy to conceal the real conspiracy. In all these efforts it is of course only a small number of foreign agents who can effect the public discourse, but by having well-placed agents amplified by respectable publications and broadcasters, you can get the ball rolling. For example, did you knowthat the first two boks which charged the CIA with killing Kennedy were published by KGB assets in the United States?

It is a complicated subject, and afflicted with the stigma of conspircy thinking. But there is a lot of real information out there. All you have to do is look with your eyes open and your heart open and ask yourself: really, does it make sense that all this just happened exactly this way?

The greatest black hole yearning to be filled and rescued from oblivion is common public knowledge on the reality of the Soviet Union and the operation of its secret services. Period.

I personally don't know how we lost the debate. Oh wait, yes I do. David Brooks and all the other conservatives seeking that "strange new respect" wouldn't let such words enter the conversation because of reasons I still don't quite understand. They are the ones who framed the debate around the S word and Obama. Still, given the infamous Newsweek cover and the fact that the left has been pretty unapologetic with their own desire for nationalization and socialization of the banks and such, I think Obama and Co should be asked to detail out how what they are doing is NOT socialism. I'd love to hear them split the hair. Of course, they may try to pull an Andrew Sullivan and just keep saying that Obama is conservative enough times that maybe people will believe it.

All that said, I do think statism is the correct word here. We really could split hairs all day about whether this is socialism or fascism (and then go out and buy Jonah Goldberg's book and just move on). Statism is both accurate and has the appropriate negative connotations because it implies (at least to me) a sort of slow moving incompetent totalitarian instinct that fascism and socialism don't quite capture.

I think most scholars agree that the criteria for using the words "socialism" and socialist" would be: If it looks like a socialist, smells like a socialist, and taxes and expropriates property like a socialist, it probably is a socialist.

Probably no one could question the socialist credential of Norman Thomas. He gave up his repeated attempts to run for presiident on a socialist platform because he felt that, with the coming of the New Deal, there was no need of a socialist third-party candidate. In other words the Democrats had become the de facto socialist party. Now if Norman Thomas felt that way about FDR and his Brain Trust, what would he have said about "Il Dufe" and his No-Brain Trust?

When my discussions with others got bogged down in "Obama's a socialist" and "No, he's not", I decided that I needed another word to capture the spirit of Obama.

He's an anti-capitalist.

It doesn't matter if he's a socialist, communist, facist, or radical liberal--he's an anti-capitalist. In his world-view, profit=greed. That's a simple definition that many leftists believe in their heart of hearts.

Socialism is an extreme word that opens anyone that uses it to Reductio ad absurdum attacks. A better description for where we are headed is "social democracy," but that just complicates the argument -- most people will not understand the difference and left wingers will conflate the two anyway.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! -- Barry Goldwater

Call it socialism. Call if fascism. Call it outright communism. Say it LOUD. If the socialists, fascists, and communists are offended and call you a kook consider the source.

As a GM bond holder i can assure you Obama is a Fascist on the cusp of Socialist. To cut to the case when the government takes a 60% interest (and with what legal authority) of a private firm and then hands a 30% stake to a union (who has no capital invested in the firm and again with what legal authority) that my friends is Fascism on the cusp of Socialism. In other words he is on the way from becoming a Juan Peron and ending up a Hugo Chavez.

No one can make the argument that GM was to important to the economy to simple be liquidated, a good argument? Perhaps or perhaps not. However if the government was to take a role in this matter, the best and indeed the only legitimate role would have been similar to what Carter did 30 years ago and offer loan guarantees to the private DIP financiers in an organized Chapter 11
filing. And nothing more.

What is even more shocking is the utter worthlessness of the national Republican leadership. Where are their shouts of outrage over this flagrant, shameless and illegal use of government power? Did they not take an oath to preserve and protect the constitution as office holders? To be sure the conservatives made an enormous mistake by sitting out the last election, they won't make that mistake again; however the national Republicans are fools to assume therefore they will get their support. More likely they will face primary challenges the likes they never would have believed. And this time money won't matter. The primary voters will vote for the real conservative no matter what the incumbent promises or how much money they raise and spend.

As for the banks, if you are forced to take a loan you did not need, pay interest on it that is equal to a least several times more than you pay others for funds and then are not allowed to pay it back then what you have here is a prettified, dandified loan sharking operation. The Mob must be envious. Then again Obama is well versed in Chicago Machine politics which is nothing more than an extension of the Chicago Outfit. He had Angels in the right places.

Yes Obama and the national Democrats are indeed now the New Democratic-Communist Party. And all the lipstick in the world won't make the pig pretty. And as for kooks, why hasn't Obama released his original birth certificate, or his college transcripts? What is he hiding? Just like Kerry who still has not disclosed his discharge records. What are they hiding? If there is nothing there, why not disclose them and settle all doubt? The fact they won't is rather telling. Imagine the howls from the left if a Republican were to do the same as Kerry and Obama. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Maybe the kooks are not all so kooky.

Liberals are socialist pure and simple. They are also completely useless.

Who is John Galt?

Liberals are socialist pure and simple. They are also completely useless.

Who is John Galt?

Is it actually socialism, or is Obama just continuing the "third way" trajectory out of the Bush/Clinton years?

"A question which has been plaguing me lately is whether it is possible to have a legitimate debate over socialism without sounding like a rabid, hysterical, over-the-top, far-right conspiracy theorist."

I've thought about it a lot and...
A: I don't think we can
B: I don't think it matters

Without calling it socialism we can still trot all the great arguments against it formulated by anti socialists over the last 80 years. So we just won't call it socialism, whatever... on the plus side, it will keep us sharp because to some degree socialism becomes a put down or tautology. It's bad because its socialism and socialism is bad... we'll have to break a sweat and explain why socialism (or in this case we can call it 'government interventions') is wrong.

