You read stuff like this and really feel sorry for University of Tennessee students (see also). It's fine for Glenn Reynolds to have as low an opinion of Barack Obama as he likes, but it seems to me that law professors should have some idea of what a "socialist view of government" consists of. I'm pretty sure Reynolds knows that Obama's not proposing the nationalization of industry or collective ownership of the means of production, so he must be confused about socialism.
« Nothing to See Here | Main | Taxicab Journalism »
Good Old Socialism
08 May 2008 02:13 pm
Comments (113)
Would anyone, anywhere, be surprised if Glenn Reynolds were arrested for beating up prostitutes?
Uh huh. Because the right has always endeavored to be cautious and scrupulous about appending the term "socialist" to Democratic Party rhetoric & policies?
Socialism as a viable political alternative does not exist in America. The pundits who try to label politicians as socialist are hard-right partisan hacks who show themselves to be either poorly educated fools or mendacious propagandists when they use this terminology.
In fact, would anyone be surprised if Reynolds and Victor Davis Handjob were both arrested for a series of interstate hooker killings involving camcorders and blowtorches?
I didn't think so. Especially Handjob, who has a Death Row stare that would spook Hannibal Lecter.
MLJ, you know that if that happened, Dr. Helen would blame herself for not giving him enough blow jobs to feel like a man and claim the hooker was actually victimized by the liberalization of sexual norms and "hook-up culture"
Crap! I thought the proletarian revolution was on the verge of success.
Any time you want to scare people off a Democratic candidate, they resort to the "socialist" label. It's just as trite as referring to Republicans as fascists or Nazis.
Steve says: "It's just as trite as referring to Republicans as fascists or Nazis."
I think the word "fascist" fits Dumbya and Cheney exceptionally well.
Who's afraid of socialism?
Apparently not Americans anymore.
The term “socialized medicine” may be losing its boogeyman status, according to a survey of voting-age adults. Long uttered in warnings against any sort of government involvement in healthcare, today the term has largely lost its scare power.
That’s according to a study led by Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health.“This is a term from the 1940s,” Blendon says. “We wondered if anyone even knew what it meant anymore.” To find out, his team, along with pollsters at Harris Interactive, asked more than 2,000 people in two surveys what they knew about the term. Among the findings, released Feb. 14:
Of the respondents, 67% said they understood what “socialized medicine” meant. Of those, 79% said the term means that the government makes sure everyone has health insurance. Only 32% said it means that the government tells doctors what to do.
Of those who said they understand the term, 45% said that if America had socialized medicine, the health care system would be better, while 39% said it would be worse.
Not surprisingly, opinions differed according to respondents’ politics. Among Republicans, 70% thought socialized medicine would make the healthcare system worse. Among Democrats, 70% thought it would make things better.
Independents were split more evenly, with 45% saying that socialized medicine would be an improvement, and 38% saying it would be worse than the country’s current healthcare system.
“It’s still an emotionally charged term for Republicans. The phrase itself gets them very angry,” Blendon says. “But Democrats and independents don’t see it as a term that drives them away.”
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/socialized_medicine.php
Kind of amusing to hear an employee of a government owned institution adamantly opposed to government owned institutions. Maybe he'll rant against tenure next.
Plenty of people, among them Friedrich Hayek, have used the term "socialism" to refer to economies organized along the Scandinavian model, with massive taxes and redistributionist public programs, but without state ownership of the means of production. Of course, a twerp with a Harvard B.A. knows a lot more than an ignoramus like Hayek, right?
MLJ, you know that if that happened, Dr. Helen would blame herself for not giving him enough blow jobs to feel like a man and claim the hooker was actually victimized by the liberalization of sexual norms and "hook-up culture"
Oh, come on, you don't think she would come up with a way to blame the hookers? I knew that some of the people commenting on this blog were naive, but really now, this goes too far.
These people are deeply, possibly dangerously invested in equating Western European-style social democracy with totalitarian Comintern-style state control. They are terrified that we'll lose our freedom from health care, our freedom from enjoying various forms of family-related paid leave from work, etc. They've made a mashup of Hayek and (sacre bleu!) Marcuse and envision a nightmare future where we are all forced to live in a more rational, more humane society.
What's dangerous is the zeal with which they wish to prosecute their cause and the congenitally Manichaean construction of their opposition. They'd rather be (or rather see us) dead than "red." They, in short, bear watching.
y81: QED, pal--thanks!
This is the same crowd that back in '01-'02 were snarking all over the place about that pathetic, struggling Euro, a symbol of wimpy European weakness. Who's laughing now?
Scandinavian model, with massive taxes and redistributionist public programs
If that's socialist, so is the US. I guess you can quibble about "massive," but that's just haggling about the price, as they say.
Yes, the term "socialism" has become so vague as to be nearly useless, but in a world where people call themselves "liberal" while supporting campus speech codes which enshrine a right to not be offended, or more prevalently, maintain that there is a "right" to force people to perform labor, "socialism" is far from the only term to suffer such a fate.
