Venezuela: A left wing Socialist disaster and warning to America

[Onceler]

Yes, I do.

I am two months from a degree in political theory with a special focus on the Soviet Union.

Do you?

Yep. Dual major, Political Science was one of 'em. Strong courseload in socialism & marxism.

America is not a Socialist country.

 

[Epicurus]

Yep. Dual major, Political Science was one of 'em. Strong courseload in socialism & marxism.

America is not a Socialist country.

You're trying to escape reality by capitalizing the S.

We are not controlled by the Socialist Party USA, but we have implemented a number of policies since the Depression that they advocated and supported.

These policies are socialist. Calling them what they are does not make them either inherently good or bad, merely what they are.

 

[Bonestorm]

You're trying to escape reality by capitalizing the S.

We are not controlled by the Socialist Party USA, but we have implemented a number of policies since the Depression that they advocated and supported.

These policies are socialist. Calling them what they are does not make them either inherently good or bad, merely what they are.

Policies supported by socialists are not therefore "socialist."

Hitler supported organic farming, that doesn't make organic farmers a bunch of nazis.

 

[Epicurus]

Policies supported by socialists are not therefore "socialist."

Hitler supported organic farming, that doesn't make organic farmers a bunch of nazis.

No, but policies proposed and introduced as concepts by parties are reflective of their ideology.

Organic farmers might not be fascists because fascists supported organic farming, but people who support an extremely strong state, corporatism, and ethnic nationalism are indeed fascists because those are fascist policies.

 

[Annie]

Honestly...do you guys know & understand what socialism is?

Yes. Begging the question. What do you call it?

 

[Onceler]

Socialism is gov't control of the means of production, as well as the distribution of goods. Modern socialism also advocates for relatively equal pay among workers.

Yep; that's America, alright.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well it is debatable, while the others you did not address are not.

Are you seriously going to sit here and argue with me that socialism has not affected the development of our state?

We spend 2/3rds of our budget on entitlement programs, we have a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, and a host of other society-driven programs that would have made Marx smile.

I can only guess that you are afraid that if you acknowledge what is commonly known it will legitimize attacks on Democrats as socialists. But Republicans who do not advocate the immediate repeal of all those policies are also socialists, or at the very least support maintaining socialist policies.

We both want to call things by their proper names, and to you that means applying so narrow a definition that you can say neither Republicans nor Democrats or socialists. To me, I apply a slightly broader definition based on Marx's own that allows me to point out that Democrats and Republicans both support degrees of socialism.

I'm not even arguing here about the merits of socialism, I'm merely trying to get people to stop being dishonest about the terms.

Socialism in America doesn't have a broad definition. Socialism in eruope does; not in America. In America socialism is something very narrow and very radical.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Clearly, you are using "Socialist" in a very loose way.

We are not a Socialist country, and we do not have systemic Socialism or even a creep of Socialism.

It would be like me comparing some of the more overtly religious members of the GOP, pointing to the Taliban & saying "see what happens when religious values overtake the gov't!"

It's just a bad comparison. We aren't anything like Venezuela.

isn't obama's (and probably other dems) theory that we need to spread the wealth somewhat akin to this:

Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

isn't taking taxes from one and giving it to another an example of the underlines? while not ownership per se, isn't the government's ability to demand and get our dollars a form of ownership, thus meaning we do have at a minimum, a "creep" of socialism in this country, especially with obama saying we have to spread the wealth.

 

[Epicurus]

The SPUSA is a Marxist organization, Epic.

It was the further left of the two camps that came out of the '72 split, but I'm still not sure I would call them Marxist.

In any case, it's irrelevant to my real point which is that despite not having a big-s Socialist president, we have instituted socialist policies.

 

[Epicurus]

Socialism is gov't control of the means of production, as well as the distribution of goods. Modern socialism also advocates for relatively equal pay among workers.

Yep; that's America, alright.

Yep, America standing on the precipice of nationalizing the banks and assuming public ownership of major industries.

No way, no form, no how socialist. Got it.

 

[Onceler]

If anyone wants to make a case for a "creep" of socialism based on redistribution of wealth, I'd be interested to see any trend in the past 2 decades where the gap between rich & poor did not widen....

