The General US Politics Thread

Nazi economics, prior to the war, when they were simply getting German industry back on its feet, was socialist in nature. It's in their social and nationalist policies where they diverge from the mainstream or even communism.

Not everyone sees socialism the same way though. There are so many different ideas on the subject that just saying socialism is meaningless.

edited 11th Feb '16 9:29:19 AM by FFShinra

Hardly. Americans have a warped view of socialism because American Cold War and right-wing propaganda has cast every single move to take industry into public ownership or redistribute wealth as somehow 'socialist', but that doesn't mean they are. There is no reason political ideologies should be defined by the propaganda of their enemies, or Americans who have internalized this nonsense that anything that isn't an ancap wank-fantasy is socialist.

edited 11th Feb '16 9:38:55 AM by Achaemenid

Last year, I read Teddy Roosevelt's autobiography and was amused to see that his opponents accused him of being a socialist for his policies. Yes, even before the Cold War. Even before the formation of the Soviet Union. Some things just always stay the same.

Citizen Achaemenid, you are woefully familiar with this communist propaganda.

Given that the mainstream socialist movements in Europe have long since diverged into Democratic Socialism though, don't they have a claim on the re-definition of the term? Getting technical, you could call out Democratic Socialism as neither (since it's technically a sort of Republican Ordoliberalism under exacting poli-sci definitions), but it has largely come to define the term, while Bolshevism or Maoism is what most people mean when they refer to Communism, and Communism as Lenin or Engels understood it has never come close to being achieved.

Not talking about the US. Talking about in practice elsewhere. Even the communists had different ideas of how to achieve and what end was to be achieved, which is where you get Marxist, Maoist, etc. Same is true with socialism because the aims of what to achieve change depending on a country's circumstance. Thats how you get Baathism and democratic socialism. Different social/national goals, similar outlook on economics.

Terms broaden over time (even to the point of losing the original meaning) unless specified by some other name, possibly becoming something different. Why they bother to keep to a particular term is because they take a particular aspect that term is known for and change the rest.

It's not academically correct to the original meaning, I concede. But ideologies evolve, and socialism in particular has evolved in a thousand different directions.

EDIT- 'd by more eloquent people.

edited 11th Feb '16 9:40:09 AM by FFShinra

They have almost entirely become Social Democrats, and social democracy is not a form of socialism. Labour explicitly abandoned socialism by striking Clause Four from their constitution under Blair.

Maoism etc are all forms of 'socialism' in the sense that they actually made an attempt - horribly - to accomplish the goals I already stated. 'Ba'athism' is socialism in name only.

edited 11th Feb '16 9:44:27 AM by Achaemenid

Social Democracy, not Democratic Socialism (or at least I've never heard of it being referred to it that way). Things such as the existence public healthcare are not considered "socialist", or even a political position (at all), since they're considered to be a fundamentally necessary part of a functioning nation-state.

The problem with Sanders as far as I can see is him trying to change things so fast and so comprehensively, it will not allow the leeway for the states to adjust. And when it comes the US, their problems become our problems.

Your definition of socialism is not the one commonly used except by paranoiac right-wingers trying to make everyone scared of the Bolsheviks.

edited 11th Feb '16 9:44:02 AM by Fighteer

I can't see Sanders successfully changing anything without a Congress that is pliant to change. But if he could, then yes, I agree with that analysis as well. Too much too fast.

Economically, the Baathists were indeed socialist. They had a different agenda (in their pan-Arab wankery), but they did attempt socialist economic policy. Not saying they did it well, but a lot of what they wanted to do or proposed would not be out of place in a communist state (and I think Baathism only avoided associating with communism due to the anti-religious nature of it).

edited 11th Feb '16 9:48:04 AM by FFShinra

I am scared of the Bolsheviks.

I mean, walking corpses? That's scary world war z kinda shit right there man

[Citation Needed]. Unless the IEP, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are 'paranoiac right wingers' now.

But this is the point I'm arguing. You seem to assume all those things (social ownership of means of production, revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat etc) are ipso facto bad, and so anyone who argues that they are the acme of socialism must be out to discredit it. In fact, they are the orthodox content of socialist theory, since Marx.

I mean, in a sense the Cold War propagandists' victory is complete, I don't think the John Birch Society would ever have dreamed that one day Americans would regard social programs which are pretty modest in comparative terms as constituting 'socialism'. I mean, what better way to make sure they never try the real thing?

edited 11th Feb '16 10:04:44 AM by Achaemenid

Fighteer and Ach arguing.

....<brings popcorn>.....

He's arguing him...

And then he's gunna argue me...!

...

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD

Well, wouldn't this be more fit to the general politics thread, though? I just asked there whether or not North Korea is socialist, anyways And I've been told that it is, apparently, "juche".

New Emails Show Hillary Clinton and Aides Had Classified Information on Non-Government Email Accounts

Clinton Foundation received subpoena from State Department investigators

edited 11th Feb '16 10:20:09 AM by SolipsistOwl

From what I understand, North Korea is an actual Nazi Commie state.

So if what I've been hearing from people watching the livestreams from the refuge is accurate Fry has completely lost the plot now.

edited 11th Feb '16 10:28:29 AM by Deadbeatloser22

I'm very afraid it'll come down in the end to Clinton vs. a non-Cruz, non-Trump Republican, and Clinton might lose.

The best case scenario for me is Sanders vs. an unelectable Republican who pisses off and scares the rest of the country so much that it hurts Republicans downticket. But I seriously don't think that will happen.

Solipsist Owl: The question now seems to be coming down not to whether classified information might have been sent over private email accounts by people at State, but to who at State wasn't doing this, and why is only Hillary being attacked over it?

edited 11th Feb '16 11:16:35 AM by Fighteer

Welp, Y'All Qeada is over for the time being.

Y'All don't come back now, ya hear.

edited 11th Feb '16 11:32:44 AM by Ekuran

Yup, 41 days and Cliven Bundy arrested. Happy day for now, and only one person died in the process (who seemed fairly determined to die in the process himself).

Finally. Quite anti-climactic for those who were hoping for an armed stand off. I'm happy that they were able to get it done without being forced into an armed invasion of the building. I'm for the non-violent solution on principle, and in this case this denies the occupiers their moral justification and/or glory they hoped for in this whole situation.

Dammit. The death of something funny.