But of course Reynolds, the ultimate weasel, never actually calls Obama a socialist. He leaves that to Hanson. If you try to call Reynolds out on this he'll just tell you he's presenting an "interesting opinion" that he may not share 100%.
But yeah, I do feel sorry for Tennessee students. Reynolds is an embarrassment, almost a Yoo level embarrassment.
but it seems to me that law professors should have some idea of what a "socialist view of government" consists of.
It seems to me that law professors should have some idea what the law consists of, what the Constitution says, signficant judicial decisions, etc. Yet Reynolds has repeatedly demonstrated breathtaking ignorance or willful dishonesty about those subjects. Against such a track record, engaging in the common right-wing misuse of "socialism" seems pretty small potatoes, though still contemptible. If he were still pretending to be a libertarian, perhaps we could defend him on the grounds that he's just using the deliberately mendacious definition of that anti-democracy whore for right-wing dictators, Hayek. But Reynolds has mostly moved beyond his schmibertarian phase, perhaps out of concern about what would happen to him in an elevator with Jim Henley, Radley Balko, or Julian Sanchez. (Well, Sanchez would probably just ignore him really devastatingly, but you get the idea.)
but it seems to me that law professors should have some idea of what a "socialist view of government" consists of. I'm pretty sure Reynolds knows that Obama's not proposing the nationalization of industry or collective ownership of the means of production, so he must be confused about socialism.
Or maybe Matthew is confused about socialism.
Here is the British Labour party, in the party's constitution: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party."
If the Labour Party calls itself "socialist", it's a bit odd for Matthew to complain about others calling it socialist.
Plenty of people, among them Friedrich Hayek, have used the term "socialism" to refer to economies organized along the Scandinavian model, with massive taxes and redistributionist public programs, but without state ownership of the means of production. Of course, a twerp with a Harvard B.A. knows a lot more than an ignoramus like Hayek, right?
----------------------------
Doesn't make it an accurate term. Hayek defined socialism to an extreme degree, one that not even most conservatives would adhere to: it basically included anyone who didn't follow the free market, which meant it included private planners (such as business associations and cartels) as well as public planners, anyone who favors agricultural subsidies, and so on and so forth. When he dedicated the book to "socialists of all parties" he meant it literally.
Ah, yes: Will Allen, chiming in with another of his should-be-patented "You kids get off my lawn!" non sequiturs.
Let me guess: The sun rose in the east today, too?
Ah, yes: Will Allen, chiming in with another of his should-be-patented "You kids get off my lawn!" non sequiturs.
Let me guess: The sun rose in the east today, too?
Plenty of people, among them Friedrich Hayek, have used the term "socialism" to refer to economies organized along the Scandinavian model, with massive taxes and redistributionist public programs, but without state ownership of the means of production. Of course, a twerp with a Harvard B.A. knows a lot more than an ignoramus like Hayek, right?
----------------------------
Doesn't make it an accurate term. Hayek defined socialism to an extreme degree, one that not even most conservatives would adhere to: it basically included anyone who didn't follow the free market, which meant it included private planners (such as business associations and cartels) as well as public planners, anyone who favors agricultural subsidies, and so on and so forth. When he dedicated the book to "socialists of all parties" he meant it literally.
You read stuff like this and really feel sorry for University of Tennessee students
Nothing sucks like a Big Orange.
"If the Labour Party calls itself "socialist", it's a bit odd for Matthew to complain about others calling it socialist."
Well, the Labour Party may or may not have a platform that advocates socialism in the sense Matt describes. It doesn't matter because Matt wasn't complaining about the label directed at the Labour Party, but at Obama, who clearly does not have such a platform.
"If the Labour Party calls itself "socialist", it's a bit odd for Matthew to complain about others calling it socialist."
Well, the Labour Party may or may not have a platform that advocates socialism in the sense Matt describes. It doesn't matter because Matt wasn't complaining about the label directed at the Labour Party, but at Obama, who clearly does not have such a platform.
Here's some of the members of the Party of European Socialists, which is the second largest bloc in the European Commission:
France - Socialist Party
Germany - Social Democratic Party
Spain - Socialist Workers' Party
Italy - Socialist Party
Notice anything in common? Matthew appears to be ignorant of this.
Woody, I don't think you know what "non sequitur" means. I'll help you out. Matt posted about an incorrectly used poitical/economic label. I asserted that this was just part of a larger trend, and provided a couple of examples to support the assertion. I did so because Matt tends to get pointlessly sarcastic about behavior exhibited by people he differs with politically, while ignoring the same behavior when exhibited by people he is in political agreement with.
Are you normally this obtuse, or do you practice to reach the level you are demonstrating now?
Indeed Reynolds is a black eye on my alma mater, But Tennessee students do what students do at plenty of other institutions: avoid the crazies and blowhards and gravitate to the many quality professors. For my part, I was not in the Law School, so had no awareness of or contact with him.
Notice anything in common?
Yes. Barack Obama is not a member of any of those parties.
What's my prize?
It doesn't matter because Matt wasn't complaining about the label directed at the Labour Party, but at Obama, who clearly does not have such a platform.
