-
Website
http://danielmiessler.com/ -
Original page
http://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-brilliant-analysis-of-the-gops-socialism-cry -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Holy crap, did you even read that "analysis". During the election, the GOP was getting nailed for getting the definition of socialism wrong. What about that post?
The definition of socialism is governmental action to create an or more) egalitarian society by means redistribution. That means socialism spreads wealth/resources/anything to ALL people. The accusation of governmental intervention to benefit rich white corporate citizens definitely rings true, but its not called socialism, its called corporatism. Corporatism is awful as well but its not the free market either, it is corporate bail outs and subsidies.
But that should all be besides the point... in this election Non-democrats were accused of red-baiting (accusing democrats of being socialists) and they were mocked for it as being ridiculous accusations. And now we have what looks like a defense of socialism. I basically interpret it as, "We aren't socialists, but if we were, it would be great, even this conservative thinks so."
Middle class and especially lower class Americans will benefit from socialism, that can't really be argued. They would get enormous checks in the mail, excellent job offers, excellent roads, health care, ... nearly everything. FOR A SHORT WHILE. As proven in any economics 101 class, there goes the economic efficiency, and there goes the economy, and now we are poor. We will all be equal, yes, equally poor. But at least its "fair".
Shane, you missed this part:
This is all socialism. To jump on a slightly higher progressive tax as socialism when this has been going on for decades is a joke. Especially when the progressive tax was mentioned as positive in Adams' Wealth of Nations, and was initially put into place by a Republican.
I've been arguing this point for a long time. Our country has supported socialist parties across the board for a long time. When debating politics I have made this simple point about McCain. If he was a market-based capitalist his solution to most every problem would be to do nothing. A large part of socialism is the idea that markets needed to be artificially nudged in the right direction by government when the markets don't work the way we want them. Look at McCain's approach to healthcare. If he trusted the markets he would come out and say he wants to do nothing. He he trusted the markets in this economic crisis his approach would be no bailout. If he trusted the markets for education he would try to dismantle the public education system. This is not his approach to any of these, so if Obama is a socialist, then so is he.
The question at hand was not should we spread the wealth. It was to whom should we spread it to.
Daily Kos? lol. I take nothing seriously from Daily Kos. Far to biased and just not good reporting at all. It's simply propaganda.
Jonathan,
Are you serious?
So when he posts a strong argument from a Republican it's automatically invalid because it's on his site? What if he posted a passage from Shakespeare? Or the Bible?
You should be able to judge content on its merits, regardless of source.
Actually none of this is Socialism (capital S):
-- Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
No one (mainstream) is suggesting the US Government control the production of goods at a micro level. Socialism is what the USSR and China used to have. Even China is much less of a true Socialist nation than it used to be.
@Daniel - Absolutely I'm serious. One would think you could judge content on its merits, instead of the source but I'm going on statistics here. Isn't that what you do for those who claim to be Christians or news postings from foxnews.com?
@Daniel - I didn't miss the quote. I disregarded it. Of course people want those things. Why wouldn't they? And in a democracy, they can vote the right people in and get what they want. That doesn't mean it is a good thing. It is why libertarian-leaning economists and Reagan-type Republicans jump in and say "Wait. We want versions of these things too, but the way to get them is not by government mandate. It's by letting the market do its job." Except universal health-care or universal anything. The price to go from 90% to 95% to 99% to 100% skyrockets. I think most republicans are fine with a slightly progressive tax. Obama's plan is not slightly progressive.
@Maxo - McCain (as if it wasn't already obvious) sold out. I don't necessarily blame him, he went after the moderate vote and undecided democrats. His policies had to move left with him. The vast majority of the people want something, anything to intervene and fix the economy and he had to offer some interventions that would usually go against a far-right party line.
@Jonathon - I totally agree. DailyKos is line with celebrity gossip columns. No fact checking, no analysis, just rumors and word-of-mouths. But I agree that this story should be judged as it stands alone. And still.... it's trash. Just because he posts on a conservative blog doesn't make him a conservative. It's pretty obvious by his views that he isn't very right-wing at all.
@Jason - I agree, no one isn't pushing pure Socialism. But they are pushing a form of socialism. We are able to call our current economy a capitalist economy even though it is most definitely not Capitalism either. The definition you gave did not say anything about the "micro level" either. You did. The democratic party does promote "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state [...] ownership [...], and the creation of [a more] egalitarian society." (A little different than your definition, but pretty close)
I am interested to hear what Obama supporters think about his future Chief of Staff's "New contract for America" : http://volokh.com/posts/1225908208.shtml</p>
Jonathan, if you pointed me to a FOX article about content written by a liberal, that completely destroyed a major liberal argument -- HELL YEAH I would read it. And I would take it VERY seriously.
I have no loyalty to my current model of understanding.
Hearing "my" side arguing against "my" side is highly interesting to me. It represents an opportunity to learn something significant.