Political Parties: Support or Defend Your Political Affiliations

[stasoid]

Originally Posted by freebird

Umm no Marx was talking about Communism, not the same as Socialism

He was talking abouth both. Sorry for copy/pasting but here it is:

Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. [1] In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[freebird]

I will re-post the relevent parts of our discussion of socialism that branched off from the "Global warming" thread.

Originally Posted by Learstang

You are indeed correct about the two main American political parties not being around during Mediaeval times, and that the original Republican Party opposed slavery. I am not indicting the Republican Party for slavery or witchcraft, I am simply making a point about right-wingers, or reactionaries, or conservatives or whatever you wish to call them. My point is that history seems to show that they are usually fighting a losing, rearguard battle against reason and science, hence my references to witchcraft, the Earth being the centre of the solar system, etc. Using the term Republican is simply a shorthand for conservatives, just as many on this site seem to use Democrat (or dimocrat – talk about vitriolic) as a comprehensive term for “leftists”.

I don't agree with "conservative" being always reactionary and opposed to science. There is the "Teddy Roosevelt" model of conservatism, pro-environment, and for keeping thye big corporations honest & from abusing their power.

Originally Posted by Learstang

Sorry to interrupt this mainly right-wing love fest, but as a left-winger (and as a recovering Republican, it’s part of my therapy), I feel I have to respond (although Danielmellbin has done an exemplary job). Renrich (I think you implied this earlier, if you did not, accept [or not] my apologies), leftist does NOT mean communist as you seem to think (although it may mean socialist – see the definition of socialist, democratic). In terms of the media generally agreeing with the left-wing point of view, did it ever occur to you that they mainly agree, as you assert, because the left-wing view is correct, and they’re just reporting the truth? No, it probably didn’t. But think about it – when have right-wingers been proven correct over the long haul?

Originally Posted by renrich

Yep, that makes a lot of sense. The majority of the media is left wing so they must be right in what they say. We should let the media lead us, most of which have never done anything concrete. All they do is talk about what other people do. They don't produce anything except BS. They don't create jobs for other people. They don't build anything. They exaggerate, they mislead, they sensationalise, they obfuscate, lie and you think they should be listened to. The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures. In most cases the majority is always wrong. The only thing that saves this country from people like you is that you can't get everyone to vote!

Originally Posted by Learstang

Renrich – ouch, looks like I touched a nerve. My “observation” about the media was somewhat sarcastic, which you didn’t seem to catch. Your observation that “The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures.” is rather fatuous and once again shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the enormous differences between communism (Revolutionary Marxism) and socialism (Democratic Socialism). That would be like me saying that the only difference between Nazism and conservatism is in degree. The one thing that’s going to save this country from people like you is that this time we progressives are going to get enough people to vote. I find your comment interesting, "In most cases the majority is always wrong." - doesn't show much faith in democracy - you know, democracy - the reason we supposedly went to war in Iraq. Surely you must have read about democracy, it's been in all the papers. One question for you – where have you been for the last 7 years? We’ve had 7 years of “your” way and look at the results – gas at an all time high (I know, it’s because of the pinkos not allowing drilling in ANWR), Iraq is still a mess (despite the so-called success of the “surge”), our economy is in shambles, the dollar keeps sinking to new lows, mortgage failures skyrocketing, enormous deficits that may take decades to bring down – you get the point (or not). I don’t know about you, but this working-stiff hasn’t exactly prospered while people like you have been in control of this country.

[freebird]

...

Originally Posted by renrich

The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

So explain to me please how Canada, England, Germany, France, hell pretty much all of Europe are failures or have failed?

Seriously...

Originally Posted by renrich

The simple answer to the question about socialism versus whatever you want to call our form of government is that the less socialism the more freedom and the more dynamic the economy is. The US has the most dynamic economy in the world and also the largest. In the meantime we are also supporting the largest and most effective military in the world. Chris, in the countries you mentioned, what would their budgets and or tax code look like if they continued to spend on social programs but spent as much on defense as we do. This takes place in spite of the US becoming more socialistic every year. I have been right here for the last seven years enjoying not another attack by terrorists and enjoying 52 months of GDP growth which was a record along with low inflation rates. However I don't give a lot of credit to the Bush administration for the economy but rather it is our system, which the liberals will continue to nibble at and dismantle. If one thinks the economy is in shambles that person has not been around long. Go back and look at the housing sector, banking and S&L situation in the 80s and then you will know real problems. For your information, the "recession" we are in is still not a recession. If you blame high oil and gasoline prices on the Bush Admin. we have nothing left to discuss.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That did not answer my question. You said they were failures. How are they failures?

