Socialism is liberalism is fascism...

Even if we went the full hog and had nationalisation of company that isn't a sufficient condition for socialism. Was the Tory nationalisation of Rolls Royce, for example, 'socialist'? Certainly not!

 

Nope. They are liberal or social democratic. Given they are capitalist they are not socialist. They simply have variation in the nature of interventionism. One shouldn't confuse capitalism and socialism with the economic spectrum (from laissez faire to command economy)

 

Social Democracy is not compatible with American ideals of protection and expansion of private property and personal liberty.

Social Democracy trades away economic growth and dynamism in a Quixotic search for egalitarianism and holds back the most talented individuals in order to cater to the populist needs of "the commons".

Social Democracy requires a level of Government intervention that is completely and totally abhorrent to the cultural values I hold most dear.

Obama is a proponent of Social Democracy and therefore, a hindrance who must be tossed out of office and replaced.

To me, the difference between Social Democracy and outright Socialism is only a matter of a few degrees and not worth considering.

 

Given US consensus politics, there is absolutely no evidence of that. Social democracy essentially informs us of a capitalist result where- to maintain stability- poverty has to be lower

The two aren't at all alike. Social democracy encourages a higher equilibrium unemployment rate (where the working 'insider', under the constraints imposed by capitalism, has little interest in policies aimed at helping the unemployed' outsider'

 

It is a start. You must remember this is America and we blow things out of proportion and with good reason. Many of us remember Hitler.

 

No its not. Its a reaction to neo-liberalism (in order to defend capitalism), with socialism used bogusly to hide from that economic reality. Laissez-faire, for example, is good snake oil for the right wing politician to pull a fast one on the gullible

We remember him better

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

But you're going for the standard misapprehension that government interference is sufficient for socialism to exist. It isn't. Its worse here, however, as we're referring to a reaction to an economic crisis essentially engineered by ideology spawned from free market economics

 

Reiver I am not disagreeing with you but it is about perception. I do however fear that it may be the eventual final solution as the population of the world grows. "The End of Work" is coming (A good read).

 

Well lets see, where to begin?

1. Blind allegence to conventional beliefs about right and wrong. You may not call beliefs concerning things like global warming and gay marriage and the evils of capitalism as conventional, but they have them just the same.

2. Respect for submission to an acknowledged authority. I think most in government have this blind respect for Obama. No one ever dares challenge him.

3. Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who is different. Gaddafi anyone? Again, I don't know what the hand up is with the term "conventional" but whatever. Why not just say that those who are against me will be crushed?

4. A negative view of people in general. A view that people will lie, steal, and cheat if given the oppurtunity. It reminds me of Michelle Obama saying that she was proud of America for the first time when her husband was nominated for the presidency. It also reminds me of the endless retorts about the evils of capitalism and the need for endless regulations because folks are just plain corrupt......outside of government, that is.

I could go on but why? For me the distinction is simple. Those that seek to empower government to address the never ending problems in a given society are called statists. They can be left leaning or right leaning or "conventional" or "unconventional". In my opinion, conservatism is like the Bible. Sure, people say that it has good teachings, but pretty much do as they like and ignore it. Power tends to turn people into statists.

 

Yep, Obama nicely handed over trillions in taxpayer money to corporate America. You have a point there.

 

Hitler did not even dare nationalize industry. I believe his quote was why should I nationalize industry when I can nationalize the people.

 

Global warming? One isn't surprised that one of the biggest pressure groups on the topic has been the insurance industry. Its a mere reaction to risk adversity after all. And the deniers? Typically anti-intellectual types that use conspiracy theory pushed by key influence groups. That's quite consistent with the authoritarian trait.

Gay marriage? Greater choice in social relations isn't consistent with authoritarianism. Be serious!

Evils of capitalism? Its actually about understanding economic reality, such as the impact on asymmetric information for assorted moral hazards. That is all understood within orthodox economics.

