Is Bush a Socialist?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Dorso wrote:
The “founding fathers” must have read Marx.[/quote]

By definition, the founding fathers were leftist revolutionaries. Actually, the use of the expression “left” and “right” in politics was actually born around that time to label precisely the revolutionaries (like our founding fathers) that went against the established monarchy…

To quote Jefferson:

"
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
"

If that doesn’t define the left-wing socially, I don’t know what does. In fact, TJ might have single-handedely CREATED the modern left ideology with that letter to Samuel Kercheval in July 12, 1816.

22

Don’t forget Thomas Paine, who is certainly the precursor to the radical left- of him it has been said, “If not for the pen of Paine, the sword of washington would have been useless”. He was also a major player in the French Revolution, and was nearly hanged in England for trying to instigate a revolution against the monarchy. He was a founding father also.

People all have this misconception that the founding fathers were all such conservatives in every way, and that they would somehow support the Republicans if they were alive today.

It is, of course, very easy to pull a quote off of a “86 Famous Quotations!” webpage, and make it fit your internet argument. However, without truly reading the works, writings, and letters of the “founding fathers”, it is impossible to know how they really felt. IF you want to truly understand them, read their critics, both old and contemporary.

Far too many Republicans say, “Well, the founding fathers would have hated that! Nyah! That makes me right” and then pull out the old Jefferson silver bullet of, “The government that governs least…blah blah” and don’t really know how Jefferson thought at all. I daresay most Republicans would be more influenced by men like John Adams or Alexander Hamilton…but they themselves don’t even realize it.

And though I respect Headhunters personal beliefs, dont try to explain socialism or any leftist theory to him. It is damn near impossible for him to accept that somehow, the world is not the pre-Revolutionary utopia where everyman lives only for himself out in the woods anymore.

23

[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
To me, Socialism means that society comes first. Capitalism means that capital comes first. Communism means that the commune comes first.

Have you actually read what I posted?

Do not try to oversimplify a complex issue.

Capitalism is an economic system, which is not precluded by Socialism. Socialism REGULATES Capitalism, it does not replace it.

So that means one can have a Socialist Government ruling over / with a Capitalist Economy.

In fact, FightingIrish is absolutely correct when he said that the old USSR ran an economic system that is called State Capitalism.

And Communism is a form of Socialism.

So why are you talking about the three like they were mutually exclusive?

They are NOT, in fact the USSR, as stated above, had all three at the same time…

If Socialism sounds complicated, it’s because it is. If that makes it easier for you, use “left” and “right”, which are defined henceforth:

RIGHT:

The right defends the preservation of corporate rights through constraints on government power, the preservation of wealth and power in the hands that have traditionally held them; Basically, the defend social stability, i.e. the preservation of the original feudal status quo, in both economic and social terms; hence the association with conservatives (meaning Conservatism and Right-Wing can be used interchangeably).

LEFT:

The left has historically opposed the concentration of wealth and power, especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally controlled them. As such, the left often works to create or support equality in the state. Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary to achieve that equalization of rights and, most of all, equalization of opportunities.

Peter Singer (Princeton University, Professor of Philosophy) defines “the left” as being those who place minimizing suffering above other moral imperatives, such as those provided by tradition.

A number of scientifically literate leftists, such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer, view the iterated prisoner’s dilemma as a key in understanding exploitation of the masses by the powerful.

You feel that does not encompass well all possible variations? Well, most libertarians conceive of an additional spectrum (libertarianism-totalitarianism) upon which they place themselves which intersects the left-right political spectrum and places them 90 degrees away from traditional left and right, basically allowing for four quadrants (libertarian left, libertarian right, totalitarian left and totalitarian right).
[/quote]

Very good post, by the way. The political spectrum cannot be limited to “left/right”. thats like saying the only colors are black and white, even thought there is really a whole spectrum that combines all sorts of different colors.

24

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The political spectrum cannot be limited to “left/right”. thats like saying the only colors are black and white, even thought there is really a whole spectrum that combines all sorts of different colors.[/quote]

That is very true. 100% agreed.

25

Sorry boys, but words have meaning. You can’t define concepts and the word used to represent these seperately. Just because Socialism and Communism have been disasters to humanity doesn’t mean that you get to change their definitions in midstream.

My definitions of Socialism and Communism are philosophical. I gave the defining characteristics of each. No one as yet has refuted these definitions. Read my definitions above – I believe Occam would be proud.

Now, let’s look at a typical, rational human being. All other things being about equal, this person has to choose between living in the capitalistic USA or living in any historical or present country that has ‘Socialist’ in it’s name or its philosophy.

Case closed.

26

Right wing & Left wing…

Parts of the same ugly bird.

27

Since WWII, our society has become too dependent on the government from social security to health care to welfare programs and so forth. The whole notion of self reliance and taking care of yourself is a past thought (New Orleans after Katrina being a good example).