Originally Posted by renrich

Chris, "failure" is a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said that relative to the US form of government, more socialistic governments IMO are not as successful or as likely to provide an environment where the citizens enjoy the maximum amount of freedom and opportunity to get ahead. You could say that the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is not a failure because he still governs. Most other communist governments have failed in that those countries no longer have that system but rather a form of socialism. Of course, the terms, socialism and communism have many gradations but they certainly have some things in common. I believe that there is no perfect form of government because of man and his frailties. However the US form is probably the best that has been devised. There is no question however that we in the US are gradually moving into a more socialistic form of government. There are even greater or lesser opportunities for freedom and opportunity between the several states of the US. No one could deny that there is less government interference in Texas than there is in California. Right now, the dimocrat party is basically the party of the "public sector." The GOP represents the "private sector." The public is growing and the private is shrinking. If this trend continues,taxes will increase and the overall standard of living will not continue to improve and may even decline. We will grow less and less able to defend ourselves and our interests because our military will be starved of funding in favor of public programs. If, for instance, we have socilised medicine, we will have a bigger shortage of doctors than we already have. Good and timely medical care will be hard to find. Some dimocrats have already said they want to nationalise the oil companies. That will result in smaller supplies of petroleum and higher prices. FDR will turn out to be prophetic when he said that the communist system in the USSR will become more like us and we will become more like them.

Originally Posted by Learstang

Renrich, we may have the most dynamic and largest economy in the world but we need to look at it a little more closely and see where the money is going, because it sure as Hell isn’t going to the middle class. Middle class wages have remained stagnant, at best, under this 52 months of GDP growth you mention. GDP growth doesn’t really mean that much to the vast majority of people if they gain nothing from it. I do think the economy is in shambles, and as one who’s unemployed I know firsthand just how swimmingly things are going, and I’ve been around the block once or twice (don’t think you’re lecturing some ignorant leftwing kid just out of college). It’s interesting that you mention the 80’s, as that’s when Reagan was in power, intent on deregulating everything, including the Savings and Loans. An unregulated free-market system is a recipe for disaster (see Depression, Great). I don’t propose, nor do most progressives, a state-controlled command economy like the Soviet Union had (we saw how well that worked out). What most of us propose is a regulated free-market system, where the people are protected from the worst depredations of laissez-faire economics (see Barons, Robber; Labour, Child, etc.). Call that paternalistic, if you must, but it’s the way that makes the most sense for the most people. What regulations are for is not to create bureaucracy or undue burdens on business, but to make sure that they behave in a responsible manner to society, just as we have criminal laws to regulate individual citizens’ behaviour (you don’t propose getting rid of criminal laws, do you?). The problem with this economy is that we privatise gain (look at the huge bonuses the Fortune 500 CEO’s receive) and we socialise loss, as with the S&L crisis. We don’t get to see the profits these companies make, but we sure see our money being used to prop them up when they overextend themselves, such as Lockheed back in the 70’s and the mortgage companies today. I know firsthand a little bit about companies overextending themselves in the absence of regulations, having worked for the late, lamented Enron. I agree that the responsibility for high oil and gasoline prices can’t just be left on Bush’s doorstep, but I know damn well that if this had happened under the Clinton administration, it would all be Bill’s fault, even though for 6 years of his presidency he didn’t control the legislative branch, just the opposite of Bush’s situation. My problem with Bush is he seems to think that drilling everywhere in the U.S. is the solution, when mandating (yes – MANDATING) higher gas mileage standards for our vehicles and promoting conservation would be much more effective.

I'm not here to defend Communism or Socialism, I was pointing out that the form it supposedly exists today in Europe is far different than the "total ownership" that Marx was writing about.

Originally Posted by Learstang

"The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures.” is rather fatuous and once again shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the enormous differences between communism (Revolutionary Marxism) and socialism (Democratic Socialism). That would be like me saying that the only difference between Nazism and conservatism is in degree.

Originally Posted by stasoid

He was talking about both. Sorry for copy/pasting but here it is:

Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. [1] In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia

Wiki has the same quotes as on "answers.com", but I note are qualified with "various concepts" "more or less articulated theories", there is no one consensus. Also I note that the quote has a further disambiguation on Communism vs. modern Democratic Socialism

Originally Posted by Answers.com

In communist theory, socialism is the first stage on the road to full communism. It differs from communism in that it is attached to ethical and democratic values and because it allows both common and state ownership.