This is a vacuous accusation. We can whinge about party loyalty. However, we can note that's consistent with investment in social capital within a political landscape characterised by consensus politics (where genuine choice is constrained). Its nothing to do with personality traits. The interesting aspect is when policy content can be successfully misrepresented. See, for example, the rabid right wingers and their failure to understand Reaganomics was just standard military keynesianisms. See also the petty left and their failure to understand the conservatism within the New Deal and how world war was required to enforce sufficient policy change.

You haven't even bothered to present a point!

Appreciating the consequences of asymmetric information is quite different from a more advanced understanding of human nature (where, rather than simply assuming rational choice theory based on greed, we acknowledge our social nature and its implications on behaviour)

The term 'statists' is typically used by those that deliberately ignore political economy. There is, for example, zero understanding of how government in capitalism is the 'key economic agent'.

Old testament or new? The authoritarian personality suggests Old!

 

We all have reasons for our belief system. For example, global warming centers around cap and trade. If you look at those who will make a fortune if cap and trade is inacted, via the Chicago Climate exchange, it reads like a who's who of those on the left. In fact, it is estimated that if cap and trade becomes law, the Chicago Climate Exchange will be worth close to 10 trillion dollars, making Al Gore and company richer than God!! To make matters worse, cap and trade would do little to curb cabon emissions.

And in terms of gay marriage, like I said gays in the US account for over half the AIDS cases yet are a very small fraction of the population, should the US government then be endorsing the lifestyle via marriage? I suppose you could argue that marriage should promote monogomy and should reduce the rates, however, so could handing out clean needles to addicts I suppose, but again this is all pure conjecture. It may or may not help the negative consequences for these life styles. Does the state wish to aid these behaviors or take a stand against them? Personally, I don't think the state has any business at all in marriage. After all, why should a man and a woman or two men or two women be given rights above those who are single or above those who are polygamists? There is no reason for it other than statists having a say in regards to what does or does not go on in the bedroom and deciding to endorse a certain sexual practice. It's very bizzare if you ask me.

So you acknowledge them speaking against the evils of capitalism? I did not ask you to be an apologist for them, rather, I'm merely pointing out that they are no better than say a conservative pointing out the evils of socialism. So if Obama and company are so atuned to economics, why did they promise "X" number of jobs from the stimulus program and hold unemployment under 8%? Can anyone say "clueless"?

Perhaps I will start personallity trait list for those on the left like was done for those on the right in terms of statists. That way the next time you are in San Fransisco and they forbid your child to have a happy meal because its "bad" for them or forbid your child from being circumcised because they think its mutilation or if they prevent you from riding a segway because they think it promotes laziness, or you are a polygamist who is not allowed to marry and no one cares because all they care about are gays in society, you will have a better idea as to the self righteous nature of those on the left who wish to impose their beleif system upon you and the rest of the world.

 

No, it is focused on the scientific evidence

Gay marriage merely reflects the celebration of choice. Choice of course is problematic for the authoritarian personality. People just won't do as they are told.

I acknowledge the obvious: moral hazards are created within capitalism and its foolish (and also celebrating coercion) to ignore them.

I of course noted that there was zero economic comment in your post

 

You are not addressing my point about global warming? Would you like to try? My point is, is that science is being used as a tool for political/economic purposes to prmote cap and trade. So anytime someone talks about global warming, they endorse cap and trade, unless you have other examples?

Gays are free to marry just like I'm free to marry my car, but that does not mean that tax payers have to give me perks for doing so. Again, you are not addressing the question at hand, and for good reason I think.

And finally, no one, and that includes China, wishes to go back to the traditional notion of socialism because bureaucrats typically do not make good CEO's, just like they do not make good accountants and scientists. The problem is, is that no one can be an expert in every field, however, when power centralizes and you begin to make policy for these endevours, you way over you head, just like Obama claiming that his stimulus package would generate millions of jobs and keep unemployment under 8%. My favorite is when Ben Bernanke gets up before Congress and pleads with them to change their fiscal ways, but to no avail. I guess the "experts" really don't know their arse from a hole in the wall.

