Why do socialists in America refuse to admit they are socialists?

[KrazyHorse]

Albie head, actually

[Elok]

The financial crisis is just beginning, and that is what ultimately can cause the downfall of the liberal state and the rise of some elements that are subversive to humanity. People get desperate during economic crises, and sometimes the impoverished masses cannot resist the allure of socialism. The liberal state with its poor economic management was unable to stop the rise of socialism and anarchism in Italy, Portugal, and Spain (heck, during the revolution Barcelona went anarchist for a little while). Luckily, civilization was saved in these places by the rise of more effective governments that restored order.

Problem: the tide of idiocy in the USA is, at present, AGAINST a larger government. There's no socialist equivalent of the Tea Party.

[Kuciwalker]

You tick me off

Maybe you should stop defending positions like "the sky is green" and "there's no difference between a market economy with a lot of government spending and one where every single citizen is an employee of the State".

[curtis290]

yeah more effective governments like franco's, mussolini's and salazar's.

There is a reason Salazar and Franco lasted until the late 1970s. They were very effective leaders of very effective governments. They stabilized the economy and saved the country from radical God-hating socialists (especially in Spain, the socialists and liberals committed many atrocities against the Catholic Church). They also economically modernized their countries, which enjoyed stable, high growth rates throughout the regime. Both Portugal and Spain were extremely agrarian and underdeveloped compared to Western Europe when Salazar and Franco took over. Salazar and Franco both successfully modernized these countries in a short period of time.

However, unlike the economic modernization of almost any country, especially those in Western Europe, it was stable and not prone to market shocks and fluctuations. Since stability and long-term growth were their primary goals, not short-term profit, and since the state took an active role in managing the economy, modernization was steady and without shocks. It also occurred without tearing apart the social fabric of the countryside or greatly impoverishing the rural and urban poor. There were no big union strikes since everyone was taken care of more or less and there wasn't the serious poverty that would have existed under a liberal, capitalist regime. Additionally, these governments kept the forces of liberalism and capitalism from corroding their traditional values, so their people kept their religion and did not see a hippy movement characterized by social extremism aimed at dismantling all of the traditional institutions, beliefs, and way of life.

As for Mussolini's Italy, the economy was in shambles and the state was ineffective and on the verge of falling to anarchists and socialists. Mussolini took over and stabilized the economy, created a more effective structure of government, and attempted to create an Italian empire. He was ultimately unsuccessful because of poor technology, but the previous liberal state would certainly have failed much worse in those military ventures. And it's not like since Italy has been exemplary of effective government in western Europe since the end of Mussolini's reign.

worst DL ever

how can a loon be boring?

You people amaze me...somone with a different point of view comes around and you just assume he's a DL.

A population of obese retards cannot rise for a revolution. Don't worry so much about it curtis.

First off, that's quite a stereotype you've got there. Second, they don't have to, a demagogue can do it for them. Third, thanks to the second amendment, we have enough guns in this country to create some serious havoc.

@Albie comparing wartime US to wartime USSR:

@curtis, or whatever your name is: tl;dr

Until this post I had written two normal sized paragraphs...you couldn't read them? How do you manage with books?

Problem: the tide of idiocy in the USA is, at present, AGAINST a larger government. There's no socialist equivalent of the Tea Party.

Not now, but how about in a few years, after it's clear to everyone that neither the Republicans, Democrats, or Tea Partiers are interested in making any serious concessions to the poor. People will get tired of being poor and will eventually forget their fanatical devotion to the free market. It's a new religion of theirs (they became 'born again' free market capitalists in the 80's) and I don't see why it should last long, especially through a crisis.

Maybe you should stop defending positions like "the sky is green" and "there's no difference between a market economy with a lot of government spending and one where every single citizen is an employee of the State".

How exactly would you characterize the US economy during World War II? You think the only thing abnormal about it was a lot of government spending? How about the price controls and rationing? ABS is exaggerating when he says it was similar to the USSR's, but remember, NEP hadn't ended that long ago and you could argue that wasn't too far from the US' World War II economy. ABS is definitely right in the spirit of the argument, he's pointing out the fact that during World War II the government took many, many measures that in today's world would be considered communist. Obama is considered a communist for forcing people to buy private insurance.

[Al B. Sure!]

How exactly would you characterize the US economy during World War II? You think the only thing abnormal about it was a lot of government spending? How about the price controls and rationing? ABS is exaggerating when he says it was similar to the USSR's, but remember, NEP hadn't ended that long ago and you could argue that wasn't too far from the US' World War II economy. ABS is definitely right in the spirit of the argument, he's pointing out the fact that during World War II the government took many, many measures that in today's world would be considered communist. Obama is considered a communist for forcing people to buy private insurance.

Holy Crap. I was loving you for a second for actually understanding what my point was, something which these two didn't and instead wanted to point and laugh at imagined stupidity, and then you said "Obama is considered a communist for forcing people to buy private insurance"

DAMNIT!