Social democrats accepted the reality of the ‘mixed economy’, and turned their back on the Marxist analysis of capitalism and the idea of socializing the main instruments of economic production, distribution, and exchange.

[eddie_brunette]

I've posted this elsewhere, but after seeing this threat......




edd

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by freebird

Umm Ok.

Would you have an objection if I quoted the relevant parts here then?

It seemed to be moving totally off topic for "Global Warming", but I for one would be interested to have the discussion continue, here if appropriate.

As long as you abide by the rules freebird you can cut and paste until your heart is content.

[Njaco]

I think firstly, there must be an explanation of the way Americans and Europeans see socialism and capitalism. I believe there are two different definitions among the cultures from what I gather.

I am in total agreement with TO. I base my voting rights on my ideals - not a party. Just because the Republicans closely resemble what I believe doesn't mean I haven't voted for a democrat in the past. But the 2 parties here in the US are going to such extremes, its scary.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by Njaco

I think firstly, there must be an explanation of the way Americans and Europeans see socialism and capitalism. I believe there are two different definitions among the cultures from what I gather.

I am in total agreement with TO. I base my voting rights on my ideals - not a party. Just because the Republicans closely resemble what I believe doesn't mean I haven't voted for a democrat in the past. But the 2 parties here in the US are going to such extremes, its scary.

americans dont see socialism. the american democracy is just more ancient than that. i think is not cultural, but the age of each democracy and its parties.

democrats are union-friendly but it dont means they are socialist

as i read, democrats wants to upper the taxes to fix the public health system and create more jobs. the republicans think to create more jobes, lower the taxes is needed.

im not american, but a good thing that a great american president(fdr) did was the "new deal". should be the time now for a "new new deal" ?

[Matt308]

Actually some of those programs have been utter disasters if you look at the cost vs benefit amortized over time.

[renrich]

My compliments to the moderators for this thread. Thanks also to FB for the cutting and pasting. Wish I knew how to do it. I can never remember a time when political opinion was more polarised than it is now. Perhaps it just seems that way because of the 24/7 "news" outlets and because of the influence of the internet. Personally I don't really want the aggravation in my life that this information, misinformation and disinformation overload causes. Both sides in the debate play fast and loose with the facts in an attempt to "win" the argument. This behavior is not limited to one side or just to the internet. Some instances are that the dimocrats claim that opening up drilling offshore won't result in any new energy supply for ten years. Anyone who has any knowledge of the oil patch knows that is patently untrue and the timeline would be a year to perhaps six years. Ultra conservatives constantly talk about the "ten to twenty million" illegals in our country. Where do those numbers come from and why the huge spread? They also talk constantly about the illegals who get paid in cash and pay no taxes. Are they saying that those 10M or 20M illegals are out there mowing lawns and only accepting cash from a homeowner. If they are working, for instance as a stone mason as many are, how does the contractor expense his labor. Paying no taxes? If the illegal buys anything, cigarettes, beer, beans or tortillas, he pays sales tax. If he lives in any permanent structure he pays real estate taxes either directly or through his landlord. When talking about paying federal income tax, the facts are that an illegal with a family would probably not have income enough to even qualify for paying income tax. These deliberate falsehoods on the part of the advocates or opponents on both sides do not mean that good arguments may not exist on both sides of both questions but the credibility of the people making the statements is severely damaged as far as I am concerned. It is interesting to read some of the comments and opinions expressed.

[Danielmellbin]

Back from holiday - been a while.

I have already made many posts regarding politics on the forum - but might as well set the record straight:

I am a social democrat (anybody here calls me a socialist again I'll f'ing explode).

General political beliefs:
I believe in a free market with the neccesary restrictions. By neccesary restriction I mean: Breaking of monopolies, product quality control, environmental control, avertion of corporatism.... etc

I believe that certain areas of society should remain under statecontrol (transportation, schools, police, hospitals, correctional facilities etc...).

I believe in high taxes to cover education, health- and socialcare. I believe so not only out of humanitarian reasons but also for financial reasons. A broken uneducated person will strain society more than high taxes in the long run.

I believe in the right to abortion and in the complete banning of firearms.