PS
A related tangent. Don't despair. A lot of the democrat party is not as far left as the base. They younger ones have never even heard anti-socialist (umm, 'free market' or 'anti planning') arguments... they still are probably unconsciously sympathetic to them.. Cracks can form as soon as the arguments start to be made.

If it is socialism, call it socialism. It´s a good word that has meaning. Nobody has a right to declare it out of bounds. Don´t play that game; it never ends.

My suggestion - if you want to go soft, just call it corruption. Machine politics. A little harder? Latin-American style authoritarianism. Harder still? Corporatist fascism.

I'm as gloomy over this as the rest of you. How do you even take this up with your liberal friends (if you have any) w/o tripping over their hot button issues. And those buttons have been self-installed via leftist propaganda in order to enhance their social virtue. On topic, though, I'd point out that fascism is already a toxic word that will only derail your conversation. Statism is too academic for general usage. Socialism itself appears to have been accepted by most on the left as a harmless anodyne. To describe someone as a socialist is no more serious - to many - than describing them as a Rotarian. The problems with using "marxist" are manifest: you're a retrograde ignoramus.

I'm thinking that the word "collectivist" hasn't been delegitimized yet and has the addn'l virtue of intrinsic, easily recognizable meaning w/o distracting explanation. More importantly, it is easily contrasted with "individualist" in ways that can be used to remind someone of our constitutional heritage and the beauty of the founders' insight that the individual needs to be protected from the state. Progressives believe the opposite, particularly in regard to free markets - that the state must be protected from decisions made by individuals. I would also separate the terms "progressive" and "liberal." Liberal, both in the classical sense and as used before the onset of the current "movement" that has taken over the Democratic party, is an honorable term representing some of mankind's finest beliefs and aspirations. Don't let progressives get away with calling themselves "liberal" - they're not. I agree that "propaganda" is a big problem, but it's another word, unfortunately, that's already been tarred. I would tell others that there has been a campaign to "delegitimize" or "discredit" the things you support, making it more difficult to discuss. Thank for the space; this has been a very good thread.

I have to admit, I love the comments that show up from Instalanches sometimes.

Some background, my philosophy of living is "Of course I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?"

Quote from above
One must also consider that the proliferation of conspiracy theories which seemingly no normal person would believe in is not the result of the activity of strange broken little maniacs in their mother's basements, but an intentional strategy to conceal the real conspiracy.

A sort of Grand Unifying Conspiracy Theory.
Now that's good paranoia.
And since we're in the Funniest End of Civilization Ever, that statement has a 63% chance of being 85% accurate.

Worried that calling Obama "socialist" will brand you a crank?

Use jujitsu.

Shout from the rooftops, "Obama is NOT a socialist! Obama is NOTHING LIKE a socialist!"

And whatever you do, DON'T THINK of a pink elephant.

Rex, isn't "social democrat" what European socialists call themselves these days?

This topic reminds me of a classic line from SOUTH PARK:

"No, it's not fascism, because we're not going to call it that."

That could be the slogan of the Obama administration.

"A sort of Grand Unifying Conspiracy Theory.
Now that's good paranoia."

Ha - I know man. I know what it sounds like. And yet - the Mitrohkin archives tell us what they tell us. Socialism is, after all, a gigantic open conspiracy, is it not? Look - this thread is about the odd, odd fact that for some reason we cannot say Socialism when in fact all the things occurring now would be recognizable as goals of Socialism articulated since the turn of the 20th century. If people would read from that early period, I think more people would understand just how strange it is. But my insistence is probably hopeless - whatever the reason, "it" has been successful. I guess the new task is to figure out how to adapt to the fact and overcome its consequences.

It's obviously socialism.

Anyone who has a problem hearing or using that word is a fool whose sensitive parts are doing the thinking.

Know who could read Italian like Dante? Calvin Coolidge, that's who. A Latinist, as well. Our Current Occupant didn't have "multi-lingual" on his resume, but given his school record, there's one foreign language I guarantee he can read.

If the deal is semantic manipulation, all hail Karl Marx, who invented the word "capitalism." The right of Old Europe (the Ancien Regime) hated "capital" with a passion--as close to a white hot passion as those cold, white people could muster.

So get in the game. Whenever they say "capitalist," scream like a gored socialist. Insist on some euphemism, and you'll be fine calling them Marxists when they don't say it.

It's time to relegate this word -- socialism -- to an algorithm. I propose that anytime the GNP is more than 40% government controlled, it's "socialism." Less then 40 is "capitalism."

The Capitalism/Socialism dichotomy is a sliding scale and until politician see this and admit it, the use of such words will remain name-calling devices.

"The term "socialist" has been tossed around in the news lately in reference to any number of Obama Administration policies. Find out what socialism really means, where it came from, and how it got such a bad wrap. Eric Foner is Dewitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University and James Surowiecki is business columnist for the New Yorker."

Listen to the discussion here:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2009/03/27/segments/127262

I worry that "socialist" within five words of "Barack Obama" has become code language for belief in various popular far-right conspiracy theories.

I count four intervening words, so the mere fact your panties are in a twist over socialism rearing it's ugly head means you must be one of them kooks you're whining about.

Eric Foner?! Eric Foner is a Marxist-Leninist.

See what I mean? Voila.

Like a lot of the comments here, I hate the fascism of taxes.

I have resolved to stop using the roads, the police services, the sewer services, the clean air that gov't regulations provide, and clean water that gov't regulations provide, the wholesome food that FDA regulations provide, and everything else that has any connection to those fascist taxes.