Politicians know this and use it to their advantage. In each election, they promise the masses goodies from the public treasurey in order to secure their position of power. Didn’t Bush sign a prescription drug coverage plan for seniors? We have a significant number of people in this country who “vote for a living” and their very existence relies on a government program.

The conservative movement faces a huge hurdle in this country. Democrats have become socialists, and Republicans have become moderate or liberals. They do this because that’s what wins elections. Unfortunately, self sufficiency and economic liberty are not popular ideas among many in this nation.

28

I don’t know… it is very easy to be an idealist when you are young.

However, when you have a family and children to look after, you desperately need some type of health care coverage all of a sudden.

Similarly, once you have your family in a nice neighborhood, with nice schools, with a nice home, you might appreciate a bit of temporary support if the company you work for suddenly folds.

You are only an island until you start to have a family.

At the same time, yes, there are people that will take advantage of anything they can.

29

[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
To me, Socialism means that society comes first. Capitalism means that capital comes first. Communism means that the commune comes first.

Have you actually read what I posted?

Do not try to oversimplify a complex issue.

Capitalism is an economic system, which is not precluded by Socialism. Socialism REGULATES Capitalism, it does not replace it.

So that means one can have a Socialist Government ruling over / with a Capitalist Economy.

In fact, FightingIrish is absolutely correct when he said that the old USSR ran an economic system that is called State Capitalism.

And Communism is a form of Socialism.

So why are you talking about the three like they were mutually exclusive?

They are NOT, in fact the USSR, as stated above, had all three at the same time…

[/quote]

I would argue that the USSR was by no means communist. What they used was a horrible perversion of communism that Lenin called “war-time communism”. Unfortunately, the war never ended, and the “temporary measure” became permanent. That was state-capitalism. Capitalism and socialism both economic systems, and are by definition mutually exclusive. The primary purpose of production in a capitalist system is the accumulation of wealth (by government or private firms) whereas the primary goal of production in a socialist system is the satisfaction of human needs.

You’ll find other authors that will define things differently. My position is based on thousands of dollars worth of books (mostly Lenin, Marx, and Engles). I understand that you and I would take an entirely different approach because of our different histories. I am a Cuban citizen, and was formerly a Soviet citizen as well. My schemas a different from yours, because while you were learning about the superiority of a free-market, I was learning the basics of dialectical materialism (or however it’s translated). So don’t take my disagreement with you personally, this is just how I see things.

30

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Right wing & Left wing…

Parts of the same ugly bird.[/quote]

I take it you are a fan of the World Socialist Movement.

F’ing commie! =P

31

[quote]dolph76lftr wrote:
Since WWII, our society has become too dependent on the government from social security to health care to welfare programs and so forth. The whole notion of self reliance and taking care of yourself is a past thought (New Orleans after Katrina being a good example).

Politicians know this and use it to their advantage. In each election, they promise the masses goodies from the public treasurey in order to secure their position of power. Didn’t Bush sign a prescription drug coverage plan for seniors? We have a significant number of people in this country who “vote for a living” and their very existence relies on a government program.

The conservative movement faces a huge hurdle in this country. Democrats have become socialists, and Republicans have become moderate or liberals. They do this because that’s what wins elections. Unfortunately, self sufficiency and economic liberty are not popular ideas among many in this nation.

[/quote]

Excellent post! A big problem with giving bureaucrats the power to distribute money is that this attracts people who enjoy wielding power over others. Then the race is on, not to be the most productive but who can be the most brutal. The murderer wins over the pickpocket.

This is one reason I oppose Socialism and the Welfare state. By their nature, because they have power (governmental power, which is the most powerful kind), they must evolve into Fascist states. The Fuhrer wins over
the Bruning.

Socialism, by it’s nature, must result in evil. Suppose some inventor comes up with something that would make us all vastly better off in the long run, but would cause unemployment in the short run. The Socialist must oppose this invention. He’d lose his support otherwise. Because he has the power, he prevents the invention from coming to market. So, say goodbye to cars, computers, electric lights, and sundry other inventions.

Where do Socialists believe computers, automobiles, so forth come from? To paraphrase the Stanford yo-yo, maybe in the LWU fantasy-land these things appear by magic. In their fantasy-land we’ll all live as brothers and happily give the results of our life’s work to the loafing bum on the corner too. Ummm…yeah, let me get back to you on that…

32

This thread has gotten way off topic because of a few people who apparently have an axe to grind. Clearly the questioner had in mind an economic spectrum with completely planned economies at one extreme (the left end) and completely free economies on the other (the right end). I think its fair to say that the USSR, and countries like it, are at or near the left end of the spectrum and 19th century America falls somewhere near the right end.

With that in mind, modern America and most European countries, lie somewhere in the middle; countries like Sweden being further to the left than countries like Great Britian. Bush’s policies have absolutly pushed this country further towards the left end of that spectrum.