(although technically, my point was to pre-empt any discussion of the Nazis actually being capitalist or socialist, I pointed out that we only know of their economic policies in a wartime context so you can't make any meaningful determination of a country's economic ideology based on what happens during a depression and major war. A look at America in 1943 would leave you questioning the idea of America being particularly free market capitalistic; Similarly, the Nazi German economy would likely give you misleading evidence for either a capitalist or socialist determination.)

THAT was my comparison. Hey look, it's my original post:

Before the first sentence of this comment results in a discussion about the Nazis being left or right wing, I'd just like to point out that our knowledge of the Nazi German economy was solely as a wartime (and preparation for war) economy in the midst of the worst of the Depression and rampant hyperinflation, the worst ever seen in the developed world. It's not meaningful to use it to make any claims about the economic ideology of the Nazis. If one were to use the same period to make a statement about the United States, you would be hard-pressed to find much difference in the economies of wartime America and wartime Germany or even wartime USSR for that matter.

It also is an example of why a simplistic duality like 'right' and 'left' wing isn't very meaningful.

As for Obama being a fascist...

[BeBMan]

There is a reason Salazar and Franco lasted until the late 1970s. They were very effective leaders of very effective governments.

For example in torturing and/or killing political opposition.

[C0ckney]

There is a reason Salazar and Franco lasted until the late 1970s. They were very effective leaders of very effective governments. They stabilized the economy and saved the country from radical God-hating socialists (especially in Spain, the socialists and liberals committed many atrocities against the Catholic Church). They also economically modernized their countries, which enjoyed stable, high growth rates throughout the regime. Both Portugal and Spain were extremely agrarian and underdeveloped compared to Western Europe when Salazar and Franco took over. Salazar and Franco both successfully modernized these countries in a short period of time.

However, unlike the economic modernization of almost any country, especially those in Western Europe, it was stable and not prone to market shocks and fluctuations. Since stability and long-term growth were their primary goals, not short-term profit, and since the state took an active role in managing the economy, modernization was steady and without shocks. It also occurred without tearing apart the social fabric of the countryside or greatly impoverishing the rural and urban poor. There were no big union strikes since everyone was taken care of more or less and there wasn't the serious poverty that would have existed under a liberal, capitalist regime. Additionally, these governments kept the forces of liberalism and capitalism from corroding their traditional values, so their people kept their religion and did not see a hippy movement characterized by social extremism aimed at dismantling all of the traditional institutions, beliefs, and way of life.

Jesus, mary and joseph, you actually believe that?

rather than wade through all the wrongness i will just say that portugual and spain emerged from dictatorship as the two poorest countries in western europe. please read some history before making laughable claims.

[Al B. Sure!]

They stabilized the economy and saved the country from radical God-hating socialists (especially in Spain, the socialists and liberals committed many atrocities against the Catholic Church).

Anyone else bothered by this comment? Radical God-hating socialists... Or by the fact that it ignores the fact that Franco came to power through Nazi and Italian intervention during the Spanish Civil War?

I really don't like this idea that economic prosperity has come from Christian values. It's like (I think) Francis Fukuyama but taken to absurd levels that he wouldn't go (and used to support a position he wouldn't support).

I read the posts on Conservativecave.com (some conservative website that curtis was banned from that he referenced)... even those guys were shooting down curtis' idea that Christianity is the cause of economic prosperity and that other religions (or looming atheism) results in economic ruin.

It's so bizarre. He's taken the idea of the "Protestant Work Ethic" to even more ridiculous levels.

[Elok]

? I thought on the CC website he was arguing with somebody else (with a woman's name, IIRC) who said that capitalism only works in Christian countries. He said that was ludicrous. Which is not to argue that Franco was great, but I don't think Curtis has said Christianity is a necessary prerequisite for growth. That wouldn't chime very well with his "growth is not always good" argument anyway.

[Al B. Sure!]

? I thought on the CC website he was arguing with somebody else (with a woman's name, IIRC) who said that capitalism only works in Christian countries. He said that was ludicrous. Which is not to argue that Franco was great, but I don't think Curtis has said Christianity is a necessary prerequisite for growth. That wouldn't chime very well with his "growth is not always good" argument anyway.

Actually you're right.

Curtis did say this though:
"2. I don’t care about the first amendment. This is a Christian nation. It was founded and populated by Christians. What other religions have a better morality than Christianity?"

Which a lot of the conservatives scoffed at.

[Elok]

Well, yeah. There are a fair number of atheist conservatives. We have some on Poly as well. Also, I think one of the people arguing with him was into Asatru or something.

[curtis290]

Holy Crap. I was loving you for a second for actually understanding what my point was, something which these two didn't and instead wanted to point and laugh at imagined stupidity, and then you said "Obama is considered a communist for forcing people to buy private insurance"

DAMNIT!


(although technically, my point was to pre-empt any discussion of the Nazis actually being capitalist or socialist, I pointed out that we only know of their economic policies in a wartime context so you can't make any meaningful determination of a country's economic ideology based on what happens during a depression and major war. A look at America in 1943 would leave you questioning the idea of America being particularly free market capitalistic; Similarly, the Nazi German economy would likely give you misleading evidence for either a capitalist or socialist determination.)