I have only one more point: do any of you guys here mind if I dump my sewerage on your property?

GALT LIVES!

Wait a minute--you don't want to sound like a kook? What do you propose to do about your archives then?

CTRL GALT DELETE

I think it's not so much that people think you're a kook if you start calling Democrats "socialist" but that the term doesn't have the same alarming effect that it did in the 1950s, when it could be dependably used to tar anyone with whom you did not agree.

People have seen varying degrees of socialism work just fine in various places around the world. Some of us have traveled to Europe and have seen "socialized" medicine without the accompanying death camps that conservatives have told us to expect. We see Swedes driving Saabs and living prosperous, happy lives, being creative, raising families and not having to wait in line for toilet paper and bread.

The term "socialism" isn't working for you conservatives any more for the same reason the townspeople started ignoring the little boy who cried "wolf".

Ah yes. If only we implemented socialism we could all drive Saabs and live creative Scandanavian lives with excellent health.

May I ask - when exactly did this notion take over your mind? That because there is a small oil-exporting country called Sweden with about 8 million highly civilized (did I mention oil-subsidized?) people that that is any kind of model for any other culture whatever? I'm doing an informal study, you see. This is like a claim my obnoxious Austrian-Israeli friend was making about Austria the other day. Austria? Austria has a smaller population than Ohio. Why don't we just follow the example of my friends the Friedmans? They're rich as hell - each of their 5 kids has a Saab or a BMW. Why would I want to be like a Swede when I could be like a Friedman? Oh - by the way - do you have any construction companies or shopping malls I could own? That seems to be where they get their income.

Unless, of course, it's magic. Like Socialism.

Uh dan, maybe you can do an extended essay on why that dastardly socialism that Swedes have seems to work just as well in all the Scandanavian countries, France, to a lesser degree in England, and any number of other countries.

Be sure to include data about how many shopping malls each inhabitant of each of those countries owns.

Actually, you are a kook.

I wish Obama was a socialist. Instead, he's a centre-right corporatist. Socialist is just the epithet you fools use for him, because demonisation is your stock in trade. And LOL at the idea that he's a fascist. It would probably help if you kooks even understood what these words mean.

Lol. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you.

Oh, look. The trolls have begun their elaborate mating ritual.

This gives me a theory for why we daren't say socialist when we mean socialist. Because for some reason we are cowed when we think of the words that these sorts of people use to attack those who would make the sensible risk of speaking the truth. This makes no sense on its face, though.

We know, logically, that these people are without dignity. If their ridiculous and incessant ad hominem and doublethink weren't proof enough, to defend socialism is to say, "I do not believe in human dignity."

This is why we fail to combat them. We believe in dignity for ourselves and for others. It is unnatural to conceive of a person who would willingly give up their dignity to further their agenda. But in truth, they are a legion of cockroaches who bear the monstrous titan of Socialism across the Earth on their backs.

We look at the roach and we see a man who is wrong. They look at us and see nothing but an obstacle, which they will crawl through their own filth to drag their evil cargo over. We want to defend the concept of human dignity, they want to render it down into its component parts and pick it apart, until it is gone. Sans everything.

So I speculate that in our confusion, when confronted by these people, sometimes we (or at least, some of us) mistakenly think that the reaction to our words by these individuals could potentially be the reaction of a rational human being. "I want to get through rational people, so I will avoid saying this." And so we do. And so they control us, as they inch forward, a little at a time.

I think it's hilarious that the upshot of this post is "how can we avoid sounding like kooks" and then all the comments are like "ZOMG Obama is an islamofascisocialinazi coming to put us in camps! Ayers! THINK ABOUT IT. May god help us all. Crosses! Flags! GAAAH!" And you wonder why your side comes across as nuts? Really?

Yvonne:

Aren't you aware of the fact that "ZOMG Obama is an islamofascisocialinazi coming to put us in camps! Ayers! THINK ABOUT IT. May god help us all. Crosses! Flags! GAAAH!" is just the calm, reasonable, rational truth?

But when those crazy lib trolls come here and say things like "Obama raised the top marginal tax rate to a number lower than what it was for most of the time Raygun was in office, and 40% less than the rate under Ike", that is a bunch of fruitcake liberals talking.

See the difference?

GALT LIVES!

Conservative sat out the last election because they didn't want to vote for "not a real conservative". In exchange they got "not a real socialist". Yet.

A fair exchange in my mind.

Ratz,

The camps don't start really cranking up until there is not enough economy to support all the "excess" people. i.e. people who consume but do not produce. I believer that would be old folks and the disfavored minority of your choice...."

Lazy good for nothing dopers come to mind.

Here is how it was done in Europe at one time:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/05/paying_for_soci.html

That is not what we are saying.

We know that is not what we are saying, and you know that is not what we are saying.

You, however, are extremely well served by continually distorting everything that your opposition does until it is no longer real, especially in "defense" against realistic (or at least arguable) actions by your "side."

It is impossible to reason with a person who will knowingly lie to your face when you both know that it is a lie. That lie is told for the sake of an audience, of course. That audience is partially you, partially for the comrades of the liar, and it's partially anyone who could potentially be influenced by the lie to believe what the liar asserts.

Action spent defending yourself against the lie is not spent proving the point which their lie seeks to steal the stage from.

I wish I had a better solution than to just ignore these people, because the energy spent to illustrate just what they are could be better spent in other capacities. How do you fight an intellectual enemy that thinks nothing of its own utter lack of dignity or honesty?

Whoops, should have thought to address that directly regarding Yvonne for the sake of clarity.