 

[Annie]

Socialism is gov't control of the means of production, as well as the distribution of goods. Modern socialism also advocates for relatively equal pay among workers.

Yep; that's America, alright.

When the government can tell companies what 'trips' and 'means of transportation they may take', they own them. I'm not saying it's wrong, just saying the government owns them. It's socialism. Those businesses, which the Obama administration in less than a month has claimed and seems determined to make significant, are owned.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It was the further left of the two camps that came out of the '72 split, but I'm still not sure I would call them Marxist.

In any case, it's irrelevant to my real point which is that despite not having a big-s Socialist president, we have instituted socialist policies.

If the Socialist party had replaced the Republicans or Democrats I doubt you'd see anything much different than what we have today. They would've comprised their positions and become a moderate party just like all the other socialist parties that won.

And I'm not sure I was right about them being Marxist. I read that they were Luxemborgists on wikipedia though, but that seems to have been removed...

 

[Onceler]

When the government can tell companies what 'trips' and 'means of transportation they may take', they own them. I'm not saying it's wrong, just saying the government owns them. It's socialism. Those businesses, which the Obama administration in less than a month has claimed and seems determined to make significant, are owned.

Sorry, that's a weak case. The gov't is making those conditions of money they are providing to keep those companies solvent. It's no different than any other contract.

 

[Epicurus]

If anyone wants to make a case for a "creep" of socialism based on redistribution of wealth, I'd be interested to see any trend in the past 2 decades where the gap between rich & poor did not widen....

Why are you confining yourself to the past two decades in this discussion?

I don't even think there has been much advancement of socialist policies in the last two decades. I would even say there has been a rolling back under Reagan, Bush I, and even Clinton.

I think we made the greatest leaps toward socialism under FDR, then again under Johnson. Nothing in the last forty years has been comparable to those two. But we have kept most of the socialist policies they implemented.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Sorry, that's a weak case. The gov't is making those conditions of money they are providing to keep those companies solvent. It's no different than any other contract.

didn't the government take a stake in the banks they gave money to? or at least were talking about it.

 

[Annie]

Sorry, that's a weak case. The gov't is making those conditions of money they are providing to keep those companies solvent. It's no different than any other contract.

Only 'weak' because of so little time, have no fear, the case will be built. You and I both know it.

 

[Onceler]

Only 'weak' because of so little time, have no fear, the case will be built. You and I both know it.

Until the case is better, the constant use of the term in relation to policies that are not socialist is just fear-mongering....

 

[Epicurus]

It's absurd to think that the policies of our nation haven't been influenced by socialism. I'm sorry, but it just is.

The Socialists were a strong third party in the early parts of the 20th century. Much of their membership left once the major parties made concessions that made their platforms more palatable to those Socialists. That is the near-inevitable evolution of a successful ideological or single-issue party. Once they gain enough support based on an issue or set of issues, they attract the attention of the major parties who poach their support by altering their platforms to accommodate. It happened to the Progressives, to the Populists, and to the Farmer's party. Our current system reflects values from all three of those, but people want to pretend that it was somehow completely different with the Socialists.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's absurd to think that the policies of our nation haven't been influenced by socialism. I'm sorry, but it just is.

The Socialists were a strong third party in the early parts of the 20th century. Much of their membership left once the major parties made concessions that made their platforms more palatable to those Socialists. That is the near-inevitable evolution of a successful ideological or single-issue party. Once they gain enough support based on an issue or set of issues, they attract the attention of the major parties who poach their support by altering their platforms to accommodate. It happened to the Progressives, to the Populists, and to the Farmer's party. Our current system reflects values from all three of those, but people want to pretend that it was somehow completely different with the Socialists.

The Socialist party wasn't killed because other parties adopted its policies. The other parties didn't start doing anything resembling that until around the thirties, and the Sociailst party was well on its way to death by 1920. I think the biggest things that contributed to the death of the Socialist party was its opposition to WWI and the fact that most of the active membership quit and joined the politically poisoned Communists when Lenin founded the Comintern around 1919.