Furthermore, if the socialist concept of wealth reditribution is accounted for, Bush is a far better socialist than he is a laissez-fair capitalist.

If you all want to discuss the utter uselessness of the Left-Right paradigm, I say we open a new thread. It’s one of my biggest pet peeves…

33

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
I would argue that the USSR was by no means communist. What they used was a horrible perversion of communism that Lenin called “war-time communism”. Unfortunately, the war never ended, and the “temporary measure” became permanent. That was state-capitalism. [/quote]

I don’t like this distinction of “state-capitalism” from communism/socialism. I think the only thing the idea of “state-capitalism” a-la Lenin shows is that pure communism doesn’t work. There is no incentive to produce in a communist system, and all that “equality” has to be financed somehow. So, enter the government to force the labor, right? LBRTRN said it well in his post above. Left = more government control and right = less.

First, the accumulation of wealth by government is NOT capitalism. Again, as above, if the GOVERNMENT reaps all the rewards of production, the incentive of the individual to produce is sapped. It would seem that so-called “state capitalism” is a natural outgrowth of pure communism. I also thought that government-owned/controlled production was called fascism.

Second, who decides what those human “needs” are? Are they determined by the government? Are they voted on? Is there a minimum of pre-determined “needs” that a person has? I have talked to numerous of your Cuban brethren who fled to the US. They have stories of how they ration friggin’ toilet paper down there. Humans only “need” to take so many dumps, right? You get a certain amount of rice per month. You don’t get red meat because the government has decided it’s bad for you. There are government spies on the street ready to imprison dissenters. And please understand that this is second-hand, so you are free to correct me if I am wrong. But there must be SOME reason that people are risking their lives by crossing over to Miami on rafts made of bleach bottles and dental floss.

The communist system tries to force “equality” and “fairness,” but it takes all the incentive out of producing anything, because there is no real reward. What makes this such a great system? I am seriously trying to understand where you are coming from.

Conversely, in a free market system, anyone can produce as much or as little as they desire or are able. A person can choose to run a business or work for one, but the incentive is there, primarily in the form of monetary gain. In my opinion, there is no fairer system. There is equality of opportunity, but admittedly, not equal outcomes (Human beings are unequal in their endowments, opportunities, and will to achieve.).

However, in a free market, barring certain circumstances, individuals largely CHOOSE their outcome. Property and enforceable property rights make possible a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of productivity and prosperity. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity (as you probably know first-hand).

Also, a question: why, in your mind, does the Cuban system work (I am assuming you live there by choice and won’t be washing up on Miami Beach any time soon)?

I am really not trying to be a prick. You seem like a very intelligent guy who knows why he believes what he believes and I want to better understand your positions.

34

Judging by the way he’s getting fucking skewered for trying to slow the flood of money into entitlement programs, I’d say that Bush won’t find a lot of friends on the socialist side of the fence these days.
Then there’s the problem with him not punishing the rich people nearly enough for making money. Again, socialists can’t stand it when success is rewarded.

I disagree with Bush on plenty of subjects, and I think he’s allowed WAY too much money to fly around, but this “socialist” bullshit doesn’t take into account the Democrat alternative.

35

[quote]hspder wrote:

By definition, the founding fathers were leftist revolutionaries. Actually, the use of the expression “left” and “right” in politics was actually born around that time to label precisely the revolutionaries (like our founding fathers) that went against the established monarchy…[/quote]

Actually, this is false - the term leftist is derived from the legislative seating in France at the time of the French Revolution. The Founding Fathers, as a group, were quite put off by the French Revolution and the principles it espoused.

The Founding Fathers are best described as liberals, in the old, old sense of the word - and modern conservatives want to conserve that brand of liberalism.

At no point did the Founding Fathers want to rip up the fabric of society and replace it with a utopian blueprint, nor did they trust government to solve all the earthly problems that the Left of the French Revolution did - ie, the creation of the separation of powers in the Constitution.

Moreover, the term ‘democrat’ was often used in a derisive, negative sense because at the time, ‘democrat’ conjured up images of mindless French revolutionaries and mob rule, to which no one wanted to be attached. Federalists often slurred Jefferson’s followers with the label ‘democrat’, but the Jeffersonians tried to deflect the label because they did not want to be associated with the French revolutionaries.

Liberals? Without question. Leftists? No, not an accurate label - they shared very little in common with their counterparts in the French legislature.

Both the American and French revolutions were rebellions against a status quo and a settled ancien regime - but the nature and character of each revolution is so vastly different, as were its partisans, and the respective revolutionaries cannot be lumped together under the same banner.Leftist does not equal rebel with no regard to the political nature of the rebellion.

36

Oh, and is Bush a socialist? I don’t think so - spending alone doesn’t mean someone has left-wing principles. The question in my mind is “is Bush trying to accomplish left-wing goals through the big spending”?

I don’t believe he is, but he also isn’t nearly as conservative as some of his critics suggest.