Obama may not be "proposing the nationalization of industry or collective ownership of the means of production", but neither is the socialist (to use the term that, again, they use to describe themselves) British Labour Party. So Matthew's description is ignorant.
Barack Obama is not a member of any of those parties.
So? He is running on policies similar to their policies. Since they are all socialist parties, it is perfectly accurate to say Obama is running on socialist policies.
Uh, Al? The Labour Party really did advocate the nationalization of industries, at least until the 1990s or so. So did all those other European socialist parties at one time or another.
"Hayek defined socialism to an extreme degree, one that not even most conservatives would adhere to: it basically included anyone who didn't follow the free market, which meant it included private planners (such as business associations and cartels) as well as public planners, anyone who favors agricultural subsidies, and so on and so forth."
Prof. Reynolds is a libertarian, whose views on econmics are probably pretty close to Hayek's. I certainly think he is opposed to cartels, agricultural subsidies etc. So there's nothing wrong with his using the same terminology that Hayek did. Unless you're ready to defend the proposition was an idiot and it would have been unfortunate to have him as a professor, there isn't any ground to criticize Prof. Reynolds for something he shares with Hayek.
y81, Mr. Reynolds is not , to my knowledge, a disciple of Hayek, who died a long time ago. Reynolds is engaging in blind race baiting. Reynolds is free to use a made up language on his own time, but he and VDH indicate nowhere that they are speaking in "Hayek speak."
Better Al-bots please. Weak beer, even from the hivemind.
Red baiting, not race baiting.
Re y81's comment "there isn't any ground to criticize Prof. Reynolds for something he shares with Hayek."
--------
Glenn Reynolds shares NOTHING with Hayek. If you ever read Reynold's Instapundit blog, you would know that.
The only time I saw Glenn get excited over a political issue was when he got a chickenshit tax cut from Bush.
It's kinda pitiful for him and Eugene Volokh to argue for years for a Second Amendment interpretation which supports gun ownership -- and to then turn around and support an administration which has scrapped habeas corpus, which claims the right to torture US citizens, to hold them for years without trial, and to spy upon their private communications without a judicial warrent.
In fact, it kinda pitiful for them to be teaching Constitutional Law, come to think of it.
I'm disappointed with Glenn Reynolds because I'm a real Second Amendment supporter -- i.e., I think there is a need to have Constitutional checks and balances to ensure the People remain the Sovereign. But gun ownership is a small factor in that larger war.
The Labour Party really did advocate the nationalization of industries, at least until the 1990s or so.
And it doesn't anymore. What's your point?
Are Scandinavian countries socialist? Reasonable to call them that. 'Socialist' does not have a clear extension or an agreed to defintion, so why not? (It does express ignorance I think to say that they are a redistributive state. The state provides lots of services, but they provide them to everyone.)
While some might want to argue the former point, the reason why Reynolds is showing himself to be an idiot here is that Obama is not suggesting anything like the policies of Scandinavia or France/German/UK 30 years ago (anyone who thinks those countries now are socialist pretty clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word). Obama has spoken out in favor of the tax cuts and deregulation policies of Carter and Reagan, in favor of the Republican sponsored Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and in favor of the selective protectionism called free trade. He supports a minor tax hike, closing some tax loopholes, and government managed competition in a private health care market. This is nothing at all like Scandinavia. If that is socialist, then we were a communist country under Eisenhower.
The argument that because the left wing parties in certain countries call themselves 'socialist' whoever agrees with them is a socialist is really really poor. It relies on thinking either that the political leaders of certain parties in certain countries that don't speak English get to decide what words that have been around for hundreds of years mean in the English language, or that parties are incapable of misdescribing themselves. I do not understand how a fully developed adult could make such an argument.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
He is running on policies similar to their policies. Since they are all socialist parties, it is perfectly accurate to say Obama is running on socialist policies.
Oh, I got one! Let's see, John McCain is...an anarchist!! Because anarchists don't believe in taxes, and John McCain is "running on policies similar to" what anarchists advocate!
This is fun!
Are Scandinavian countries socialist? Reasonable to call them that. 'Socialist' does not have a clear extension or an agreed to defintion, so why not? (It does express ignorance I think to say that they are a redistributive state. The state provides lots of services, but they provide them to everyone.)
While some might want to argue the former point, the reason why Reynolds is showing himself to be an idiot here is that Obama is not suggesting anything like the policies of Scandinavia or France/German/UK 30 years ago (anyone who thinks those countries now are socialist pretty clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word). Obama has spoken out in favor of the tax cuts and deregulation policies of Carter and Reagan, in favor of the Republican sponsored Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and in favor of the selective protectionism called free trade. He supports a minor tax hike, closing some tax loopholes, and government managed competition in a private health care market. This is nothing at all like Scandinavia. If that is socialist, then we were a communist country under Eisenhower.
The argument that because the left wing parties in certain countries call themselves 'socialist' whoever agrees with them is a socialist is really really poor. It relies on thinking either that the political leaders of certain parties in certain countries that don't speak English get to decide what words that have been around for hundreds of years mean in the English language, or that parties are incapable of misdescribing themselves. I do not understand how a fully developed adult could make such an argument.