M. Simon:

I know what you mean by "people who consume but do not produce".

All those guys who inherited their daddy's businesses, those guys who inherited their daddy's money, those guys who get no-bid contracts from the government like Haliburton, and those guys who get elected president mainly because they share a last name with a former president.

Yes, I hate those guys.

GALT LIVES!

Veeshir,

Wouldn't that be (1 - 1/e) more exactly?

As to the 85% - I believe that is pure conjecture with no rational basis.

I have only one more point: do any of you guys here mind if I dump my sewerage on your property?

If you don't mind me for shooting you for trespassing I think it would be a fair trade.

Limp Dick,

Yeah. That Haliburton crap was butt ugly. We should shoot B. Clinton for signing the contract.

As to the Limousine Liberal trust fund babies, I totally agree that they should be at the head of the line for the camps.

M. Simon:

Well, if it is just a simple battle of power that keeps me from dumping my sewerage on your lawn, I'll just wait till you're not at home or asleep.

GALT LIVES!

M. Simon:

Under Clinton Haliburton was held accountable for their mistakes. But under that worthless consumer who became president because he shared a last name with a former president, Haliburton served sewerage to the troops with no penalty, among many other evil things.

Your other comment implies that you love all those rich trust fund babies who consume but don't produce as long as they have an (R) behind their name. Do you?

GALT LIVES!

Well, if it is just a simple battle of power that keeps me from dumping my sewerage on your lawn, I'll just wait till you're not at home or asleep.

Behold the fierce battle cry of the leftist.

Anonymous:

I am not a leftist! I am a Galtian! I would no sooner think of being a leftist than I would think of using those lousy roads that those fascist taxes pay for.

When are you disconnecting your house from the sewer system? All us pure Idealists do that, as well as refuse to use the roads, since the evil taxes that pay for them are socialistic.

GALT LIVES!

How about "that policy has a socialist vector" and "that policy has a liberty vector"? That way a person can say "I'm not a socialist, I'm a pragmatist" and you can reply, "Well, your preferred pragmatic policy has a socialist vector that I don't like. Can you propose something else with a liberty vector instead?"

Yours,
Tom DeGisi, aka Wince and Nod

Tom:

I like your idea! Talking about "liberty vectors" sounds a LOT LESS kooky than talking about Obama birth certificates.

I think it does, anyway.

GALT LIVES!

Hey Lipstick,

If you'll take my sewage too, I'll ride shotgun and lay down cover fire.

Thom:

It sounds pretty violent. I'm a peaceful Galtian. Live and let live.

Don't worry. M. Simon will have to sleep sooner or later, and then I can just peacefully deposit the sewerage on his lawn. It'll help the grass grow. I call it a "win-win".

We Idealists have to avoid using any socialism like fascist tax-financed sewer systems.

GALT LIVES!

Er, I don't know about that "win-win" stuff. "Altruism is evil," as the Galtian Deity preaches.

In fact, if you're going to do something that is not entirely in your own self-interest, I'm beginning to wonder about you, too!

In theory, "socialism" is still a perfectly legitimate word, but I worry that it is becoming delegitimized

You'd better keep it away from Jonah, he's a skilled word delegitimizer.

Thom:

I only use win-win situations when I might use the goodwill engendered by such an act later. Everything I do is solely for the good of me.

GALT LIVES!

I haven't read all the comments, so somebody may have already posited this theory, so my apologies if I'm being redundant. But this is my take on the devaluation of the word "socialist":

For many decades, conservatives with access to media (talk radio especially) labelled anyone who disagreed with them "communists" and "socialists." And, for a long time, these were potent charges. Eventually, however, it became clear to a critical mass of people that the charges of "communism" and "socialism" were bogus in that those tagged as such were, in fact, neither. I would say that this critical mass of people developed by the mid-nineties, at the latest.

The word "liberal" has had a similar, but shorter, trajectory, mainly due to the fact that "liberal" had been, until the 80's, a perfectly normal word that was used to accurately describe those who were, in fact, liberal. However, the message-meisters (the Lee Atwater crowd) managed to turn the word into an effective slur, to the point where even liberals would not describe themselves using the word "liberal". However, like "communist" and "socialist", a critical mass of people saw that the use of this word had morphed into nothing more than "I don't like you." Hence, the use of the word in its original (by which I mean pre-80's, not the 18th century) sense is coming back into vogue.

The lesson here is that using such words as a scare tactic is only effective for a period of time, which I hope is on average getting shorter and shorter as more and more people pay attention to how they're being manipulated by, for example, the author of this blog.

I'm with El Gordo: "collectivism" is a perfectly fine word (and it neatly covers both the fascist and socialist varieties).

Does your government own most or all businesses in your country? Is it dictating every aspect of economic policy to those businesses? That's socialism - anything less is not ... what's "upon us" isn't socialism, it's state-financed corporate welfare, the same old monkey-business as usual, just on a much larger scale than people are used to seeing. Serious yes, but hardly unprecedented - the means of rehabilitating some corporate players may be unusual but it's neither unique nor all that innovative.

The Pentagon has been directly subsidizing high-tech for a long time & on an even more titanic scale, all on your dime - yet I have a sneaking suspicion you're not too alarmed about such "socialist" policy.

Yes, I'm sure Obama has such a wide-open & carefree schedule that he's more than delighted to add corporate-rehab to his "To Do" list right now - especially when it comes with a pricetag in the hundreds of billions that will likely gut much of his agenda ... apparently logic is not your strong suit.

Government grudgingly taking control of a few big companies because they're economic basket-cases (with a pledge to return their share to private hands when they become stable) is socialism? How strange - you must be using some sort of "Classical Values" dictionary that us mere plebes have no access to ... I'll stick with modern values, thanks.

