NationStates Jolt Archive

There is an American Socialist party running for the upcoming election. Despite this, I doubt they are going to win. If by some fluke, however, they did win, would it benefit the United States in this time and age?

What I think is that the country's political and economic systems would become unstable for some time since most states have either a Democratic or Republican governor and companies aren't likely going to give-up on certain 'rights' so easily. Then when things calm down, a social reform would likely take place. It wouldn't be like a dictator forcing his ideas down somebody's throat but there would be plenty of protest. At the end of the term for the Socialist president, the United States would likely be a different country. The next election would either mean that another Socialist will have an easier time being president or one of the more Capitalist parties will likely have difficulty restoring the nation to pre-election status.

This is assuming that congress would be pro-Socialist.

There is an American Socialist party running for the upcoming election. Despite this, I doubt they are going to win. If by some fluke, however, they did win, would it benefit the United States in this time and age?

What I think is that the country's political and economic systems would become unstable for some time since most states have either a Democratic or Republican governor and companies aren't likely going to give-up on certain 'rights' so easily. Then when things calm down, a social reform would likely take place. It wouldn't be like a dictator forcing his ideas down somebody's throat but there would be plenty of protest. At the end of the term for the Socialist president, the United States would likely be a different country. The next election would either mean that another Socialist will have an easier time being president or one of the more Capitalist parties will likely have difficulty restoring the nation to pre-election status.



Well, at least now I have someone to vote for in a McCain/Hillary contest. Who is he?

There is an American Socialist party running for the upcoming election. Despite this, I doubt they are going to win. If by some fluke, however, they did win, would it benefit the United States in this time and age?

What I think is that the country's political and economic systems would become unstable for some time since most states have either a Democratic or Republican governor and companies aren't likely going to give-up on certain 'rights' so easily. Then when things calm down, a social reform would likely take place. It wouldn't be like a dictator forcing his ideas down somebody's throat but there would be plenty of protest. At the end of the term for the Socialist president, the United States would likely be a different country. The next election would either mean that another Socialist will have an easier time being president or one of the more Capitalist parties will likely have difficulty restoring the nation to pre-election status.

For a socialist president to have any real effect there would have to be a sizable number of socialists in Congress also.

For a socialist president to have any real effect there would have to be a sizable number of socialists in Congress also.

The Senate would remain almost entire Democrat or Republican, given the benefits of the sophomore surge, and the fact that one 1/3 of the body stands for reelection.

If a socialist were elected, he'd get nothing done.

Can I get a name? The socialist party website has nothing on a national candidate.

The Senate would remain almost entire Democrat or Republican, given the benefits of the sophomore surge, and the fact that one 1/3 of the body stands for reelection.

If a socialist were elected, he'd get nothing done.

The perfect libertarian POTUS! :)

time to tell the Swarm...

Well, at least now I have someone to vote for in a McCain/Hillary contest. Who is he?

Brian Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Moore_%28politician%29)

Interview (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_Brian_Moore%2C_Socialist_Party_USA_presidential_candidate)

More accurately, a Socialist president would only be able to veto incoming legislation from the two-party dominated House and Senate. We have a three branch government for a reason. The disruption, like the overall effects of any single President, would be minimal.
The only way to generate a lasting change is to control both Houses of Congress, as well as the Presidency, with new Supreme Court Justices.

Can I get a name? The socialist party website has nothing on a national candidate.

Reddy Mc.Commie! :D. Yes it's a joke, don't get your panties in a bunch.

The interview link I posted pretty-much has a summary of what he would do if he was elected. He also humbles himself multiple times in it.

Holy crap. I just finished reading his stance on international policy.


I support decreasing US military presence, but these...

We call for the abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and all other institutions of covert warfare

We call for the U.S. to pay off its debts to the United Nations, an end to veto power in the UN, and an end to permanent membership on the UN Security Council.


are just bad ideas...especially giving up our veto power in the UN. Why should we give it up but let China and Russia keep it?

As an aside...on human rights...

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer People


I loled that it literaly as "Queer people"


Meh. More or less like him with the exception of the forgein policy stuff above.

He seems a little...out there.

The Socialist Party USA takes a firm stance of anti-imperialism, and these methods that you want to hang onto are weapons of imperialism, pure and simple.

I think the Socialist Party does stand a decent chance of improving its presence in this country over the next decade or two. What will become of this remains to be seen. I doubt they will have a challenge to the two party system in the foreseeable future.

It is true that he has a weakness in foreign policy. Isolationism in the United States has never solved anything nor will it ever.