THAT was my comparison. Hey look, it's my original post:

ABS, you didn't read closely. I said Obama is CONSIDERED a communist for his insurance reform. Check any conservative forum, they all call him a commie. This is ludicrous, and I was pointing out the fact that economic conservatives call anyone who isn't a libertarian a communist. They should call the US during World War II a communist (which of course would be a stupid claim, as you pointed out, measures have to be taken during war time, and that doesn't make you capitalist or socialist, it just makes you willing to be practical and to adjust to your nation's needs). As far as your points go during WW2, I agree with you 100%.

For example in torturing and/or killing political opposition.

They weren't that bad, and necessary actions sometimes have to be taken. Every country does this, including the US...why single out Franco and Salazar?

Jesus, mary and joseph, you actually believe that?

rather than wade through all the wrongness i will just say that portugual and spain emerged from dictatorship as the two poorest countries in western europe. please read some history before making laughable claims.

They were the poorest in western Europe when Franco and Salazar took over, and economically and politically were a mess. Franco and Salazar effectively modernized their economies and transitioned them from backwards agrarian economies to modern industrialized ones with an amazing amount of stability, much more so than economic development under liberal, laissez-faire capitalist regimes. They did this without shocks, market fluctuations, or serious hardship to the farmers or the urban workers. This, to me, constitutes effective economic development. And as for 'wading through the wrongness,' it was two paragraphs. That's not long. Also, it appears that neither country has the endowment factors of a successful economy like other nations in western Europe: both saw lots of gains in the 90s and 00s, but they were essentially based on the credit glut and speculatory economic activity that created an unsustainable boom in asset prices. That's why they have been hit hard by the crisis. In light of this, both nations did VERY WELL under Salazar and Franco respectively.

Anyone else bothered by this comment? Radical God-hating socialists... Or by the fact that it ignores the fact that Franco came to power through Nazi and Italian intervention during the Spanish Civil War?

I really don't like this idea that economic prosperity has come from Christian values. It's like (I think) Francis Fukuyama but taken to absurd levels that he wouldn't go (and used to support a position he wouldn't support).

I read the posts on Conservativecave.com (some conservative website that curtis was banned from that he referenced)... even those guys were shooting down curtis' idea that Christianity is the cause of economic prosperity and that other religions (or looming atheism) results in economic ruin.

It's so bizarre. He's taken the idea of the "Protestant Work Ethic" to even more ridiculous levels.

The liberals and socialists committed horrific atrocities during the War against the Church and were very anti-Church before that. They were also supported by the Soviet Union, so don't claim that it was just the Franquistas who were supported by other players. As for the rest of your comments, again, you totally misread what I said. Perhaps there is some compatibility of Christianity and capitalism, since they both originated from the West, but Christianity opposed capitalism and liberalism from the beginning and didn't make peace with them until the 19th century. I believe growth rates are dependent upon economics, not religion, which everyone attacked me for (the whole thread ended up being on that discussion, and I couldn't believe that all of those economic conservatives sided with Mrs. Smith, my opponent). What a bunch of inconsistent morons.

? I thought on the CC website he was arguing with somebody else (with a woman's name, IIRC) who said that capitalism only works in Christian countries. He said that was ludicrous. Which is not to argue that Franco was great, but I don't think Curtis has said Christianity is a necessary prerequisite for growth. That wouldn't chime very well with his "growth is not always good" argument anyway.

Christianity isn't a prerequisite for growth. That doesn't contradict my belief that "growth isn't always good" though. I believe morals and culture are more important than growth, which is dependent upon other factors. Apples and oranges.

Actually you're right.

Curtis did say this though:
"2. I don’t care about the first amendment. This is a Christian nation. It was founded and populated by Christians. What other religions have a better morality than Christianity?"

Which a lot of the conservatives scoffed at.

If we're not a Christian nation, what are we? A nation of atheists? Jews? Wiccans? We were a nation founded by dissident Protestants and our population continues to be almost entirely Christian. That is our history and demographics. Not much to disagree with there. Some piece of paper that says otherwise doesn't mean much to me, and it's not something that should be worshipped alongside the Bible (as it is in this country).

Well, yeah. There are a fair number of atheist conservatives. We have some on Poly as well. Also, I think one of the people arguing with him was into Asatru or something.

He was arguing that Norse religions were commonly practiced in Scandinavia.

Did anyone see the thread by davis788, entitled "time for a little self-reflection?" I can't look at it since my IP address was banned, as was my friends for borrowing his computer to create the davis account. I have a bad feeling they deleted it though.

[KrazyHorse]

Yet another longpost from the boring ignoramus...

[Elok]

To be fair, most of that long post is quoted blocks, which he responds to separately. It's only marginally longer than, say, one of Boris's posts in an argument with BK.

[Darius871]

To be fair, most of that long post is quoted blocks, which he responds to separately. It's only marginally longer than, say, one of Boris's posts in an argument with BK.

True, but implicit in the tl;dr concept is a sliding scale whereby the more actual substance the post contains, the longer it must be to accomplish tl;dr status. Thus a non-tl;dr Boris post might be ten times longer than a tl;dr curtis post.