The fact is, if you wanted to build a moat around your property (or even around politically incorrect lawn signs) and fill it with raw sewage, then having someone else provide you with free sewerage would indeed be an act of altruism, and therefore socialistic.

I am sick to death of this creepy feeling that I can't talk about the Deros without sounding like a kook.

Ah, where to start. Let's see ...

By what standard is government ownership of 72% of a company less than "true" socialism?

When the government owners refuse to act as the controlling board interest? Or, as others have pointed out here, when said government's 51% stakes in companies represent a miniscule fraction of the private enterprise in the country? Am I getting warmer?

So far Obama administration has 'seized' (read 'bailed out at their behest on the heels of Bush doing same') the 'means of really crappy production' (the automakers, except that they've actually let them go into bankruptcy with some rejigging of their debt obligations so that workers with contracts based on long-term service move ahead in the line against investors with contracts based on their bet that they would walk away with first dibs on the spoils of a collapse) and some of the insanely over-leveraged banks, Wall Street firms and the financial services arm on an insurance company.

This is pretty weak tea as far as historical socialist revolutions go. At this rate, we might expect the nationalization of the airlines by about the year 2375. But by that time cyrogenically frozen President Malia Obama could have a surprise in store for her when Glenn Beck clone 62 finally unearths her father's Kenyan birth certificate.

You raise an interesting point, D.A. How do we really KNOW that Malia is a native born American? Her dad has been SUSPICIOUSLY RELUCTANT to release her birth certificate.

I live in a very friendly, old, middle-to-upper middle class neighborhood. The majority are Republicans, but there were a lot of Obama yard signs last fall.

In the last couple of weeks, a few yards are starting to sprout a black sign that says simply: "no socialism".

I'll be very interested to see if this yard sign trend spreads.

And of course nothing in Il Dufe's background or associates would indicate that he's anything but a libertarian.

Actually, Lipstickbedecked, you are apparently completely ignorant of the history of the words "liberalism" and "socialism" in the twentieth century. A "liberal" up until about the early 20th Century was someone who was anti-statist. It wasn't until the 1920s or so that socialists such as John Dewey realized that "socialism" was too hard a sell in America and decided to repackage (or really just re-label) State-socialism as "liberalism." It wasn't Lee Atwater who gave "liberal" the unsavory connotation of "bully who wants to use the power of the State to force his/her ideas on Society." It was the bullies who wanted to use the power of the State to force their ideas on the rest of Society, and decided to call themselves "liberals," who made the l-word distasteful to those of us who value liberty. Too bad instead of "liberalism" the early 20th Century State-shtuppers didn't use the term H. G. Wells (himself a government-fellator) proposed: "liberal fascism." Then at least you'd have some truth in advertising. For further reading, see Arthur Ekrich's classic THE DECLINE AND FALL OF AMERICAN LIBERALISM, in addition to Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM.

Bilwick:

I'd love to hear more. What college do you teach history at?

The only place I can find the books you mentioned is an online bookseller called conspiracy_theories.com. They don't take credit cards because they call them "fascist".

GALT LIVES!

stace:

I love the idea of the "no socialism" signs. Have those household stopped using the tax theft-funded roads and sewer systems like I have?

GALT LIVES!

Libstick:

Yeah, right.

Bilwick:

I understand how "Yeah right" might serve you as some sort of reply, but for high-achievers like us Galtians it merely reflects the paucity of rebuttal that you have.

Perhaps, however, in spite of your low IQ you can serve the aristocratic meritocracy that we are forming as a sewerage-monger.

GALT LIVES!

Lipstick:

Yeah, right.

Actually, I don't teach history although I majored in it and graduated with honors. But you don't have to be a history professor to read history? Is that's what's been stopping you? Because you obviously have the historical consciousness of the kid with the banjo from DELIVERANCE.Pray, which part of the Ekrich thesis do you dispute? This should be good.

Bilwick:

I'll need to see the vault copy of your degree before I believe you. As with President Obama's birth certificate, only vault copies are acceptable.

GALT LIVES!

Bilwick:

I'm not sure how "Arthur Ekrich" makes you so tingly inside, as googling his name gives 30 hits (many of them repeats), in comparison to, say, "Will Durant" giving 844,000 hits.

Like I said, I could only find his book at conspiracy_theories.com but they don't take credit cards.

GALT LIVES!

Lipstick,

It's out of print. See http://www.amazon.com/Decline-American-Liberalism-Ekirch/dp/0689700695

Way to go with the genetic fallacy and ad hominem by implying only a conspiracy theorist would agree with Ekirch. You might consider this from Amazon.

Product Description

From the Revolutionary War and World Wars I and II to the Great Depression and civil rights battles, this chronicle takes a historical look at how principles such as individual liberty and democratic rule have weathered the last few centuries. The growth of state empowerment and its effect on autonomy and the economy is also discussed.

--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

About the Author

Arthur A. Ekirch Jr. was a leading scholar of American intellectual history and a professor emeritus of history at the State University of New York–Albany. He is the author of numerous books, including The American Democratic Tradition, The Civilian and the Military, and Man and Nature in America.
--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Sounds like a normal book by a normal historian.

Yours,
Tom

Tom:

If you count somebody with only 30 links found by google in the entire Internet as a "normal historian", I bet you can also endorse such theories as "hollow earth" which had 277,000 links on google.

Most "normal people" would call an author with just 30 links on the Internet a "crazy kook" or "conspiracy theorist".

Which kinda explains why I could only find him at conspiracy_theories.com.

GALT LIVES!