The Socialist Party USA takes a firm stance of anti-imperialism, and these methods that you want to hang onto are weapons of imperialism, pure and simple.

I think the Socialist Party does stand a decent chance of improving its presence in this country over the next decade or two. What will become of this remains to be seen. I doubt they will have a challenge to the two party system in the foreseeable future.

Id hardly call intellegence agencies and our place on the UN security council weapons of imperialism.

It is true that he has a weakness in foreign policy. Isolationism in the United States has never solved anything nor will it ever.


Exactly. I am firmy against isolationism. Hes not an isolationist, I just dont like the idea of getting rid of the CIA incomeptent as it is and resigning our position on the security council.

Id hardly call intellegence agencies and our place on the UN security council weapons of imperialism.

The history of the CIA mucking with the internal affairs of other countries and the use of the security council veto to avoid censure begs to differ.

The history of the CIA mucking with the internal affairs of other countries and the use of the security council veto to avoid censure begs to differ.

First off, that just means he CIA was used improperly and that it needs to be better controled by a president that isnt interested in imperialism.

Secondly, the US should not resign on the security council so long as their is a security council. I would support 100% either removing said council or removing its veto power, but we are a major player in the world, an therefore should remain on said council.

There is an American Socialist party running for the upcoming election. Despite this, I doubt they are going to win. If by some fluke, however, they did win, would it benefit the United States in this time and age?

What I think is that the country's political and economic systems would become unstable for some time since most states have either a Democratic or Republican governor and companies aren't likely going to give-up on certain 'rights' so easily. Then when things calm down, a social reform would likely take place. It wouldn't be like a dictator forcing his ideas down somebody's throat but there would be plenty of protest. At the end of the term for the Socialist president, the United States would likely be a different country. The next election would either mean that another Socialist will have an easier time being president or one of the more Capitalist parties will likely have difficulty restoring the nation to pre-election status.

It'd take way more than the president being a socialist to do anything to change the "rights" people or companies have. Socialists would have to secure enough positions in congress and the state legislatures to make any new amendments or laws that could bring us to a socialist nation or states.

There is an American Socialist party running for the upcoming election. *snip*

Socialism in the US...
http://www.goodsforchange.com/files/images/022244B8_165A5EB7.jpg

There is an American Socialist party running for the upcoming election. Despite this, I doubt they are going to win. If by some fluke, however, they did win, would it benefit the United States in this time and age?

What I think is that the country's political and economic systems would become unstable for some time since most states have either a Democratic or Republican governor and companies aren't likely going to give-up on certain 'rights' so easily. Then when things calm down, a social reform would likely take place. It wouldn't be like a dictator forcing his ideas down somebody's throat but there would be plenty of protest. At the end of the term for the Socialist president, the United States would likely be a different country. The next election would either mean that another Socialist will have an easier time being president or one of the more Capitalist parties will likely have difficulty restoring the nation to pre-election status.

This is assuming that congress would be pro-Socialist.

If a Socialist party took power in congress, I might join one of those survivalist militia groups out in the country. Viva la resistance!

The Socialist Party was a major force at the beginning of the twentieth century.

In fact, the only person to vote in Congress against going to war in 1916 and 1941 was a socialist party member, a woman, I can never remember her name.

The Socialist Party's influence helped with labor reform, and supported the New Deal.

However, the last time I looked at their policies, they looked like a sad, broken, and out-of-their-time party, without a hope of recovering their former glory.

The Socialist Party USA takes a firm stance of anti-imperialism, and these methods that you want to hang onto are weapons of imperialism, pure and simple.
Imperialism is great, so shh.
I think the Socialist Party does stand a decent chance of improving its presence in this country over the next decade or two. What will become of this remains to be seen. I doubt they will have a challenge to the two party system in the foreseeable future.
No, its vote may marginally rise in the 2012 elections when people are feeling Sad, Also Hungry :( after the depression, but that's it. The US has never had a particularly strong Socialist party, and the Red Scare dealt the US Left a serious blow which it won't recover from until the baby boomers, and their children have basically all died, which is going to be quite a while from now.

I remember seeing the socialist candidate from 2004 in one of the 3rd party debates. He was a complete loon, and didn't even seem like he was prepared (reading verbatim from a sheet of paper and stumbling while talking during a debate = bad. at least get a live wire feed like Dubya...)

There is an American Socialist party running for the upcoming election. Despite this, I doubt they are going to win. If by some fluke, however, they did win, would it benefit the United States in this time and age?