I am not sure how it happened, but I apologize for the double post.
Al, advocate of the Free-Floating Venn Diagram school of logic.
Al, please stop embarassing yourself: when the british labour party was founded, its founding document included the famous "clause 4," which called for nationalizaing the "commanding heights" of the economy. under blair, clause 4 was dropped, but the party didn't feel some obligation to go through and track each and every reference.
in general, most left liberal parties in western europe still have an element within them that favors nationalized industries and therefore are still socialist.
none of this has anything to do with obama in the slightest, and attempting to claim that it does is the sort of thing even you should be embarassed about.
Of course, a twerp with a Harvard B.A. knows a lot more than an ignoramus like Hayek, right?
When the ignoramus was being disingenuous, a twerp with a high school diploma from a decent school can demonstrate more understanding, never mind a Harvard B.A. If somebody knows better, but lies about it, their Ph.D has more utility cleansing their neither regions.
As a law student, I'd say that Reynolds displays just about the right level of intelligence and general knowledge as your average law professor. Law schools are populated by students who are among the least talented and imaginative among us; legal academia only more so.
Al, please stop embarassing yourself: when the british labour party was founded, its founding document included the famous "clause 4," which called for nationalizaing the "commanding heights" of the economy. under blair, clause 4 was dropped, but the party didn't feel some obligation to go through and track each and every reference.
Howard, if you'd click the link, you'd notice that the quotation is from the current Clause IV, as it was revised under Blair. Currently the British Labour Party is "socialist", under their own constitution, in Clause IV.
The idea that the sine quo non of socialism is advocacy of nationalization of all industry is silly, and belies Matthew's ignorance. Europe's left is socialist; Obama's policies are moving toward those of the European left, and hence are reasonably descibed as a "socialist view of government".
It is unbelievable that so many here so ignorant to think that unless one advocates nationalization of all industry, one cannot be described as having a "socialist view of government". It's like the word "socialist" is a boogeyman, worse than the word "liberal" (which is similarly anathema to the left these days).
Al, your arguments are moving toward childishness so you're reasonably described as a pedophile.
Same logic you use, chum.
Obama's core policy proposals agree with the policy proposals of the Democratic party.
So Obama is a democrat.
So anyone who disagrees with Obama about his core policy proposals is not a democrat.
So Bush is against democracy.
If Al's argument about socialism works I dont see why this one doesn't work. Of course the argument I just offered is silly. Only a stupid person would offer it. Again I don't see the difference when you look at Al.
This argument is just moronic:
Europe's left is socialist; Obama's policies are moving toward those of the European left, and hence are reasonably descibed as a "socialist view of government".
Again a similar argument.
1000 degrees Celsuis is fatally hot. Turning on the heater in my house moves the temperature closer to 1000 degrees. So turning on the heater in my house is reasonably described as making it fatally hot.
The point being that if Obama moves us a little towards Sweden style social democracy but then puts the breaks on (say at the point where fiscal policy looks very similar to Clintonian fiscal policy) then he clearly does not have a socialist view of government. Stopping at a Clinton style fiscal policy (which Obama has been pretty clear he would do) is a rejection of socialism.
Al - posters are calling you out because most folks of your ilk who use the term "socialist view of government" to describe current Democratic politicians do so to erroneously paint them as these virtual commies. I'd imagine you're doing the same. As I mentioned previously - the US does not have any real socialist party, and modest redistribution of income and progressive taxation does not remotely approximate socialism as practiced in Europe, Asia, etc. You're making a spurious argument to apply a bogus label to a politician you dislike. Get over it and get on to discussing the aspects you don't like rather than painting a big and deserved target on your back....
Hayek defined socialism to an extreme degree, one that not even most conservatives would adhere to
Indeedy, because it served his purpose. Let's just say he was slightly less effective at the faux-naive complete fucking hack act than Al, who is in turn slightly less effective than Glenn Harlan Reynolds, winner of Most Disingenuous Fuckstick In America for the seventh year running.
Hayek was wrong about a lot of stuff. But Hayek is not, to my knowledge, demonstrably dishonest like Reynolds. He is not the place to go for a solid defense of libertarianism (that would be Nozick), but given the times in which he lived I would say a fear of government that overrode his intellect is completely excusable.
I think it's a huge improvement that Republicans are calling Democrats "socialists". They used to call us "commie traitors".
Reynolds is a right wing reactionary who pretends he's a libertarian because he doesn't want ot be lumped in with the religious right.
Which pretty much also describes the rest of the self labeled libertarian republicans.
I think "socialism" for VDH and Reynolds means something like "social democracy," at least that's what I get from the reference to Europe. Why becoming more social democratic would be a disaster for America I'm not quite sure; in fact, I don't know why it wouldn't be a vast improvement. Maybe it's because there would be less rich people and less poor people, and "less" is bad.
Jack guesses: "Maybe it's because there would be less rich people and less poor people, and "less" is bad."
A shortage of poor people might mean it would be harder for Reynolds and Handjob to find hookers to kill, and that would make them very sad and frustrated.
Indeed.