Erik,

I think to have any chance for success in your endeavor to link O to socialism without sounding like a kook, you'd need to first show that you are something more than a shill for the Republican party. As I am sure that you are aware, between 2001 and 2007 Bush and the Republican dominated congress increased federal spending by about $1 trillion. This, after promising that their philosophy was that of limited government.

Now that the Dems have taken over and adopted, at least temporarily, the Republican approach (in actuallity ignoring the lip service) of rapidly increasing the size of government, many many commentators who had no problem with government spending as long as it was Republicans doing the spending, are now simply aghast at what the Dems are doing. Everyone moderatley well informed (beyond the choir) sees these commentators for what they are, simply shills for the Republican party with no real concerns about the size of government.

Accordingly, for you to have any chance of being seen as a serious commentator while leveling your socialism charge at O, you need to distance yourself from this crowd. The only way that I see of accomplishing this feat is to begin your essay by writing about the failure of the Republicans to limit the size of the federal government during their opportunity.

Unfortunately, to do this topic justice would take time, which, as you say, you don't have.

Lipstick,

You failed to correct Bilwick's misspelling of Arthur A. Ekirch's name.

Me, I find 35,500 references to "Arthur A. Ekirch".

http://www.google.com/search?q=Arthur+A.+Ekirch&hl=en&start=90&sa=N

Check out the In Memorium from the American Historical Association.

http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2000/0005/0005mem1.cfm

Arthur A. Ekirch Jr., a leading scholar of American intellectual history and professor emeritus of history at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany, died on February 5, 2000, of a heart attack.

Born in New York City on December 15, 1915, Ekirch was a Phi Beta Kappa student at Dartmouth College, graduating in 1937. He attended Columbia University, where he received his MA (1938) and his PhD (1943) in history. At Columbia, Ekirch studied with Merle Curti, from whom he imbibed a keen interest in the major ideas that shaped American life and with whom he maintained close ties for more than half a century.

Strongly affected by revisionist writing on World War I, Ekirch shared the disillusionment of much of his generation with that conflict and with war in general. Unlike many of his peers, though, he did not gravitate toward collective security measures in the late 1930s. With the passage of the Selective Service Act of 1940, he registered with his draft board as a conscientious objector (CO). Despite the unpopularity of his pacifist views, the onset of World War II had only a modest impact upon his life. He attended graduate school, married Dorothy Gustafson in August 1940, and fathered the first of his three children.

... and ...

Ekirch was a prolific author, writing 10 books, dozens of articles, and more than 100 book reviews. The Decline of American Liberalism, his favorite and a History Book Club selection, argued that the idea of freedom began to wane in the United States with the American Revolution, thanks to the development of nationalism and, later, a mass production economy. Another well-known work of his, The Civilian and the Military, focused upon the rise of militarism over the course of American history. His Man and Nature in America, which appeared almost simultaneously with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, had a strong environmentalist flavor, for it emphasized the loss of belief in harmony between humanity and nature in the face of a drive to plunder natural resources. Overall, his writings displayed a restlessness with established verities. Characteristically, he dedicated another of his books, The American Democratic Tradition, to two earlier disturbers of national complacency: V. L. Parrington and Charles Beard.

GALT PRACTICES SIMPLE CRITICAL THINKING AND EASY INVESTIGATION!

Yours,
Tom

Lipstick,

My first comment triggered the spam filter. But here's a tip. Bilwick can't spell. It's Arthur A. Ekirch Jr.

There are 35,500 references when you spell his name right.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=Arthur+A.+Ekirch&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

See http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2000/0005/0005mem1.cfm

GALT PRACTICES SIMPLE CRITICAL THINKING AND EASY INVESTIGATIVE SKILLS.

Yours,
Tom

Lipstick,

My first two comments triggered the spam filter. But here's a tip. Bilwick can't spell. It's Arthur A. Ekirch Jr.

There are 35,500 references when you spell his name right.

GALT PRACTICES SIMPLE CRITICAL THINKING AND EASY INVESTIGATIVE SKILLS.

Yours,
Tom

Tom:

Thanks for the correction. I tried about 244 other variations of the name, but after 4 hours of fruitless research I gave up.

That being said, the guy's books are out of print. Not necessarily proof that he is irrelevant, but something. Also, if I google "Arthur Ekirch", I get 979 links. So, it seems he is still pretty unknown, and the evidence would tend to favor the fact that his theories are kinda wacky.

Unless you want to add up all the google hits on all possible spelling of his name, including perhaps "John Smith". Then you would get some big numbers. Success!

GALT LIVES!

Lipstick,

Four hours? I figured it out in less than four minutes. See my first comment about Dr. Ekirch. I found his book on Amazon - not a conspiracy theorist site. You might also want to check out the 'In Memorium' for him by the American Historical Association. It's linked in my first comment awating moderation.

I stand by my 35,500 hits on "Arthur A. Ekirch".

Look, your theory that his work is kinda wacky because he is obscure doesn't really pan out. He is an academic historian, not a popular historian. Almost all academic historians are obscure. You are condemning an entire field of endeavor on truly silly grounds. Imagine how many hits you will get for the leading American expert on 17th century Serbian poetry.

Yours,
Tom

It is only 857 if you enclose it in quotes. ;)

I was wrong about the book being out of print.

The Independent Institute reissued it.

Yours,
Tom

I'm sure the folks over at Stormfront have very similar discussions about the term "ZOG." They probably aren't all too different from this one.