Go the United States of Soviet Socialist Republic
or
USSSR

:D

seriously, with the way democracy is killing the country, Communism will be blessing
its just the hassle of getting americans to actually go with the idea of working together for the
benefit of each other, and not just themselves thats the trick.

and before anyone starts up, YES there ARE americans who work together, and can work in communism, they are just not the big city folk

FARMERS WILL PWN YOU ALL
IDAHO FTW, lol

Go the United States of Soviet Socialist Republic
or
USSSR

:D

seriously, with the way democracy is killing the country, Communism will be blessing
its just the hassle of getting americans to actually go with the idea of working together for the
benefit of each other, and not just themselves thats the trick.

and before anyone starts up, YES there ARE americans who work together, and can work in communism, they are just not the big city folk

FARMERS WILL PWN YOU ALL
IDAHO FTW, lol

Once again, you prove you dont know anything. Point by point.

1. How is democracy killing America? Please elaberate.
2. There is a great deal of irony in you saying that "Americans need to work together for the common good" when you had a whole thread dedicated to calling anyone who worked for the rights and good of other groups a "sheep"
3. The idea that "big city folk" dont work together is also a joke. If anyone has an independent "fuck off and do it yourself" attitude, it is more prevelent in the American South and in American small towns.


Epic.
Fail.

Once again, you prove you dont know anything. Point by point.

1. How is democracy killing America? Please elaberate.
2. There is a great deal of irony in you saying that "Americans need to work together for the common good" when you had a whole thread dedicated to calling anyone who worked for the rights and good of other groups a "sheep"
3. The idea that "big city folk" dont work together is also a joke. If anyone has an independent "fuck off and do it yourself" attitude, it is more prevelent in the American South and in American small towns.


Epic.
Fail.

Is this at all surprising coming from Kirch?

Is this at all surprising coming from Kirch?

No, but its better to flog the guys who make it easy. It keeps me own my toes and is good practice for when there is a real debate to be had.

Plus, in the event he actually responds, watching him flail around and try to defend himself is hilarious, especially if he starts ranting against jews and gays in an unrelated matter.

The Socialist Party USA is basically just a social-democratic party.

Ha, I remember making a thread about this a while back. :)

And yeah, I would vote for Brian Moore except that would be throwing my vote away. The Democratic candidate (hopefully Obama) will need every single vote he can get to beat McCain.

The Socialist Party USA is basically just a social-democratic party.

I think you're confusing them with the Communist Party :p

It depends on the member, really. As far as I can tell, the SPUSA is considerably further left than the CPUSA. There are a bunch of social democrats in the party, but there are also revolutionary socialists and left-wing Marxists in the party too.

If a Socialist party took power in congress, I might join one of those survivalist militia groups out in the country. Viva la resistance!

Why bother? The Socialist Party is much more pro-democracy than either of the two mainstream parties, and has taken a definite positive stand on civil libertarianism.

The Socialist Party was a major force at the beginning of the twentieth century.

In fact, the only person to vote in Congress against going to war in 1916 and 1941 was a socialist party member, a woman, I can never remember her name.

The Socialist Party's influence helped with labor reform, and supported the New Deal.

However, the last time I looked at their policies, they looked like a sad, broken, and out-of-their-time party, without a hope of recovering their former glory.

Seems like the only time she could get elected was right before wartime. I wonder what that means...

Seems like the only time she could get elected was right before wartime. I wonder what that means...

That, and opposing the US entering WWII is utterly stupid.

best the socialists ever got for pres in recent history is 10,837 votes in the 2000 election. sorry no socialist president here.


and by definition siezing someone property(any business including health care) and running it in the name of the goverment (now at a lose instead of a profit) is always ramming it down someone throats.

Regardless of whether the Socialist candidate would get anything done, we need to get third parties, the Two-Party system is a Cancer that needs to die...

and, of Socialism, pure socialism never works, it hinders growth by putting restrictions on small business and stagnating the economy, just ask the former USSR theyll tell you...China figured it out and is fixing it in their country too...

I would say you need a Hybrid system, Small business needs a more laissez-faire oriented system free from regulations and extra costs, to get them started, but when a business reaches the size of say, Wal-Mart its time to break it up, for it begins hindering and stagnating the economy by destroying the smaller retail and grocery outlets, and preventing new ones with competing...similar to what Two and One party systems do to Politics actually, lol...

;)

That, and opposing the US entering WWII is utterly stupid.
Jeannette Rankin is the woman in question. She represented a district in Montana. I was reading her bio and apparently she was very unpopular and gerrymandered out of office in 1919. In 1941, she was reelected after campaigning for isolationism. She didn't run again in 1943, due to her unpopularity in the state. I guess it says you can fool most of the people in Montana every 30 years, or so.

and by definition siezing someone property(any business including health care) and running it in the name of the goverment (now at a lose instead of a profit) is always ramming it down someone throats.