Matt,
Are you and Drum paying "Al" the same rate, because you're both certainly reaping the same great entertainment value from her.
Well done, sirs!
Glenn Reynolds has really lost it; he is so now brazenly partisan for the GOP that he has lost any objectivity.
Re: Of course, a twerp with a Harvard B.A. knows a lot more than an ignoramus like Hayek, right?
I don't care if Hayek was elevated to the papal see and claimed infallibility-- an abuse of language is an abuse of language. Socialism cannot be socialism unless it involves the public ownership by nationalization (peaceful or coerced) of the means of prodcution. The British NHS is socialized medicine (for exanmple); nothing being proposed seriously in the US qualifies.
By the way, I am just as opposed to the free and loose use of "fascism" as an all purpose slur by the Left, or of "fundamentalist" by secularists (I've even been called a "funadmentalist" by some hard-core atheist who probably thinks all religious people are Bible-thumping ingnoramuses). Let's keep words close to what they really mean, and not pollute our public debates with unsupported slurs because we are too lazy (or too at-a-loss) to defend our own ideas.
Socialism's staying power as a straw man continues to amaze me.
Liberals should start calling the RWDBs "communist" every time they use the word "elite" to disparage Obama.
Why?
Because anti-elite (or any education at all) was the policy of Mao Zedong. Everyone was meant to aspire to be a worker or a peasant.
The Republicans have become the Communist Party of America!
:)
Last I checked there were substantial sectors of the US economy that are nationalized. Sure, it's not the same as having price controls and all those other nasty policies that were introduced in post-WW2 Britain and the Muldoon Era of my country (New Zealand). But still, people will call you a socialist if you defend public ownership and consistently desire more. Oh and the fascist comparsion works perfectly, so we can all go on calling Bush a fascist and Obama a socialist. They're all fair insults even if not technically true. They get at a valid point.
Last I checked there ware substantial sectors of the US economy that are nationalized. Sure, it's not the same as having price controls and all those other nasty policies that were introduced in post-WW2 Britain and the Muldoon Era of my country (New Zealand). But still, people will call you a socialist if you defend public ownership and consistently desire more. Oh and the fascist comparsion works perfectly, so we can all go on calling Bush a fascist and Obama a socialist. They're all fair insults even if not technically true. They get at a valid point.
So because Labour has been in an international organization for decades, Obama's a socialist? That makes a lot of sense. Cameron has been moving the Tories closer to where Labour has been since Blair's rise (and fall) and away from the racist crazies and the Thatcherites a bit. Does that make him a socialist? Does Blair having moved Labour in the 1990's closer to where the Tories were make Blair an upper-class twit? Was Chewbacca a socialist?
JonF writes: "By the way, I am just as opposed to the free and loose use of "fascism" as an all purpose slur by the Left, or of "fundamentalist" by secularists (I've even been called a "funadmentalist" by some hard-core atheist who probably thinks all religious people are Bible-thumping ingnoramuses). Let's keep words close to what they really mean, and not pollute our public debates with unsupported slurs because we are too lazy (or too at-a-loss) to defend our own ideas."
As an atheist I'm happy to say that JonF is certainly no fundamentalist.
I'll still stand by my characterization of Dumbya and Dickless as fascists, though. I simply don't know where else to put them on the spectrum as I understand it.
Did someone really advance the argument that because one party calls itself socialist, and has similar policies to Obama, that makes him a socialist as well?
That's great! I share alot of the same morals as religious folk, even though I'm atheist. I guess I can be labelled a Christian!
"That's great! I share alot of the same morals as religious folk, even though I'm atheist. I guess I can be labelled a Christian!
Posted by LnGrrrR | May 9, 2008 2:50 AM"
This game is fun! If you're circumcised, you can call yourself Jewish and a Muslim as well!
The UK has had a nominally "socialist" government for more than 10 years now and London has had a nominally "socialist" mayor for eight. Yet, after living here for a couple of years, I am able to dispel all fears that Labour is actually a "socialist" party in any meaningful sense of the word or that England and London have become "socialist". Our "conservative" friends in the US will be happy to hear that laissez-faire capitalism has permeated every corner of English society and that there are few cities more capitalist in nature than London. Should it be the case that our "conservative" friends regard any form of wealth redistribution or government program as "socialist", then they should be rather worried about the current US government, which despite all the rhetoric shows worrying "socialist" tendencies.
Re: I'll still stand by my characterization of Dumbya and Dickless as fascists, though. I simply don't know where else to put them on the spectrum as I understand it.
I donlt know where to put them either, but it isn't with the Fascists. Bush really doesn't have a coherent ideology or worldview, and when you add in the incompetence his presidency doesn't really fit anywhere except maybe in Stupidville.
I donlt know where to put them either, but it isn't with the Fascists.
Hmmm.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights -
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National security
8. Religion and Government are intertwined -
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
Well, if you don't put them with the Fascists it isn't because they're not trying.
Just stop linking to Reynolds.
"That's great! I share alot of the same morals as religious folk, even though I'm atheist. I guess I can be labelled a Christian!