Also, funny how the same people who used to say that the word "fascism" was a knee-jerk liberal demonization of any right-wing thought are now bawling at the top of their lungs about how President Hussein X is a FASCIST!! The only thing funnier than the accusation itself is the smug sense of self-righteousness they exhibit about it, as if they're somehow being daring and courageous by saying it, because the black helicopters could show up at any minute. Pathetic.

apikores,

Did you read the same post I did? It's about how we can honestly discuss real political positions using real political language. I know a socialist from Canada. Calls himself double-plus-ungood. I'm sure he doesn't want that word to be off limits. I'm also sure that he's insulted that it is used as an insult.

And yes, when the government takes over a private auto manufacturing firm rather than letting it fail, that is a socialist method. It was socialist when Britain, Italy and France did it. (They were happy with that description!) Why isn't it socialist here?

Yours,
Tom

Tom,

At the risk of repeating what other companies have said, gov't interest in private companies has been with us since the inception of this country. If we're to believe that what Obama is doing is "socialist" then the US has been a "socialist" country ever since the New Deal. If you want to argue that, by all means, do, but I'm not going to take you seriously and I doubt very many people outside of the Christian Identity/tax denier/white supremacist/militia movement will take you seriously. The idea that the tiny shift to the left that Obama is trying to implement somehow constitutes "socialism" is a hallmark of the intellectual bankruptcy of the Right. Americans who self-describe as "socialist" agree, and apparently the writer of this blog is aware in some muddled fashion that the insult is trite, overwrought, and inaccurate. No one who has seriously engaged intellectually with Marx--and I count conservatives among that group--could possibly mistake Obama for a socialist. The methods that you are complaining about are being implemented in order to save capitalism from its faults and ensure that the current system of private ownership is perpetuated. Pumping billions of dollars into Wall Street is anything but "socialist." When Obama starts collectivizing farms, then give me a call. Until then, I'll be with the other 80% of America, in the real world.

Yours,
Apikores

*what other commenters have said.

Lol. Freudian slip, anyone?

apikores,

I said it's a socialist method and it is. It was socialist when FDR did it. It was socialist when the Labor Party did it. It was socialist when the government took over Amtrak and when the government took over Conrail. It's just a word. A word which means the government owns the means of production. Well, the government owns 100% of Amtrak, which produced passenger miles. It owned 100% of Conrail, which produced freight ton miles.

People complained about the unprecedented intrusion of government into the railroad business back then.

Those are real world American examples, aren't they? And wasn't Leyland motors a real world British example?

But the discussion is, do we want a socialist vector - which means more government control - or a liberty vector - which means more individual control. Is this noticable socialist vector a good idea? When prosperity returns can we roll it back so we have more individual control? Does it make us more or less economicaaly secure? Or was Franklin right? Will we end up less free and less secure?

Feel free to bring up corporate welfare - like stadium subsidies. Those have a socialist vector, too. I prefer no stadium subsidies. I prefer a liberty vector. So maybe the 100's of millions of dollars spend on stadium subsidies weren't spent in the real world?

It's a discussion in which you aren't engaging. Instead, you are being dismissive.

Yours,
Tom

I am indeed being dismissive, Tom, because frankly I find the entire debate to be nit-picky and somewhat ridiculous. Is a "socialist vector" still socialist if it's being implemented in order to perpetuate capitalism? I didn't notice you taking any objection to that characterization of Obama's plans in your otherwise comprehensive response, so I assume that you don't have a problem with it. You posit that "vectors" can be socialist--I take issue with this position. As anyone with a passing familiarity with the history of the 20th century knows, socialism is not simply a strategy for refining capitalism, it is an alternative to capitalism. There is a HUGE difference between instituting state ownership of means of production and using federal money to prop up a few failing companies and thus continue the status quo of American politics. A true socialist wouldn't be funneling tax dollars to the wealthy--he would be nationalizing industry, agriculture, universities, etcetera. So go ahead and argue that Obama wasn't a socialist but that he used "socialist vectors"--I'm pretty sure that the majority of Americans who have lost jobs or savings in the recent economic crisis don't care as long as it works. And it's way too soon to decide that it hasn't, although you seem to have already made up your mind.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by stating that you would have preferred a "liberty vector"--perhaps we should have just let the "invisible hand" do its job and let the economy fail? After all, free markets know best! Or maybe more tax cuts and deregulation were the right "liberty vector."
Perhaps now you see what I mean when I say that this is a nitpicking debate. What the author of this blog was talking about--and the reason that the term "socialism" is often taken with a grain of salt when it comes from the Right--is the accusation that Obama "is a socialist" or "is implementing socialism." Perhaps you don't agree with those statements (perhaps you do, it isn't really clear), but many people in the Republican Party and on the far right do.

If you still want to discuss this, Tom, go have a look at this chart: http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php

0.21% of the economy. Less than a quarter of one percent. Maybe in PajamasMedia world you can call that socialism and get away with it, but out here in the reality-based community, people might disagree. Was it "socialism" when Reagan bailed out Continental Illinois? Or when Bush I bailed out the S&L industry? What about when his son nationalized the airport security business after 9/11? Was Dubya really a Communist? OMG!

Nationalization, conservatorship, and socialism are three completely different things.

That's the problem, these get unfunny pretty quickly when nitwits like lipstick show up. I mean look at its totally interesting and thought out name. I bet a dollar that tool will disparage Sarah Palin at every opportunity saying she's worthlees and yet, it won't see the dichotomy of constantly attacking the worthless. (I only do it occasionally, as in attacking lipstick, but it's just for humor purposes, I like poking things with a stick to see the reaction and the dumber the better)
Take its take on paying taxes. As if the only two options are socialism or extreme libertarianism. Moron.
As for this
Under Clinton Haliburton was held accountable for their mistakes.
That's about funny. Under Clinton Haliburton acted exactly the same as they did for decades. Just as they did under Bush. Extra moron.