Only if it can be proven that the system of property rights is legitimate.

and, of Socialism, pure socialism never works, it hinders growth by putting restrictions on small business and stagnating the economy, just ask the former USSR theyll tell you...China figured it out and is fixing it in their country too...

Socialism =/= central planning. According to the SPUSA's charter, they define socialism as "worker's control of the means of production". That means economic democracy, plain and simple.

Only if it can be proven that the system of property rights is legitimate.



Socialism =/= central planning. According to the SPUSA's charter, they define socialism as "worker's control of the means of production". That means economic democracy, plain and simple.

Yes, but how else would the Workers take take control of the "means of production" short of the government planning the economy? How else can you have Economic Democracy unless people vote on it?

Im not saying i disagree with Socialism, im just saying, on small business its impractical...But, larger Corporations, Multi-National Corporations have to be reigned in so they do not abuse the System, and destroy small business's ability to compete...

I think that both pure Socialism, and pure Capitalism have their faults, and that the best way to get the positives from both, is to use both systems to fix the negatives of the other...

I think most "socialist" governments in the western world today are welfare states, where as they try to meet the needs of their citizens through progressive taxation, not by "seizing control of production and striking down the capitalists", etc etc.

Yes, but how else would the Workers take take control of the "means of production" short of the government planning the economy? How else can you have Economic Democracy unless people vote on it?

Fairly easily actually. There is no reason why the workers cannot manage their workplaces themselves. They can elect managers and decide on issues democratically. This does not need government involvement. Worker's cooperatives are a prime example of socialism in its purest form.

Fairly easily actually. There is no reason why the workers cannot manage their workplaces themselves. They can elect managers and decide on issues democratically. This does not need government involvement. Worker's cooperatives are a prime example of socialism in its purest form.

I guess that could work, I was just curious really, ive never heard anyone explain it beyond just stating "take control of the means of production"...

I guess the real question is how would you get businesses to implement such measures, itd be great if theyd do it voluntarily, but i dont see that happening, lol...

the Government could force it, but i think thats just asking for trouble...

I doubt the United States, as it exists today, would never elect a socialist president. In any case, the problems lie not so much with the government as with the people themselves, in my opinion.

1. How is democracy killing America? Please elaberate.

2. There is a great deal of irony in you saying that "Americans need to work together for the common good" when you had a whole thread dedicated to calling anyone who worked for the rights and good of other groups a "sheep"

3. The idea that "big city folk" dont work together is also a joke. If anyone has an independent "fuck off and do it yourself" attitude, it is more prevelent in the American South and in American small towns.

Epic II.
Knights of Fail.

1-take a look around you, the democratic ideal of near-total freedom of choice
given that if you break a law, you can be arrested, but get out of it if your lawyer can talk enough BS to the judge and jury.
That morals and common sense went out the window, in favour of grabbing as much money as you can no mater how.
And lets not forget: giving power to the minority groups regardless of what the meaning of Democracy is

2-no, i said anyone who works to the good of those on the other side of life - heteros being pro-fag, clean people being pro-drug, etc
The good of the whole means everyone works together and dont do illegal or amoral things to corrupt or decay the system

3- well when your capitalist american politicians leave the south and small towns out of major decisions, and if they give them enything at all its the leftovers - metaphorically speaking: wouldnt you feel pissed at the guy who just ate a whole pizza and gave you the dry crust he didnt want?

1-take a look around you, the democratic ideal of near-total freedom of choice
given that if you break a law, you can be arrested, but get out of it if your lawyer can talk enough BS to the judge and jury.
That morals and common sense went out the window, in favour of grabbing as much money as you can no mater how.
And lets not forget: giving power to the minority groups regardless of what the meaning of Democracy is
Your right, freedom of choice is a horrible idea... :rolleyes:
2-no, i said anyone who works to the good of those on the other side of life - heteros being pro-fag, clean people being pro-drug, etc
The good of the whole means everyone works together and dont do illegal or amoral things to corrupt or decay the system
So the good of the whole has nothing to do with whats good for everybody?

That, and opposing the US entering WWII is utterly stupid.

nice little cartoon i found on Youtube shows usa's was to enter war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svnolXdD7q0

Honestly if anything we need MORE democracy not less, we need to end the Stranglehold that the Two Major Parties has on the political system...