So it appears to me, that the new form of socialism is state endorse corporate control. You select corporations who are wealthy enough to fund you politically, and allow them certain perks like GE not paying any income taxes last year or like Goldman Sachs poised to make a killing on cap and trade via the Chicago Climate Exchange. It is a give and take relationship in which government has sway in what they say and do. It is the next best thing to owning them. In fact, it is better because if you owned them you would have to run them and that would not be pretty. Instead, they just use the tax payer as their ATM and kick small business to the curb. You might even say that corporations are like tiny little governments themselves. That's what happens when you centralize money and power I suppose.

 

I don't think you have a point. If you want to ramble on about cap and trade do it elsewhere. This thread is about political economy and you're not offering anything relevant

Finally you managed to say something relevant! However, there is no such beast as 'traditional notion of socialism'. The political economy involved has always been vibrant, leading to substantial differences in the economic paradigm. You could try and refer to early models of market socialism that described how economic planning could hypothetically mimic perfect competition. However, I'd reject that as non-feasible socialism as it does not take into account the role of the price mechanism. I'd also note that its decidedly dodgy stuff as 'perfect competition'- even if was achievable- would not lead to an efficient outcome as it ignores the impact of coercion in the labour contract.

Of course this makes the 'socialism is liberalism is fascism' comment even more ridiculous.

This is nonsensical. Socialism relies on worker control and ownership of the means of production. Corporate control refers to a natural aspect of capitalism, given its tendency towards market concentration and therefore the replacement of the invisible hand

This would refer to influence costs. Nothing to do with socialism and quite standard in capitalism because of the asymmetric information problems that hinder accountability

 

So global warming has nothing to do with the political economy? Would you call $10 trillion riding on the line unrelated? Why do corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs salivating over the prospect of cap and trade? Will it not effect the average consumer as their costs go up etc?

To be honest, I could care less about using terms like socialism and fascisim. My focus is liberty and the forces that are present to take them away. Virtually any political power has a tendency to take away freedoms and it is usually done in the name of safety and protection, but at what cost? That is why I gravitate towards decentralizing power, however, human nature does just the opposite. If those in government were right leaning, then no doubt you would be attacking them instead of defending the status quo, and no doubt they too would be dwindling away our freedoms as well, just like "W" and the Patriot Act exemplifies.

 

It has nothing to do with how political economy is misrepresented or misinterpreted. Its value is in showing the impact of influence costs, as shown by the deniers and their attempts to crow conspiracy over the scientific evidence. Influence costs, for the topic of the thread, aren't that interesting. They're a simple moral hazard after all.

That hasn't stopped you from misrepresenting basic terms. You'd have a stronger argument if you didn't make such crass errors (as shown by your reference to corporate America)

Then you have to be anti-capitalist. Capitalism leads to concentration in power, from corruption of the market to the need for government interventionism to maintain stability

As a socialist I don't support liberal democratic capitalism.

 

As I said, it is human nature for people to seek power, secure power, and then seek more power. This happens in any system as can be seen in virtually any capitalistic or socialistic economy. In my view, socialists/communists prefer to dwindle down the wealthy to only a hand full of people, mostly in government, as where those in a "free market" tend to have many more wealthy and well to do. Neither system is perfect, nor can be.

 

Its also human nature to act co-operatively and to react against those that threaten the gains created.

This isn't consistent with any relevant political economy. The free market, for example, does not and cannot exist in capitalism. The reference to government and socialism is the standard corruption of the economic spectrum, where it is assumed that government is somehow more powerful in socialism. Interventionism is actually less required.

Who has referred to some utopia? I haven't. Those that understand socialism or liberalism would also ignore such notions. You did, however, refer to the myth of the free market