The Administration's "Socialism"

Mar 2009
2,187
Authoritarian socialism is so-called because it exists in conjunction with the state, not because it's dictatorial, i'd like to point out. All properly socialist political parties are authoritarian socialists. Libertarian socialists see voting as a charade and a waste of time.

As you can see from this, the American "Liberalism", is in no way socialist. In fact, it is better represented by the "third way" ideal. The "third way" is the economic system adopted by the Nazi party in Germany, with that very terminology. That is why David accuses the democrats of being neo-nazis.

myp is at least partially correct. There is much discussion over the exact requirements and limitations for a capitalist system. I have no idea which model he is using, so he may well be correct, in his own way, in that the US and UK do not have capitalism. However, personally, i perceived his point to be centred on that America or Britain do not have free market capitalism. And never literally have had it completely. Now, there have been instances where it has been close in both countries, but he is correct. However, seeing as absolute free market capitalism is a physical legal impossibility, that's hardly surprising.
Another excellent posting, thanks Dirk. Huge jump in my learning curve. So would you then say that the Democrats are authoritarian socialists?

I agree that The Libertarian Party in the United States can't even closely match libertarian socialism. It is something completely different, perhaps even completely opposite.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
Another excellent posting, thanks Dirk. Huge jump in my learning curve. So would you then say that the Democrats are authoritarian socialists?
No. National socialists, if anything. From an economic point of view. You're not going to see the Jews being gassed. But only the Liberals. Obama isn't really even a Liberal, so you're quite safe at the moment.

The difference is that Liberals and the "Third Way" are for centralised Government-controlled nationalised key industries. Authoritarian socialists are for decentralised democratic nationalisation.

I agree that The Libertarian Party in the United States can't even closely match libertarian socialism. It is something completely different, perhaps even completely opposite.
Socially, the Libertarians are usually freedom-loving. Though not necessarily. I agree with that. Economically, they agree with minimal Government intervention in the economy. I agree with that too. However, they do want capitalism to stay. I feel that capitalism is inhumane and oppressive on the individual. So i disagree with that.

It is much like with Ron Paul. People are usually shocked that i would like or agree with a Republican. But he is much like the Libertarians. In social terms, in anti-war stance, in anti-corporatism stance and anti-Government stance. While he supports capitalism, i like his other ideals.
 
Jul 2009
5,850
Port St. Lucie
No. National socialists, if anything. From an economic point of view. You're not going to see the Jews being gassed. But only the Liberals. Obama isn't really even a Liberal, so you're quite safe at the moment.

The difference is that Liberals and the "Third Way" are for centralised Government-controlled nationalised key industries. Authoritarian socialists are for decentralised democratic nationalisation.



Socially, the Libertarians are usually freedom-loving. Though not necessarily. I agree with that. Economically, they agree with minimal Government intervention in the economy. I agree with that too. However, they do want capitalism to stay. I feel that capitalism is inhumane and oppressive on the individual. So i disagree with that.

It is much like with Ron Paul. People are usually shocked that i would like or agree with a Republican. But he is much like the Libertarians. In social terms, in anti-war stance, in anti-corporatism stance and anti-Government stance. While he supports capitalism, i like his other ideals.
Ya but I have a hard time reconsolidating his capitalism with my socialism. This has resulted in quite a few debates with my libertarian friend. He's always asking me how I can support his policies yet not vote for the man.
 
Sep 2009
23
Scotland
I don't understand why anyone would not vote for Ron Paul (seems to be the only one who knows what's going on with the Fed and with your economy generally) and ...I don't understand why anyone would prefer private health care to structured health care which provides for all of society...when people are paying anyway for that care, why not pay taxation and sleep at night knowing you've now caught up with the rest of the civilised world...:confused:

Dodges cyberbricks
 
Jul 2009
5,850
Port St. Lucie
I don't understand why anyone would not vote for Ron Paul (seems to be the only one who knows what's going on with the Fed and with your economy generally) and ...I don't understand why anyone would prefer private health care to structured health care which provides for all of society...when people are paying anyway for that care, why not pay taxation and sleep at night knowing you've now caught up with the rest of the civilised world...:confused:

Dodges cyberbricks
Because we're a nation ruled by the not certain if they're capitalists or fascists American Right.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
I don't understand why anyone would not vote for Ron Paul (seems to be the only one who knows what's going on with the Fed and with your economy generally)
Some people don't like freedom.

I don't understand why anyone would prefer private health care to structured health care which provides for all of society
The American system is ridiculous. Basically, the individual pays extortionate volumes of cash for insurance. The corporate oligopoly keeps the price high. Then, the Government also pays huge sums of money, which is funded by taxes. Guess who has to pay the taxes - you'll love this one - the People! Haha! It's completely retarded.