We need to Completely Abolish the Electoral College, it fails in its purpose of evening the field, and only succeeds and disenfranchising the masses...it should be replaced with direct popular vote...

And all parties able to field a candidate that meets the requirements to become President/Senator/Congressmen/whatever should be given equal representation on the ballot...

Lastly, Money should be taken out of the equation, and a separate fund set up from which all candidates would get an equal amount of money...

if we can implement those reforms i think America would be a better place, and there would be less dissatisfaction with the government...:cool:

1-take a look around you, the democratic ideal of near-total freedom of choice
given that if you break a law, you can be arrested, but get out of it if your lawyer can talk enough BS to the judge and jury.
That morals and common sense went out the window, in favour of grabbing as much money as you can no mater how.
And lets not forget: giving power to the minority groups regardless of what the meaning of Democracy is

That doesnt show how democracy is a failure, it shows why YOU dont like democracy, which is purely for bigoted reasons.

2-no, i said anyone who works to the good of those on the other side of life - heteros being pro-fag, clean people being pro-drug, etc

Exactly, being against the common good in favor of your own selfish interests is what you rail against, yet you stand here and tell us we should not support gay rights (your insistnce on calling them fags is cute. Repoting you is tempting, but then I would loose a source of amussment) because it is not affecting us, and because you find "fags" icky.


The good of the whole means everyone works together and dont do illegal or amoral things to corrupt or decay the system

And gay rights somehow corrupts or decays the system? Prove it.

3- well when your capitalist american politicians leave the south and small towns out of major decisions, and if they give them enything at all its the leftovers - metaphorically speaking: wouldnt you feel pissed at the guy who just ate a whole pizza and gave you the dry crust he didnt want?

What you just said is pure bull. You dont live here, so I wouldnt expect you to know exactly how things work 100% and how society views people within our society, but you should at least have the decency to not pretend like you do.

3. The idea that "big city folk" dont work together is also a joke. If anyone has an independent "fuck off and do it yourself" attitude, it is more prevelent in the American South and in American small towns.




I would present myself as the antithesis to this...though the assessment is probably true, lol...

Honestly if anything we need MORE democracy not less, we need to end the Stranglehold that the Two Major Parties has on the political system...

I actually find two party systems to be more stable. As it avoids the extremes on both sides. the 2 party system is really a result of first past the post(winner take all) electoral systems. aka you vote for a candidate not a party and the candidate is directly responsible to you. In order to get a multi party system in the US we have to go to proportional representation. the draw backs with this are we lose representatives that are directly responsible to those that elect them. Also with a multi party system small parties that may only be able to get between 5 and 10% of the vote are able to get legislation they want past if that 5 and 10% of the vote is needed to form a coalition goverment. (like in Israel the ultra conservatives can get military exemptions simply by being the 5-10% needed to form a coalition). Not to mention your ability to get support from your representative will no longer be based on location but on the party you are a member of and if your party won only a small % of the votes and didn't get brought into the coalition goverment you will be hard pressed to get support.

We need to Completely Abolish the Electoral College, it fails in its purpose of evening the field, and only succeeds and disenfranchising the masses...it should be replaced with direct popular vote...

Again I disagree. the electoral college is not just tradition it is also a means to balance the power of small and large states. don't think of it as a direct election of the people but instead a compromise among the states that make up the union to pick the president. I do not like centralized power and the electoral college is one of the last remnants of decentralization. Same as the senate.

And all parties able to field a candidate that meets the requirements to become President/Senator/Congressmen/whatever should be given equal representation on the ballot...


1st you will have a 2 mile long ballot. 2nd you infringe on the states and people of those states rights to determine what the requirements are to get on the ballot.

Lastly, Money should be taken out of the equation, and a separate fund set up from which all candidates would get an equal amount of money...

I disagree donating money is another means of showing support. not to mention it keeps us form having to raise taxes just to pay for candidates we do not like. Yes there needs to be controls such as limits to the amount each person can donate(which already exist). yes we need to find tune the system in regards to parties and interest groups but i don't see the need to remove the current system.

~snip~
And then we can make it rain candy and have lemon drop rivers and rainbows of joy and happiness.

The Socialist Party was a major force at the beginning of the twentieth century.

In fact, the only person to vote in Congress against going to war in 1916 and 1941 was a socialist party member, a woman, I can never remember her name.

Jeanette Rankin...who was a Republican, not a Socialist.

She was also one of fifty members of Congress who voted against WWI...not the only one, as she was in voting against WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanette_Rankin

I actually find two party systems to be more stable. As it avoids the extremes on both sides.