And as for this
As to the 85% - I believe that is pure conjecture with no rational basis.

Wrong.
I pulled it out of my butt while poorly stealing a Yogi Berra quip.
Geez, don't you know that 48% of all statistics are entirely made up?

Veeshir:

You start out very well, with the standard Strawman attack "I bet he will do .....". Good job, although that is kinda boring because so many people do it.

But then you use a kinda-new opening for your next Strawman: "Take its take on paying taxes. As if the only ..."

Nice job. I think you might win the "Most Creative Strawman Argument" from the Republicans this year.

GALT LIVES!

See? That's funny. It doesn't really have any response so it just throws a bunch of crap up against the wall to see what will stick and to try to get me into some sort of endless "moron-troll" loop.

For instance, earlier it said this
When are you disconnecting your house from the sewer system? All us pure Idealists do that, as well as refuse to use the roads, since the evil taxes that pay for them are socialistic.

See? If you are against socialism, you're against all taxes and what they pay! But pointing that out is a strawman argument.

Anybody who actually engages this tool in a serious manner is just wasting time.
It's not here to debate or anything serious, it's here to poke sticks at the "Republicans". Which I could respect if it weren't so freaking stupid.
I mean, "Republicans"?

Moron, there are very few Republicans here.
Mostly, it's people who don't like Democrats and the only option is the GOP.
I won't speak for anyone but myself, but the difference between the GOP and the Dems is "bad" and "worse".

So any more idiocies to make me laugh there Moron Who Hates and Is Afraid of Sarah Palin?

apikores,

I didn't notice you taking any objection to that characterization of Obama's plans in your otherwise comprehensive response, so I assume that you don't have a problem with it.

Your assumption is completely wrong. For one thing, my response was not even close to comprehensive. I follow Freidman and Hayek. I believe the economy's problems have been dramatically worsened by the various government attempts to improve it. I should note that government action can make things better. But because of unintended side effects we are better served by little government action. One cannot describe the current administration's four trillion dollar action as a little government action. I make about 40 dollars an hour (not including benefits). So I could pay that off in 100 billion hours. I work about eight hours a day, 250 days per year. About 2000 hours. So I could pay that in, oh, fifty million years by spending every single cent I made.

Fifty million years is a lot of lost freedom in the real world. People have a hard time with big numbers in the real world. Does that help?

So yes, I would prefer a plan with a smaller socialist vector. Maybe even a plan which stimulated the economy by rolling back some regulations. Start with the useless ones. That would be a libery vector.

I also don't think this is nitpicking. I view the current administration as choosing a historically bad economic plan. That much debt is far too much. It doubles the debt, not including Social Security and Medicare. That's like buying twice as much house as you can afford - when you are completely responsible for all your aging mother's care - including medical - but with no insurance at all, not even Medicare.

Yours,
Tom

Hmmm, this math thing is fun. The average family size is 3.19. The per capita income is $26,178. That's $83,507 per family. The poverty level is $22,890 for a family of three, or $27,570 for a family of four. By interpolation, the poverty level is $23,813 for the average family.

Let's be nice and just reduce the average family to the poverty level via taxation for only one year, and see how many families it takes to pay off that debt. That's $59,694 in taxes per family per year. Let's call it $60,000. Dividing that into 4 billion I get 66,666,666 families have to be reduced to poverty for one year to pay off the debt.

That's alot of freedom, folks. And an unintentionally interesting number, numerologically speaking.

BTW, there are 290,655,225 people in the U.S. That's 91,100,000 average families. So, if we reduce 73% of the families in America to poverty for one year we can pay off the new debt.

Yours,
Tom

Lipstick has no idea how out of control these socialistic tactics can become. Id like to see how lipstick feels when her lipstick is issued by the government. Anyone who backs up these socialistic tactics is in the 50% of americans that have no clue on anything intellectual. You will often get many LOLs and cussing from these people. To be a socialist is to give away all your property and freedoms. These people are too dumb to understand for an end there has to be a beginning and this is it. I dont know how to argue with people that dont understand what happened to Germany in WW2 and Russia under tyrany. Socialistic practice get rid of ALL incentive for hard working doctors etc, a second opinion wouldnt mean anything because youd be fined for giving it. Our country has huge problems with borders and people obliverating the word capitalism as they have made a mockery of the US WITH Obama. These kinda people are arrogant and follow the smell of obamas crotch. Its sick that people cant see how twisted and messed up Obama is. Yeah the republicans werent great but this is giving away our country. ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS RAISE TARRIFS, however this would offend to many walmarts. Your president is the worst in history and is giving away your country daily. He should be impeached immediately for defying americas constitution and rewriting our history books like a politically correct, sit through racist church talk without doing anything about it for 20 years, affirmative action dictator. Go ahead go worship obama, your children will be way worse off. You guys promoting Obama are promoting Socialism and lack of freedom and choice. DEAL WITH IT lipstick, and by the way, you're fined 20$ for using makeup shades the council didnt agree with this week. There are some people that are so dumb, that they will defend hitler/stalin tactics till there is no country left. STand up and speak against the idiocracy of lipstick and harrassers of people exposing the truth whenever u can. Never give up, never stop communicating, and never forget the trillion dollar crap sandwich which was used to control companies in a mistake millions pleaded was a big mistake. We were right, lipstick was wrong, but people like her will continue to tear down the USA till we resemble a 2nd or 3rd world country. Shes scum, the president is scum, almost all politicians are scum and your countries being completely thrown into a fire of socialism ripping apart all the freedoms millions of Americans died for.