Posted by LnGrrrR | May 9, 2008 2:50 AM"
-------------------
This game is fun! If you're circumcised, you can call yourself Jewish and a Muslim as well!
Posted by Reality Man | May 9, 2008 2:55 AM
------------------------
since i now discover that i'm actually christian, jewish and muslim, does that make me schzophrenic as well?
i checked out the link provided by al to the Party of European Socialists and their platform is fantastic.
guess that makes me a socialist too.
JonF quotes and writes: "Re: I'll still stand by my characterization of Dumbya and Dickless as fascists, though. I simply don't know where else to put them on the spectrum as I understand it.
I donlt know where to put them either, but it isn't with the Fascists. Bush really doesn't have a coherent ideology or worldview, and when you add in the incompetence his presidency doesn't really fit anywhere except maybe in Stupidville."
Think Mussolini. Cheney even LOOKS like Benito. And Mussolini wasn't competent, and the fascist world view always seemed like a mish-mash to me, too.
I still go with fascists, but they're certainly Stupid. Or even STUPID.
01-20-09 can't come fast enough.
But Reynolds didn't write the offending words. He just "indeeded" them! He's clear.
Or at least that's what he'd say...
"I don't think Obama really is a socialist...I just think it's funny to insinuate that he is."
I don't read Instapundit's drivel anymore. How's he feel about John McCain?
The reason I can't class the Bush regieme with the Fascists is because they lack the hard-boned nationalism that is the hallmark of fascists. Like so much else about them, the GOP's nationalism is a potemkin front, nationalism lite at best. Can you imagine Il Duce, Der Fuhrer or El Caudillo mortgaging their nation's public finances to a rival power, or allowing whole segments of their economy to be outsourced to foreigners? No, the Bushies simply don't sing the "Amerika Uber Alles" song very well.
It's really hard to find historical parallels for this bunch. Possibly some old monarchies work. Bush has Louis XIV's pomposity (but not his intelligence), Wilhelm II's rigid stubborness (but not his love for Der Vaterland), Nicholas II's imcompetence (but not this deep piety). So maybe we go even further back, to the Romans, among whom there were several less-known Republic leaders who were venal, corrupt, grandiose and incapable. Think of Marcus Crassus, who bought his way to power, and led his legions to ruin in Mesopotamia. But even Crassus is not a good comparison: he LED his legions, and paid for his errors with his life. Bush risks nothing but a reputation which was in the bargain basement to start with. I think we need to accept that Bush and Co are sui generis, American originals, a completely new twist on bad government
Re: 01-20-09 can't come fast enough.
On that much we are in complete agreement.
Re JonF's comment "But even Crassus is not a good comparison: he LED his legions, and paid for his errors with his life. Bush risks nothing but a reputation which was in the bargain basement to start with "
----------------
It's a trite observation --given the box office success of "Gladiator" -- but I always thought Bush was more like the Emperor Commodus --son of Marcus Aurelius. He could never measure up to his father -- and so held his father's virtue in contempt.
Maybe we should change our name for a water toilet to "Bushode".
Obama advocating nationalization of industry would be Socialist. I don't think he has. But Obama has advocated government stipulation of profits, salaries, control of markets, design of products, entire industries remade to fit the designs he and the Democratic party have in mind, that's a different thing altogether.
Now Government control of industries cannot properly be called Socialist, but there is a political term that it does fall under. So for all you sticklers I present for your edification the term, the grenade, the champion of misuse that finally may actually apply: Facist.
PS I really hate the redundant s.
Obama may not be a socialist in actual fact, but a lot of what comes out of his mouth is the sort of economic and political ignorance that was so prevalent in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac back in the '70s.
This libertarian is holding his nose and voting for McCain in November, even if he is the second coming of Francisco Franco. His only virtue is that he is *not* George McGovern in blackface.
What exactly does "socialism" mean? If you believe that society is a good thing, does that make you a socialist? How about "liberal?" Does believing in liberty make you one? Does conservation make you a conservative? When Cincinnatus reluctantly accepted the fasces lictoriae, did that make him a fascist?
None of these terms have any precise meaning any more, if they ever did. If you are using them to describe something you think is worthy, and someone else gives them a totally different and unworthy meaning because he believes in the same thing by a different name, you are instant enemies. As for me, I say break the egg at the big end.
Looking at the vast majority of the posts above, I daresay that their content is worthy of defamation, which might be grounds for removing this post.
As a law student, I'd say that ... Law schools are populated by students who are among the least talented and imaginative among us ...
Self-knowledge is a good thing.
B. Hussein Obama is not a free market capitalist in any shape, form or fashion.
B. Hussein Obama is a progressive Democrat. That means, by definition, he has affinity for government control of everything in your life.
Is B. Hussein Obama a socialist? That's debatable… to policy wonkers.
To be an American, one has to have unwavering love for Individual Responsibility, Free Enterprise, Private Property and Limited Government. B. Hussein Obama, by that litmus test, is no American. Indeed, if you are going to define B. Hussein Obama by his degree of affinity towards Individual Responsibility, Free Enterprise, Private Property and Limited Government one would only be able to conclude B. Hussein Obama HATES America.