Theres really nothing more needs to be said to refute this argument...

Afterall theres Nothing extreme about Republicans and Democrats...

And as far as the Electoral College, Yes it was set up to even the playing field between the larger and smaller states, but it failed in that function miserably...I live in Mississippi we have a WHOPPING 6 Electoral Votes vs say California which has a paltry 55...which one is the Candidate going to spend more time on? well ill leave it to you to figure out...But the real problem behind it is when, like in 2000 they choose a Candidate that didnt recieve the majority vote, thereby ruining the whole democratic process and turning it into an Oligarchy...the Electoral College needs to be replaced with a Direct Popular vote, its the only fair way...

And on the Ballot, Yes that would be a little extreme, I would propose Stricter Requirements to enter the Candidacy...and, Idk if you realize this, but, the Presidency is a NATIONAL ELECTION the Individual States should not get to decide whos on the ballot, I shall once again use my own state for an example, I would like to vote for Ralph Nader, but, because he's a third party candidate, unless you can get enough signatures on a petition to get him on the ballot, then you dont get to vote for Nader, and because Mississippi is a Bible Belt Conservative State, its not very likely ill get that opportunity, The Current System Disenfranchises people like myself who hold Independent opinions...

And on the Money Donations, yes it is a way of showing support for a Candidate, but when your Contribution of a paltry $50 to $100 dollars is compared the THOUSANDS of dollars Corporate America is able to send, its a Moot Point...Not to mention, it favors big name Candidates, and Fuels the further Extortion of our Political System by Special Interest Groups...and you wouldnt need to raise taxes to facilitate a Fund for Candidates, simply shift funds, we Spend so much fucking money that we could easily make room for this in the budget...Do we really need to know Bear DNA, or Have Rats use Rakes to move food? i think not...

However, the last time I looked at their policies, they looked like a sad, broken, and out-of-their-time party, without a hope of recovering their former glory.

Different parties, actually. The Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas no longer exists. The SPUSA is one of its successor parties.

And then we can make it rain candy and have lemon drop rivers and rainbows of joy and happiness.

I could try...But im not sure that Lemon Drop Rivers would be good for the Water Supply...

Not to mention what Candy Rain would do to Crops...

But, if you find Rainbows to be that enjoyable then dont let me stop you...

The United States is already more Socialist than Capitalist, though much less Socialistic than most other first world nations.

Nearly every aspect of our lives is subsidized; our education is free, our roads are free, we have welfare for those most in need, we are on the track towards Universal Healthcare, farmers' incomes are supplemented by the government in order to keep their livelyhoods secure and our food prices low and stable.

Nearly every industry and "capitalist" enterprise receives, both directly and indirectly, government subsidies, tax breaks, and services.

College, though not free, is heavily subsidized by the government. Without government backed student loans, government scholarships..etc..even so-called private schools who don't receive direct grants from Federal or State governments would find themselves without 2/3 of their students.

Not only that, but there are plenty of government utility coops.

All banks are subsidized by, and regulated by the government, as is Wall-Street itself. It usually depends on the party with regards to how tightly our monetary system and stock markets are controlled, but there is always an element of government oversight and direction.

On and on and on....you'd find that if you eliminated the government from the economic equation there would be a full-scale depression. For, not only does the government provide money, services, and protection it's also the single largest employer in the United States.

If by some fluke a socialist president were elected this run there'd probably be an organized rebellion and I would be plenty pleased to supply it with a variety of weapons ranging from concealed and disguised stuff like pens and cell phones to SMG and assault rifles.

....you'd find that if you eliminated the government from the economic equation there would be a full-scale depression.


This doesn't prove that the United States is "socialist" so much as it proves that sudden radical changes to the fabric of any kind of civil society tend to end poorly.

"When I dropped a hydrogen bomb directly onto this outhouse, the outhouse was completely vaporized out of existance in a tiny fraction of a millisecond! Clearly, the outhouse was build improperly of inferior materials."

It's kinda like that.

Nearly every aspect of our lives is subsidized; our education is free, our roads are free, we have welfare for those most in need, we are on the track towards Universal Healthcare, farmers' incomes are supplemented by the government in order to keep their livelyhoods secure and our food prices low and stable.
Please do not describe education as being 'free'. The public education system is very expensive - higher than the median cost of private school (at least in DC, but I doubt it is substantially different anywhere else). High taxes are what pay for the education, so please do not call it free.

Farm subsidies do not keep food prices low and stable - subsidies in any industry distort production and costs. The price of food has recently risen dramatically directly because of government subsidies. The only thing government farm subsidies do is perpetuate inefficient and excessive production while costing the economy substantial wealth.

