Election Question

[Yorick]

Hi Timber!! Long time no chat! Hope all's well with you bro.

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis I'm so glad I didn't post in this thread days ago, I think I'd have made enemies far and wide. When it comes down to it, the things Republicans are banking on to win elections these days boil down to 3 things: abortion, god, and fear of the "other." They need to realize it's just not going to win it for them anymore. Most people realize that the abortion issue is one that courts, not politicians, ultimately determine, and a President has little influence over that.

Actually the president's appointment of supreme court judges is central to the issue.

If anything it concentrates too much power in the hands of one person. The Executive ends up having far too much influence over the judicial arm of Government, (and the legislative but whatever...)

Of course I grew up under the Westminster system that combines legislative and executive power into the lower house of parliament, but then there's no president person with such a concentration of power in one person.

I do not think such concentration is a good thing.

God doesn't win that much for them anymore either, because most people realize that you can be liberal and believe in God.

Absolutely. Agreed 100%

My advice to Republicans, and I think all Republicans would like to see them take it, is start being the class for fiscal restraint and small government again. And don't just say it, mean it. Do it. Quit saying you will and then failing.

Well said again.

Please note that in the primaries I voted for Ron Paul, and I still don't see where the "capitalism" line is drawn. McCain wanted a 36% top income tax rate and B.O. promised a 39% top income tax rate (rollback to Clinton numbers). I don't see where between 36% and 39% you leave capitalism and enter communism. Truth is, this country (the U.S.) has been socialist since the 1930's, yet we eschew the title/moniker, though it fits so well.

I like Ron Paul, and don't see how changing a tax rate 6% moves you from cap to comm either, but I don't agree that America is socialist at all. Completely not true.

Australia is not socialist either, and yet that's been far to the left of USA in years past, with nationalized health, banks, telecommunication etc. (many privatized over the years.)

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, the central question as to whether or not you are "socialist" is one of how much control of the economy government takes. With a 39% top tax bracket, a Federal Reserve system that sets interest rates (as opposed to the market), and a few record high bail-out packages from government in our recent history, I don't see much argument that our government doesn't control the economy. And, that, my friend, is socialism.

[Yorick]

Well for one there is private property, private enterprise, are private health insurance companies private hospitals etc.

The fed sets it's own interest rates, that companies who borrow from then, then set interest rates from. The market still sets interest rates, the fed is just the ultimate borrower in the USA. But bear in mind, people are still able to borrow internationally too. It's a very capitalist world with lots of competition.

The USA has become MORE socialist by taking 25% stakes in all the banks recently, but it is still way further to the right than what socialism is. Russia still has completely state owned banks, which are regarded as more stable (the private banks there are in trouble from bank runs) http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssF...61060820081017

More in a tic.... have an interruption

[Stratos]

Calling the US socialist confuses things more than it clarifies. If the US, the most capitalist country in the world, is a socialist state, is there any state that isn't?

If so, the word "socialist" kind of loses it's meaning.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Stratos Calling the US socialist confuses things more than it clarifies. If the US, the most capitalist country in the world, is a socialist state, is there any state that isn't? If so, the word "socialist" kind of loses it's meaning.

I agree. To an American the USA may seem socialist compared to what it was, but to those of us who've lived under MORE socialist nations that were still far, far away from true socialism, the USA is indisputably, comparatively conservative/capitalist.

At this stage we need to define our terms, to avoid confusion.

I would define a socialist nation as one with state owned telecommunications, health, banks, and other essential services. Fairly high taxation levels with a degree of redistribution to essential services workers, the needy, the infirm etc.

Here are some other generally accepted definitions:

http://www.conservative-resources.co...socialism.html

The definition of socialism, then, may be said to be a formal economic system in which society exerts considerable control over the nation's wealth and property in the pursuit of social justice. "Considerable control" may or may not entail public ownership, while "social justice" usually depends upon the whims of a bureaucratic elite. Generally speaking, a market-based economy is antithetical to socialist principles, and some form of benevolent planning is advocated.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18...socialism.html

Definition: 1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles 2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers 3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need.

http://www.iusy.org/socialism-pages/...socialism.html

Socialism Defined See how the primary definition of socialmism compares among the most popular online information sources: Encarta Encylopedia: A socio-economic system in which essential industries, social services, property and the distribution of wealth are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. Wikipedia: Economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. MSN: A political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles. Dictionary.com: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. WordIQ: A strategy of government where the government has control of many key resource-producing industries and manages many aspects of the market. Answers.com: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, you wanker, when you coming to Chitown again?