You progressive dumbasses can yak and yammer and enjoy all forms of mental masturbation about the fine points of defining socialism. As for me and my household, I'm calling it like it is: Progressive Democrats in the vein of B. Hussein Obama don't like America much. Deal with it. Step up and be honest progressives. Say it loud, say it Proud: I, average B. Hussein Obama supporting schmuck, hate America. I hate Limited Government. I hate Free Enterprise. I hate Private Property and I hate Individual Responsibility.
Socialism/Schmocialism. God, I'm so freaking sick and tired of being told I should tolerate progressives. Enuf, already. Just freaking admit you, johnny progressive, hate America. It would make you a better human. Lord knows, you can't be a worse American.
Sooo.... This is the first time I've browsed an Atlantic comment thread.
And the last.
The McChimpy Bushitlerburton arguments were old in 2004.
MoeLarryAndJesus:
A shortage of poor people might mean it would be harder for Reynolds and Handjob to find hookers to kill, and that would make them very sad and frustrated.
Looking through your comments, you seem to have a disturbing obsession about killing hookers. You may want to seek medical help.
Dave in SoCal quotes and writes: "A shortage of poor people might mean it would be harder for Reynolds and Handjob to find hookers to kill, and that would make them very sad and frustrated.
Looking through your comments, you seem to have a disturbing obsession about killing hookers. You may want to seek medical help."
Don't worry, Dave, I live on the East Coast, so your mom and your wife are safe. You'd better be careful when Reynolds and Handjob are in California, though. I hear they've been doing doubles lately.
Reynolds is right. And yes, America has slipped into a light socialist model. You clowns are in a nasty state of denial. Obama is a socialist, no matter how you rationalize it. Sorry.
I'm pretty sure Reynolds knows that Obama's not proposing the nationalization of industry or collective ownership of the means of production, so he must be confused about socialism.
Actually, it appears you're confusing socialism with communism. Hell, even most of the Communists have given up on collective ownership.
And yes, Obama is talking about nationalizing portions of the health care industry. It's sort of a major plank of his campaign, not sure how you could have missed that.
I would have thought it blatantly obvious that Obama is a socialist. So for that matter is Clinton. There's only one choice left for those who don't want socialism in America. I usually waste my vote, because I vote in Massachusetts, and if the vote is anywhere close in Massachusetts, it will be a landslide nationally. But this year, just because I don't want socialism in America, I'll vote for McCain. It's still, within certain boundaries, a free country, and if you want to keep it that way, you should vote as I will.
No, James, YOU'RE a bad American. Deal with it.
Pink Repiglican writes: "But this year, just because I don't want socialism in America, I'll vote for McCain. It's still, within certain boundaries, a free country, and if you want to keep it that way, you should vote as I will."
Your fellow Repiglicans eliminated habeas corpus and the 4th Amendment and you should go fuck yourself.
Your concept of freedom involves eating shit every day. Mine does not. I think you're insane.
TallDave, Obama wouldn't "nationalize" health care in that doctors wouldn't become employees of the state. He would correct an abject failure of the "free market" to provide insurance to millions of people. The state will not even be the insurer.
There's a reason that most people don't lose their shit anymore when they hear "socialized medicine" and the reason is that after decades of hearing the term applied to any attempt to expand insurance, people start to say, "that sounds like a good idea."
But you digress. Universal health care is a wonderful utopian ideal. Now do we get to define "universal?" Where will all the health care professionals come from? Unless we can legislate them into existence, they will have to imigrate from the places where the pay is least and the need the greatest. So, is it the intent of the "progressives" to eliminate health care for the third world?
The "nationalization of industry or collective ownership of the means of production" is called Communism; you can be a Socialist and not go for those (just look at the parties of the Left in Europe). Socialism is when you believe the State has primacy over the individual; the Nazis were not Communists, but they were still Socialists.
Porkov, first, if by "utopian" you mean achieving a level of health care provision comparable to every other advanced capitalist democracy, then, sure. Second, there's no shortage of young people in the US who have the desire and ability to be doctors. I have no idea what the rest of your comment means.
Frederick, I think your confusion over the terms is belied by your use of capital letters. It's specifically the point that any definition of socialism (small s) broad enough to include Hitler, Obama, Blair, Stalin, and the Caesars is entirely a rhetorical move and devoid of content.
My thought is that socialism arose in the context of the industrial revolution and originally involved the political organization of industrial workers as a class. Various semantic drifts through the cold war broadened this to include non-industrial societies, but I think if you're not talking about politics explicitly organized around class interests, then you're on the wrong track. I agree that there are socialist parties in Europe, but there aren't in America. So what?
Also, the state has primacy over the individual in any number of areas, which is in many ways the very definition of the state. Again, so what?
Re: Universal health care is a wonderful utopian ideal.
There's nothing utopian about it. It's as much a reality as indoor plumbing in much of the world.
"Where will all the health care professionals come from? Unless we can legislate them into existence, they will have to imigrate from the places where the pay is least and the need the greatest. So, is it the intent of the "progressives" to eliminate health care for the third world?