Nearly every industry and "capitalist" enterprise receives, both directly and indirectly, government subsidies, tax breaks, and services.
Which is exactly why I am annoyed at people who decry any perceived problems with the economy a failure of capitalism. We most definitely do not live in a capitalist economy. The problems people attribute to capitalism are typically caused by government interference, so using them to somehow justify more government interference is just continued idiocy.

College, though not free, is heavily subsidized by the government. Without government backed student loans, government scholarships..etc..even so-called private schools who don't receive direct grants from Federal or State governments would find themselves without 2/3 of their students.
Government subsidies of higher education are one of the causes of the continued extraordinary growth in tuition rates - it creates market distortions that are not easily controlled. If you honestly believe that 2/3 of all students would not pursue higher education if it were not subsidized, then you must logically believe that higher education is not economically valuable for the vast majority of the population. Truly sit down and think about the implications of what you are saying.

Removing government subsidies of education would reduce the number of students attending university, but certainly not in the massive numbers you suggest. Reducing attendance is likely a good thing - the push to enroll everyone in university has had a substantial negative effect on university education. The value of a university education is substantially reduced while the quality is likewise cut to ensure less capable students are retained, much like the push to give everyone a high school diploma has made said measure of education practically worthless.

If a university education will not make you sufficiently better off than the cost, you should not be going to university. Attaining a piece of paper indicating that you attended a very expensive adult daycare program is a net loss - only building human capital sees a return on investment. If you will not improve yourself by attending university, you should not attend: spend that time pursuing higher education in a vocational school or just attaining work experience instead.

Not only that, but there are plenty of government utility coops.If a coop can be run more efficiently than a private firm, consumers should have that choice - choice being the pertinent term. These comparisons tend to be highly biased: a private firm facing massive compliance costs and taxation vs a heavily subsidized government firm, where if the private firm is still preferable, it costs are raised to further subsidize the government provider.

If you want me to point out examples of government monopolies being inefficient... well if you need me to do that you need a far more basic education in economics and history that we could even begin to touch here.

All banks are subsidized by, and regulated by the government, as is Wall-Street itself. It usually depends on the party with regards to how tightly our monetary system and stock markets are controlled, but there is always an element of government oversight and direction.
And that government oversight and direction causes massive distortions and changes incentives, leading to greater inefficiency. Bureaucrats with a background in public policy or campaign fundraising should not be controlling the economy. Usually some knee-jerk reaction so some politician can be seen to be 'doing something' and curry votes with an electorate who doesnt understand complex financials, which generally makes the situation much worse and will lead to further problems.

On and on and on....you'd find that if you eliminated the government from the economic equation there would be a full-scale depression. For, not only does the government provide money, services, and protection it's also the single largest employer in the United States.
With that logic, would you not say that the best solution would be for the government to employ everyone? That way, there would be no unemployment whatsoever, and the economy would be fantastic.

You say the government provides money, but that is strictly limited to printing meaningless pieces of paper - it is the private sector that actually creates wealth. Most services the government provide are wholly unnecessary, highly costly, and we are better off without (very few exceptions to that).

The government is a huge employer - and that costs a lot of money to support. Less government means less taxation, which means more money for productive people to spend on productive things. Not to mention with less interference from bureaucrats whose expertise is in 'public policy' or campaign fundraising, people can spend more of their time focusing on actually doing something productive.

I actually find two party systems to be more stable. As it avoids the extremes on both sides. the 2 party system is really a result of first past the post(winner take all) electoral systems. aka you vote for a candidate not a party and the candidate is directly responsible to you. In order to get a multi party system in the US we have to go to proportional representation. the draw backs with this are we lose representatives that are directly responsible to those that elect them. Also with a multi party system small parties that may only be able to get between 5 and 10% of the vote are able to get legislation they want past if that 5 and 10% of the vote is needed to form a coalition goverment. (like in Israel the ultra conservatives can get military exemptions simply by being the 5-10% needed to form a coalition). Not to mention your ability to get support from your representative will no longer be based on location but on the party you are a member of and if your party won only a small % of the votes and didn't get brought into the coalition goverment you will be hard pressed to get support.

First-past-the -post electoral systems are a recipe for pork barreling. Representatives get votes for how much pork they can get for their districts rather than what benefits the nation as a whole. To deal with small radical parties perhaps a mixed proportional system would give the optimal level of trade-offs

Again I disagree. the electoral college is not just tradition it is also a means to balance the power of small and large states. don't think of it as a direct election of the people but instead a compromise among the states that make up the union to pick the president. I do not like centralized power and the electoral college is one of the last remnants of decentralization. Same as the senate.