Would a private system help? Erm, no. It would still mean the rich get better care than the poor. When the poor are more likely to get ill.

A public system - an NHS of sorts - would be better. The cost to the individual would be vastly reduced. If the system were fully nationalised and decentralised, unlike the NHS on both counts, it would be even more efficient and even cheaper. Plus it would mean a slightly more direct responsibility. However, it also means further layers of Government bureacracy and more power of the Government over the individual.

My ideal system is a modified version of the German system. However, in America, this would only be literally possible after revolution and Government and capitalism have been buried in the ash-heap of history.

I may be waiting for a while. So will you. Obama does not intend to create an NHS. At least not with the HS3200.

...when people are paying anyway for that care, why not pay taxation and sleep at night knowing you've now caught up with the rest of the civilised world...:confused:
Never have i seen a nation more heavily under corporate control than the United States. But would switching to Government control help any? Sort of, yes - in the ways i've described. But ultimately, it's still control over the People.

I'll tell you a secret - the people want freedom. Nobody's offering it.

Dodges cyberbricks
*hands over shield* I'll need that back - particularly when the bourgeois capitalist lot see my critique.
 
Jul 2009
5,850
Port St. Lucie
Some people don't like freedom.



The American system is ridiculous. Basically, the individual pays extortionate volumes of cash for insurance. The corporate oligopoly keeps the price high. Then, the Government also pays huge sums of money, which is funded by taxes. Guess who has to pay the taxes - you'll love this one - the People! Haha! It's completely retarded.

Would a private system help? Erm, no. It would still mean the rich get better care than the poor. When the poor are more likely to get ill.

A public system - an NHS of sorts - would be better. The cost to the individual would be vastly reduced. If the system were fully nationalised and decentralised, unlike the NHS on both counts, it would be even more efficient and even cheaper. Plus it would mean a slightly more direct responsibility. However, it also means further layers of Government bureacracy and more power of the Government over the individual.

My ideal system is a modified version of the German system. However, in America, this would only be literally possible after revolution and Government and capitalism have been buried in the ash-heap of history.

I may be waiting for a while. So will you. Obama does not intend to create an NHS. At least not with the HS3200.



Never have i seen a nation more heavily under corporate control than the United States. But would switching to Government control help any? Sort of, yes - in the ways i've described. But ultimately, it's still control over the People.

I'll tell you a secret - the people want freedom. Nobody's offering it.



*hands over shield* I'll need that back - particularly when the bourgeois capitalist lot see my critique.
I really do think change is coming. Most states have asserted their sovereignty and 2 have attempted to declare independence (the latter voting it down by 1 vote), the Left and Libertarians seem to be making headway and support of the Dems and Repubs is pretty much gone, tactical voting is all that's keeping them going at this point. I think revolution is in the air and I think the hot air 'teabaggers' are only the obvious reactionary sign with the true revolutionaries about to make a move soon.

I really think the only thing stopping the Left and Libertarian movements from doing anything is the lack of an alliance and organization. Get Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. "Bernie" Sanders to organize a joint anti-gov't movement and we'd have our promised change. Hell even the reactionaries may join in if the Libertarians throw in some Right-Wing catchphrases.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
I really do think change is coming. Most states have asserted their sovereignty and 2 have attempted to declare independence (the latter voting it down by 1 vote), the Left and Libertarians seem to be making headway and support of the Dems and Repubs is pretty much gone, tactical voting is all that's keeping them going at this point. I think revolution is in the air and I think the hot air 'teabaggers' are only the obvious reactionary sign with the true revolutionaries about to make a move soon.

I really think the only thing stopping the Left and Libertarian movements from doing anything is the lack of an alliance and organization. Get Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. "Bernie" Sanders to organize a joint anti-gov't movement and we'd have our promised change. Hell even the reactionaries may join in if the Libertarians throw in some Right-Wing catchphrases.
Woo! Vive l'r?volution!

That anti-authoritarian movement would be brilliant.

Asserted sovereignty? Attempted to declare independence?

I wasn't aware of this. Would you be so kind as to link me, comrade?
 
Jul 2009
5,850
Port St. Lucie
Woo! Vive l'r?volution!

That anti-authoritarian movement would be brilliant.

Asserted sovereignty? Attempted to declare independence?

