Is Obama a Socialist?

[DuncanONeil]

He's NOT a socialist. He's a statist

Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

I don't see any real difference here!

[MMI]

Is Obama a Socialist?

I do hope so ....

[DuncanONeil]

Is Obama a Socialist?

I do hope so ....

Why!?!?

Besides where has socialism not failed?

[leo9]

Besides where has socialism not failed?

NOT failed? Well, most European nations, at one time or another. And Canada, India, Vietnam (once they finally won the right to choose it) and dare I mention China?

Only in America could a politician be called a socialist - like it's a bad thing - for pursuing moderately right-of-centre policies that have been the norm for decades in the rest of the developed world. He looks strange to you because you're used to the "centre" being what most other countries consider the hard right. And he was elected, in case you hadn't noticed, because unregulated free-market capitalism had failed.

(Yes, we all know that the plan was for the crash to happen *after* W left office, so he could blame it on the Dems. But the fact that he couldn't even engineer an economic disaster right is why they lost.)

[DuncanONeil]

Since the question was about socialist countries I will I will ignore all comments regarding the current and preceding US administrations. That is rightfully a completely different subject.

A current list of socialist countries contains 27 that were formerly socialist. obviously they have all failed!
As to currently socialist there appear to be none. A listing contains five but four of the five are also identified as communist. Since communism is the result of a failed socialist state QED socialist states have failed. The single state listed as socialist and not communist is North Korea. It is, or should be clear, to most everyone that there is no way that North Korea can be listed among the successful states.
Even your own words; "(M)ost European nations, at one time or another.", support the contention that socialism fails!

NOT failed? Well, most European nations, at one time or another. And Canada, India, Vietnam (once they finally won the right to choose it) and dare I mention China?

Only in America could a politician be called a socialist - like it's a bad thing - for pursuing moderately right-of-centre policies that have been the norm for decades in the rest of the developed world. He looks strange to you because you're used to the "centre" being what most other countries consider the hard right. And he was elected, in case you hadn't noticed, because unregulated free-market capitalism had failed.

(Yes, we all know that the plan was for the crash to happen *after* W left office, so he could blame it on the Dems. But the fact that he couldn't even engineer an economic disaster right is why they lost.)

[leo9]

Since the question was about socialist countries I will I will ignore all comments regarding the current and preceding US administrations. That is rightfully a completely different subject.

A current list of socialist countries contains 27 that were formerly socialist. obviously they have all failed!
As to currently socialist there appear to be none. A listing contains five but four of the five are also identified as communist.

Since you and the rest of Obama's detractors have been equating "socialist" with "communist" from the start (otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an insult), it's a bit late to move the goalposts and exclude communist states from the dicussion. The more so since most of them call themselves socialist, so you are essentially arguing within your own private framework which you invented to give the answer you want.

By any strict economic definition the USA has not been a purely capitalist state since the 1930s, at the very latest, so even before the current crisis it could by your strict terms be already described as a failed capitalist state. It is more realistic to recognise that all working economies contain elements of both private and public enterprise, and we define them as "socialist" or "capitalist" according to which predominates.

In most developed democracies the balance swings from capitalist to socialist and back according to political trends, which is why I said that most European countries have had socialist periods. In my lifetime the UK has seen a period of predominantly socialist organisation from the '50s to the '70s, when even the Conservatives shared the concensus that most important things should be done by the state, and a predominantly capitalist period from the election of the Thatcher government to the credit crisis, when the Labour Party accepted the concensus that most things were best done by private enterprise. In between the pendulum passed through a midpoint of fully mixed economy, and is swinging back to there now. This cycle is normal all over the democratic world, except in the US, where the swing to the left hits an ideological spanner and bounces back to the right ahead of time. It will take more than the first black President to unjam the works.

[denuseri]

The United States? Great Brittan?.um..France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China,??/ ...the list goes on and on and on.

All these countries and more use socialism to one extent or another and have been for many many many generations.

At least in so far as I understand Socialism to be its proven above board to be more sucesful than pure capitalism ever has.

[leo9]

At least in so far as I understand Socialism to be its proven above board to be more sucesful than pure capitalism ever has.

Outside of such wild cases as the American frontier and Pol Pot's Cambodia, there has never been a purely capitalist or purely socialist economy. And those cases didn't last long and only survived by drawing on the mixed economies beyond their borders.

The US has never been as purely capitalist as it likes to claim, any more than China is as purely socialist as it pretends. All successful economies are a mix of state provision and private enterprise: the argument is over the best balance, which depends on the circumstances and can't be decided by pure theory or ideology.