I am split on the legalization of soft drugs

Views on age limits: Drinking: 15 years, Smoking: 18 years, driving: 18 years, voting: 18 years, 1st grade in school: 6 years

I believe in armed intervention only as a last resort. But when it is neccesary it better damn well happen. The US/UK (and others - including my own country) invasion of Iraq and the EU's lack of an initial response in Yugoslavia epotomize what I believe is completely "wrong" choices regarding armed intervention.

I believe in completely uninhibited free speach and expression - if someone wants to shreik "Heil!", to draw a cartoon of a religious profet, to burn a flag, or to make fun of the holocaust - thats fine - but don't expect me to sit idly by if something happens that I disagree with!

The society in which I live have almost all of the above qualities and views and as such I'm very content and happy. It's not a problemfree system ofcourse - but the record speaks for itself.


Voting record past, present and future:

I will probably never vote to the right of the centre - but deep inside i think that taking turns in 2*4 years to each side of the spectrum works the best. This keeps things in balance and removes the risk of stagnation.
If I lived in the US i would vote democratric - not for love of all the democratic views - simply for the lack of a better alternative.


Political Parties I have voted for in my 3 elections and why:

Social-democratic party: The largest of the centre/left parties here. Has a very moderate "try to please all" view on things. This has however mired them over the past years where their own views have dissapered under a smokescreen of trying to fit into what they think the voters want. If they ever regain their original views i might rejoin their "flock".

Radikale Venstre: A very academic (as in highly educated voters&leaders) party. It generally has a very centrist view slightly to the right of the above. But its views are never set and change as fast as reality does. Somehow they manage doing this without loosing any credibililty - why? Because everybody knows that they do this. They decide on every issue only after accessing all the points of view and facts. Considered an elitist party they only get some 10% of the votes. But this doesn't matter much as their biggest influence lies in the fact that they usually decide which wing wins an election as they hold the critcal 10% of the votes who swings the election one way or the other. I left them because they had a huge divide where half the party broke of into a smaller more rightwing oriented version. This removed the power of the party in the big decissions and has effectively marginalised them.

Socialistic Party: They got my latest vote. Do not let the name fool you. They are not socialistic in the words original sense. They are very similar to the first party i voted for but have an effective leadership and only change views when realities and NOT public opinion demand it.

What I hate most about politics:

1. Namecalling and idiotic historical comparrisons

IE.
Calling someone from the left a communist or someone from the right a nazi.
Claiming that the situation in Iraq was comparable to WW2
Claiming that the Bush administration has done like Hitler
Calling Islamic fundamentalists - "islamo-fascists" - a cheap way to cinvince people that they are "bad" and that war is neccesary.

Looking forward to hear any disagreements or mutual beliefs you fine people might have.

[renrich]

A town council in Los Angeles may ban fast food outlets in one of the poorer sections in town. The reason is that the fast food is making the inhabitants obese. Big Brother anyone? Since obesity and subsequent poor health are major problems(so we hear) in the US would it not make sense, when we get socialised medicine, to moniter the diets of the obese?

[JugBR]

nice post daniel !

i also believe in high taxes, but the rich should pay more than poors and middle class.

i also agree with you, about statecontrol, the strategic areas should be property of the people and administrated by state. but isnt that dangerous politics administrating enterprises sometimes ?

i defend the righ of abortion also, but first, the anti-conceprional methods to prevent pregnacy and aids.the soceiety should be a very informed and conscient about that. light drugs ? since alcohol and cigars are legalized, why dont allow people smoke pot ? the only restricyion is about the age.

[JugBR]

A town council in Los Angeles may ban fast food outlets in one of the poorer sections in town. The reason is that the fast food is making the inhabitants obese. Big Brother anyone? Since obesity and subsequent poor health are major problems(so we hear) in the US would it not make sense, when we get socialised medicine, to moniter the diets of the obese?

i think is a matter of education. you can eat a happy-meal sometimes, but you have to always eat food with vitamins, proteins and fibers. i dont like mcdonalds or burger king, but i like things even more toxic and fat than that. is tasty ? yes its tasty sure, but if you eat that all day youll be lookin like a fat pig.

so the education starts at home, with parental advisors and parental examples. now if mom and daddy likes eat happymeals, coca colas and french fries always and are both fats as pigs... its hard to educate the children...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am a conservative and I typically vote Republican. I however have no problem voting for a Democrat, if I believe they are better for the job.

Like TO, I dont like the idea of parties, because I vote for the man (or woman) not the party.

Now having said that Obama is a fruit!