My point is that this whole socialism vs. capitalism thing is a quantitative, not a qualitative, discussion.

Pure capitalism is laissez-faire, no government control or ownership of the economy. Communism is complete government ownership and control. Everything on the sliding scale in between the two is "socialism," and under this rubric, most every prominent nation in the world fits the definition.

Example: "Communist" China has private ownership of companies and land while "Capitalist" America has mandated government monopolies, a central bank that sets interest rates, a defense industry that is totally dependent on and tied to sexy governmental coziness, and government bailouts of public companies. And in an odd twist of events, "capitalist" America is TOTALLY dependent on getting loans from "communist" China (in the form of T-Bill purchases) to keep its spendthrift always-borrowing ways going and, essentially, to keep it afloat.

So, the debate about whether we want to be more or less socialist is a discussion of quantitative differences, not qualitative ones.

[wellard]

Timber, my man, welcome home dude

Could not agree more on your socialism comments, all western countries are socialist ones just the depth varies. It just seem that the word socialism has dirty / evil / sinister connotations when used in the USA political argument.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by wellard It just seem that the word socialism has dirty / evil / sinister connotations when used in the USA political argument.

"Dirty" doesn't cover it. Try "anathema" or "election-changing." We in the USA so very much believe this myth that we are what we really are not.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis Yorick, you wanker, when you coming to Chitown again? My point is that this whole socialism vs. capitalism thing is a quantitative, not a qualitative, discussion. Pure capitalism is laissez-faire, no government control or ownership of the economy. Communism is complete government ownership and control. Everything on the sliding scale in between the two is "socialism," and under this rubric, most every prominent nation in the world fits the definition. Example: "Communist" China has private ownership of companies and land while "Capitalist" America has mandated government monopolies, a central bank that sets interest rates, a defense industry that is totally dependent on and tied to sexy governmental coziness, and government bailouts of public companies. And in an odd twist of events, "capitalist" America is TOTALLY dependent on getting loans from "communist" China (in the form of T-Bill purchases) to keep its spendthrift always-borrowing ways going and, essentially, to keep it afloat. So, the debate about whether we want to be more or less socialist is a discussion of quantitative differences, not qualitative ones.

Not sure 'bout Chitown. Hopefully soon. I need to have another fine whiskey there!

Using that logic however, as previously stated, the word "socialist" becomes moot.

Communist China is clearly not communist, retains some of it's socialist structure, but yes, is now far more capitalist than before.

The point is, nations don't fit into neat little all encompassing generalised descriptions. Certain policies, and situations are socialist, just as certain policies and situations may be autocratic or democratic. I mean America is not a pure democracy either. Far from it. Yet parts of it's mechanism is indisputably democratic. There are so many shades of grey in what constitutes a society.

But socialism per se would be like a kibbutz. America is not a large kibbutz, thought it could be said there are parts of it, in some sectors, that are "kibbutzish".

[Stratos]

Well, communism is more of a branch of socialism than something different.

As Yorick noted, the polities today are mixed system. Some things in the West can be considered socialist, or have socialist roots. The welfare state is a prime example. Welfare systems have existed in one form or another for a long time. Welfare states, the notion that one of the primary roles of the state is to ensure the welfare of its citizens, however is a relatively new idea.

Anyway, I would define socialism as having two components. First, there should be an idea of class struggle, or at least a notion of elite vs. non-elite, and the need to even out the differences between these two. If there is no such idea, I would rather put the polity under the more general term collectivism.
Second, the workers, or a equivalent class or citizens in general, should own the means of production. This can be either through the state, commune or whatever. There should also be some matter of connection between the state and the people; the kings and emperors of old owned much of the means of production within their realms but they were not heads of socialist societies.

As for capitalism, I define it as a economic system where the market is the main price setter, and private property is highly protected and regarded as foundational. i argue that this is the case in the West today. Sure, the government interfer in the market through various way, but we're still primarily capitalists.