Most economists agree that our present troubles come from the US and its client economies tilting way too far on the side of unregulated capitalism, and needing a good dose of state control to right the balance. There have been other times when economies have failed through too much socialism (Wilson's UK is an arguable example), but we are very far from that today.

[DuncanONeil]

The simple definition of socialism is "state ownership of industry" such has not been the case in modern nation states.
Further social programs in a capitalist state does not make the country socialist.
Further I would have to take the position that a pure system of politics, which is likely to never occur, is also like not a good thing. However, a system that rewards the person for effort is immeasurably better than one that tries to make everyone the same regardless of effort. With no reward for effort all you produce is mediocrity.

The United States? Great Brittan?.um..France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China,??/ ...the list goes on and on and on.

All these countries and more use socialism to one extent or another and have been for many many many generations.

At least in so far as I understand Socialism to be its proven above board to be more sucesful than pure capitalism ever has.

[leo9]

Further social programs in a capitalist state does not make the country socialist.

A very sensible judgement, so why are you so panicked over the possibility that some very moderate social programs may be introduced to the US?

[DuncanONeil]

Because there is nothing moderate about them!

Social Security is actually a moderate program and look how intrusive it has become.

A very sensible judgement, so why are you so panicked over the possibility that some very moderate social programs may be introduced to the US?

[denuseri]

Oh and fyi the typical moderate or center platform as its sometimes called during US political debates is no where near the hard anything of even the most left or right wing governments by eaither US, European, or any other contemporary political standards, nor by academic measurment systems that do not follow coloquial politically assigned values to my knowledge. (Reds vs Whites etc)

[DuncanONeil]

Us politicians only campaign to the middle. Once in office they do damn well as they please. Like and of the landed gentry of the middle ages.

Oh and fyi the typical moderate or center platform as its sometimes called during US political debates is no where near the hard anything of even the most left or right wing governments by eaither US, European, or any other contemporary political standards, nor by academic measurment systems that do not follow coloquial politically assigned values to my knowledge. (Reds vs Whites etc)

[DuncanONeil]

the US electorate is composed of 15% liberal, 29% moderates, 34% conservative, and most dangerous of all 16% progressive.
This makes the split 31 - 34. Therefore campaigns are directed at, and rest on the shoulders of the 29% moderate. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/halpin-teixeria-progressive-study/)

Oh and fyi the typical moderate or center platform as its sometimes called during US political debates is no where near the hard anything of even the most left or right wing governments by eaither US, European, or any other contemporary political standards, nor by academic measurment systems that do not follow coloquial politically assigned values to my knowledge. (Reds vs Whites etc)

[MMI]

It is my perception that the centre has moved some way to the right in recent decades from where it used to be. It's not hard right, so as to include movements like Aryan Nations or the KKK, but it does enable the Democrats to claim to be liberals ... Only in America - lol, and here we witness the inglorious spectacle of a leftwards-leaning party prostituting itself with the Tories just so that it can get a taste of power.

Does anyone disagree with the term "prostituting itself" concerning what the Liberals are doing?

Obama's a Democrat ...perhaps he had no better option when he decided what his politics were, but I would expect him to stand well to the right of the most "moderate" social democratic party. With significant public shareholdiongs in the US banking system, and the timid beginnings of a public health service, there are hopeful signs to be seen.

[denuseri]

Well from one thing I read he was a member of the social democrat party here in the states at one time too.

And speaking from an academic perspective...generally speaking: all governments have a natural tendency to move towards the right over time so as to solidify their control over the populace and then experience eaither revolution or reform to different degrees depending upon various circumstances where in some of that power is temporaraly relinquished or redacted or the illusion of it redirected..

[Cathryn Blackthorne]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

[MMI]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

Not really ... in fact, now I think about it, it doesn't matter at all.

What shall we talk about now?

[steelish]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

It actually does matter. He stated five days before he was elected that "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

Into what?
Why does it need to be "transformed"?

[cbtboyuk]

It actually does matter. He stated five days before he was elected that "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

Into what?
Why does it need to be "transformed"?

Had you noticed what everyone thought of you before? lol

[steelish]

Had you noticed what everyone thought of you before? lol

What does that specific post have to do with what the other nations thought of us? Do you really believe that Obama running around bowing and scraping and apologizing for America's existence will change another nation's opinion if they already hated us? It won't. What it WILL do is alienate our alliances.

[cbtboyuk]

What does that specific post have to do with what the other nations thought of us? Do you really believe that Obama running around bowing and scraping and apologizing for America's existence will change another nation's opinion if they already hated us? It won't. What it WILL do is alienate our alliances.