Posted by Porkov | May 10, 2008 6:02 AM"
Huh? You're railing at the wrong bogeyman. We're not talking about creating a brain drain for doctors (though we do do that currently with nurses from the Philippines because we're too cheap to pay for nursing training for the number of nurses we need for this country). We're talking about providing people with medical insurance. No one is talking about making doctors work for the state (though public universities' medical schools, which have to reject a number of qualified applicants for a handful of spots, could expand their entering classes to increase the number of doctors if we ever need to do that).
If this was so socialist, then why do major multinational corporations prefer to invest in countries with universal health care than in places that don't? That's why Toyota not too long ago chose to open a new plant in Ontario instead of in Alabama. Are major car manufacturers no suddenly socialist fronts?
This thread has an impressive rate of survivability.
Why don't you go back up to Harvard and leave the University of Tennessee alone?
Government control of the means of production without explicit ownership is a particular variant of socialism known as "fascism." This is the model that socialists of both the left and the right in America advocate (including Obama and McCain). It's not the same as "good old-fashioned socialism," but the distinction is insignificant for anyone who values freedom and individual rights.
I find it amazing that the same people engaged in infantile name calling ("Repiglicans," "Handjob", etc.) actually have enough neurons to also discuss the finer points of socialism. Trouble is, of course, that you are splitting hairs.
Outside of this thread "Socialist" is pretty commonly associated with the belief that the government has both the right and the competence to take control over major portions of the economy so it will better serve the common, social good. Now, all three of the candidates have plans to structure our laws in such a way to increase access to health care but they also differ significantly in the extent to which government will be expected to "manage" and "control" the process. In a view that I imagine many of you share, Obama believes that the political class is better at figuring out what the people want than the market. Thus, his solutions are more oriented toward "control" than McCain's and fairly can be described as "government control for the social good." Is this really that controversial even if you can find technical arguments for why it isn't *really* classic Socialism?
I'd like to see the Obama supports here admit that they are retreating into astringently shriveled, academic definitions of "Socialism" because they just don't want to labeled with the term. Of course, I'd also like to seem them intelligently distinguish between Socialism and Communism, to deal with Reynolds' criticisms of Obama without retreating to name calling and insufferable priggishness, and to otherwise act like adults...but I doubt that any of these things will happen until they actually, you know, reach adulthood.
And what's with the obsession with killing prostitutes?
Gee, the silliness on this thread is pretty impressive.
The Labor Party calls themselves socialist for historical reasons, because until 1992 they were committed to a (gradualist) move towards workers' control of the means of production. They're not a socialist party today, nor are most of the ruling parties in Western Europe. (I'm not sure about Portugal and Greece). 'Social democratic capitalism' is the proper term for the economic model of most of the Western European countries.
I would call _myself_ a socialist inasmuch as I believe that the capitalist economic model is fundamentally wrong and I want to get rid of it, not simply regulate it. I would like a society where the economy is run by a combination of state and local governments, workers' cooperatives, and some smallholder ownership. Neither Mr. Obama or Ms. CLinton is for any of that, so it makes no sense to call either of them a socialist. You can't be a socialist without believeing in some sense in collective (or at least, non-capitalist) ownership of the means of production.
Cuba today is a communist country. Venezuela and Bolivia (and probably Vietnam too) are socialist countries. England and the US (even under an Obama presidency) are very definitely capitalist countries, more's the pity.
Not terribly impressive, Matt.
In my book, anyone wanting a government financed healthcare system, is a socialist, irrespective of any other view he or she might hold.
Enough said.
Re: In my book, anyone wanting a government financed healthcare system, is a socialist, irrespective of any other view he or she might hold.
How about a govermment-financed defense system? Or govermment-financed justice system? Are those just as socialist? So I guess we're all socialists.
elle loco | May 8, 2008 2:45 PM
You’ve drunk a little too much white whine, and you’re holding your Dictionary of Big Impressive Words upside-down. But no matter, I’m sure someone, somewhere, thinks you’re cute. (Hi, Mom!)
"How about a govermment-financed defense system? Or govermment-financed justice system? Are those just as socialist? So I guess we're all socialists."
That's not even intelligent enough to warrant a response, except to point out how lacking it is as a response, because it's a tired and worn analogy that, frankly, is so unaccurate that I'm surprised anyone with a modicum of intelligence would ever bring it up.
Simply put, it's a non-sequitur.
What is it about admitting their love of Socialism makes lying lieberal bedwetting moonbats start talking about murdering hookers instead of actually facing the truth?
Denying the truth won't change the truth that lieberals are commie pigs who love socialism.
Step one for the disease of lieberalism is to acknowledge you have a problem. Staying in denial is prolonging your problem.
JS - Are you aware of the irony of attaching that name to your posts when you say such hateful things?
welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, AFDC, WIC, progressive taxation system, and a few other things might suggest to someone with the supposed intelligence of a lawyer that socialism has been with us for a long, long time and we are doing just fine with it.
Comments closed May 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Also hard to believe he's still doing that "indeed" schtick. He must have zero sense of self-parody.
Posted by live | May 8, 2008 2:27 PM