I wasn't aware of this. Would you be so kind as to link me, comrade?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
http://session09.blogspot.com/2009/04/helena-resolution-that-would-either.html
A resolution that would either assert Montana?s sovereignty or sow ?seeds of secession? died on a 50-50 vote in the House Wednesday after lengthy debate.
Enjoy! ;)
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
Wow. Thank you so much. The United States almost ended and i knew nothing about it! Ah well, plenty of other states to pass something similar. I can well understand the grievance about centralisation of powers. We're seeing far too much across the pond, all over Europe as well.

I think the problem is the entire existence of positions of power, manifest in the existence of the State. Power is almost subject to forces of physics. I mean, the mass of power inevitably attracts more power. It's the political form of gravity.

We should get rid of it before we find our liberties completely annihilated.
 
Jul 2009
5,850
Port St. Lucie
Wow. Thank you so much. The United States almost ended and i knew nothing about it! Ah well, plenty of other states to pass something similar. I can well understand the grievance about centralisation of powers. We're seeing far too much across the pond, all over Europe as well.

I think the problem is the entire existence of positions of power, manifest in the existence of the State. Power is almost subject to forces of physics. I mean, the mass of power inevitably attracts more power. It's the political form of gravity.

We should get rid of it before we find our liberties completely annihilated.
Well considering the Right-Wing media (FOX News and radio talk shows/news stations) were the only 1s covering this in any detail (it was a Right-Wing movement for the most part), I'm not surprised you missed it.

Like I said, until the Libertarians and Left aline with each other, nothing will get done, at least nothing that will result in change.

I'm frankly suppressed the LP hasn't formed a coalition with anyone on the Left. They seem to be in love with the Repubs despite the RNC openly declaring libertarianism a threat.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
Well considering the Right-Wing media (FOX News and radio talk shows/news stations) were the only 1s covering this in any detail (it was a Right-Wing movement for the most part), I'm not surprised you missed it.

Like I said, until the Libertarians and Left aline with each other, nothing will get done, at least nothing that will result in change.

I'm frankly suppressed the LP hasn't formed a coalition with anyone on the Left. They seem to be in love with the Repubs despite the RNC openly declaring libertarianism a threat.
I agree. Libertarian v Authoritarian would be a far better alignment than Left v Right.

To be fair, the first people to use the term "Libertarian" were socialists. I do hate when the Right claims a monopoly on anti-authoritarianism.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
What you should do is start up a party called the Anti-Authoritarian Alliance.

Or hijack the Libertarian Party.
 
Jul 2009
5,850
Port St. Lucie
What you should do is start up a party called the Anti-Authoritarian Alliance.

Or hijack the Libertarian Party.
:D Na, I'm a secessionist. Would much prefer to make Florida into an independent and decentralized democratic socialist/libertarian commonwealth.

Unfortunately, Florida doesn't enjoy the same level of nationalism (the good, patriotic kind, not the extremest kind) as Texas or Vermont so I'll likly have to do as you say. :p

Thing is, the Right has such a grip on the LP, I (or any other leftist) would need to lead a strong lobby to take control of the party. Maybe if I took all the minority socialists from the DNC and RNC as well as the disenfranchised members of the SP USA, I could do it. :confused:
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
:D Na, I'm a secessionist. Would much prefer to make Florida into an independent and decentralized democratic socialist/libertarian commonwealth.

Unfortunately, Florida doesn't enjoy the same level of nationalism (the good, patriotic kind, not the extremist kind) as Texas or Vermont so I'll likly have to do as you say. :p

Thing is, the Right has such a grip on the LP, I (or any other leftist) would need to lead a strong lobby to take control of the party. Maybe if I took all the minority socialists from the DNC and RNC as well as the disenfranchised members of the SP USA, I could do it. :confused:
It would certainly be a challenge in the socio-political environment of the fractured and disorganised American left, if you mean to take it over. But i think that just having a voice and actually saying "look here, hello, you don't have to be capitalist to be libertarian". The most difficult part would be media coverage - you'd only get independent networks, nothing mainstream, likely. The corporate propaganda machine doesn't want real news to get out.
 
Jul 2009
5,850
Port St. Lucie
It would certainly be a challenge in the socio-political environment of the fractured and disorganised American left, if you mean to take it over. But i think that just having a voice and actually saying "look here, hello, you don't have to be capitalist to be libertarian". The most difficult part would be media coverage - you'd only get independent networks, nothing mainstream, likely. The corporate propaganda machine doesn't want real news to get out.
I don't know, Ron Pale can get on the mainstream.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
Like I said, until the Libertarians and Left aline with each other, nothing will get done, at least nothing that will result in change.
Do you think that would ever be possible? Is a more likely scenario not perhaps those to the left of the Republican Party aligning themselves with the Libertarians?