Actually, i don't think Obama is apologising at all, and nor should he, for America's existence (that apology, directed presumably at Native peoples, belongs to the older nations who founded the colonies which became the USA) but i think that a little humility and apology would do America's image abroad no end of good, as it would/did the last imperialistic arrogant Western nation that romped round the globe bringing it's short sighted, prejudiced and parochial views of "right" "democracy" and "freedom", namely the UK. That is not to say that all the fault lies on one side, but the trouble is that the politics you clearly - from your own posts- espouse (i.e. this nation was fine before "handouts" and "flower-power") are all about impossible, fictional ideals and black-and-white absolutes which not only play no real part in actuality, but, in particular, cause immense problems when you (the States) come onto contact with civilisations and societies far more ancient and complex than your own (e.g. Europe or, more importantly, the Middle East), especially when you do so with unbounded belief in your "superior knowledge"....as exemplified by the immortal quote for the US marine to the Iraqui citizens "Shuddup! We are here for your fucking freedom!" Oh, well done.

As for "hand outs", it seems to me that the real measure of any civilisation is the way it treats the least of its citizens, so i suggest that the richest nation on earth needs to sort itself out if people are still homeless, hungry or dumping their parents in neighbouring states because of medical costs. Of course i might, and do, level all but the last accusation at my own country.

You call yourself "right of centre", but you seem to me to be fairly right-wing. And anyone on this site who seems to think that Obama is worse than W Bush has to be at best self-destructive. At least, however you feel about his politics, Obama is not a constant embarrassment, in the way W Chump Monkey was. If one is going to be the most unpopular Imperialistic nation on earth, i think on should at least try to look good doing it: Victoria may have been dumpy but she at least was regal. Philip is embarrassing, but we are a minor issue these days. W Bush was like a strategically shaved chimpanzee but without the social elan, tact, sense, intellect or delicious aroma. i was in Chicago when he was on telly about Iraq - "we're kicking ass!" - and i had sensible Americans coming over in the airport and apologising for their President, as well they might.

And, in the end, I don't think Obama is apologising for America's existence. i think he's started to apologise for some of the horrors, crimes and scandals which America has perpertrated globally with a blithe disregard to the welfare of people in other countries (again, do not imagine i am either unaware or forgiving of my own countries list) and that can only assist America in terms of it's world standing. You are rich and powerful, being gracious can only be a good thing, instead of throwing your weight around like an ignorant 18 yr old boy on too many steroids. Your allies (who if they are like us, are probably allies cos of your fiscal clout, rather than through real allegiance) will appreciate this, and your enemies....well if they are not won round, you might at least comfort yourselves with having actually tried to calm things, rather than making things worse.

lots of love and flower power

[DuncanONeil]

Had you noticed what everyone thought of you before? lol

What they thought before they still think! Although many are certain the country is weaker.

[DuncanONeil]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

It matters because such a progrom would destroy the USA!

[Cathryn Blackthorne]

It matters because such a progrom would destroy the USA!

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

[steelish]

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

??? Who shouted?

[TantricSoul]

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

Cathryn,
Members should always strive to be courteous and respectful to other members and their opinions. In the editorial section, we are given slightly more leeway than other areas of the forums due to the passionate nature of the topics addressed here. So the short answer to your question is no, the post you have quoted would not earn a warning or citation.

As the single moderator for this area, I am kept busy enough searching out and responding to more flagrant violations of respectful debate protocol.
You may always send me a PM (with a link please) to a thread if you feel insulted or flamed by a poster.

On that note, please folks, I ask each of you that contribute to this area to keep in mind that all members have an equal right to participate in these threads and deserve the same respect as you would expect for yourself.

As my Sifu would say: "Not right, not wrong, just different."

Respectfully,
Tantric

[DuncanONeil]

Shouting? I thought THIS WAS SHOUTING.

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

[steelish]

BTW - Just because mainstream media doesn't report the anger of the voters in regards to any given "Obama-ism" doesn't mean it isn't there. I highly anyone in another country can know exactly how frustrated and irritated most Americans are with almost ALL of Obama's moves so far unless they live here. However, it's starting to be shown in the polls.

[leo9]

BTW - Just because mainstream media doesn't report the anger of the voters in regards to any given "Obama-ism" doesn't mean it isn't there. I highly anyone in another country can know exactly how frustrated and irritated most Americans are with almost ALL of Obama's moves so far unless they live here. However, it's starting to be shown in the polls.

Ah, the "silent majority", I remember them from British politics. They don't vote, they don't show up on opinion polls, but we know they are there and only we speak up for them, so we're really in the majority even if we look like a handful of radicals.

On the Left the equivalent imaginary constituency is called "the workers" or "the people".