How does the electoral college decentralize power? How does the senate decentralize power? At most it seems like those states that have more representatives per capita just gain more subsidies when horse trading comes into play.

First-past-the -post electoral systems are a recipe for pork barreling.

They are also part of the recipe for unrepresentative government. What happens if I vote in the minority of my jurisdiction? My vote does not count. In a representative parliamentary democracy, my vote counts for something.


Representatives get votes for how much pork they can get for their districts rather than what benefits the nation as a whole. To deal with small radical parties perhaps a mixed proportional system would give the optimal level of trade-offs

Why do you have to "deal with small radical parties"? Is there something wrong with them? Besides, they will just get subsumed in a mainstream coalition. The Canadian parliament includes the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens (at least) which all form a liberal bloc. That's "dealing with small radical parties" right there. Make them vote with the do-nothing liberals. Same goes for fascist parties in conservative coalitions.

They are also part of the recipe for unrepresentative government. What happens if I vote in the minority of my jurisdiction? My vote does not count. In a representative parliamentary democracy, my vote counts for something.

Agreed.

Why do you have to "deal with small radical parties"? Is there something wrong with them? Besides, they will just get subsumed in a mainstream coalition. The Canadian parliament includes the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens (at least) which all form a liberal bloc. That's "dealing with small radical parties" right there. Make them vote with the do-nothing liberals. Same goes for fascist parties in conservative coalitions.

There can be something wrong with them. In a number of European countries facist parties have increased their representatives in pariliament due to anti-immigrant feelings. So far most parties have made deals never to form a coalition with them. Only in Austria has a major party ever formed a coalition with them and that didn't last long. It sorta reminds one of the Weimar Republic when the Nazi's became part of the ruling coalition.

There can be something wrong with them. In a number of European countries facist parties have increased their representatives in pariliament due to anti-immigrant feelings. So far most parties have made deals never to form a coalition with them. Only in Austria has a major party ever formed a coalition with them and that didn't last long. It sorta reminds one of the Weimar Republic when the Nazi's became part of the ruling coalition.
I'll admit that I write from ignorance, but who cares? From what I understand of parliamentary politics, fascists can't govern unless they form a minority government. Otherwise, they are just trumped up conservative voters.

I'll admit that I write from ignorance, but who cares? From what I understand of parliamentary politics, fascists can't govern unless they form a minority government. Otherwise, they are just trumped up conservative voters.

The problem being the high risk that a coalition with a facist party included will curb civil rights. Also, theirs the possibility that is say the reason that coalition came to power was because of some kind of economic depression, famine, or whatever and things improve afterwards the democracy will moe into a facist direction,

Look, my argument is that since fascists comprise a sliver of a minority anyway, they can't do anything worse than conservatives (although conservatives do pretty evil stuff).

The problem being the high risk that a coalition with a facist party included will curb civil rights. Also, theirs the possibility that is say the reason that coalition came to power was because of some kind of economic depression, famine, or whatever and things improve afterwards the democracy will moe into a facist direction,

In Europe there's a supranational organization called EU that looks disfavourably on possible abuses of democracy and human rights.

For example Austria and its democratically elected right wing government: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/haid-f22.shtml

On the other hand, curbing the will of the majority of people of a sovereign nation is somewhat anti-democratic.

Look, my argument is that since fascists comprise a sliver of a minority anyway, they can't do anything worse than conservatives (although conservatives do pretty evil stuff).

An actually openly 'fascist' movement has a ridiculously small chance of working, if fascism came it would come from conservatives and through their tactics.

An actually openly 'fascist' movement has a ridiculously small chance of working, if fascism came it would come from conservatives and through their tactics.
That's what I just stated.

Theres really nothing more needs to be said to refute this argument...

Afterall theres Nothing extreme about Republicans and Democrats...

By extreme I am referring to such things as fascist and communist. countries that have proportional representation such as in europe have seated fascist and communist in their legislative branch Austria even formed a coalition goverment with the fascist party of Austria. To me the idea of needing the Fascist or the communist

And as far as the Electoral College, Yes it was set up to even the playing field between the larger and smaller states, but it failed in that function miserably...I live in Mississippi we have a WHOPPING 6 Electoral Votes vs say California which has a paltry 55...which one is the Candidate going to spend more time on? well ill leave it to you to figure out...But the real problem behind it is when, like in 2000 they choose a Candidate that didnt recieve the majority vote, thereby ruining the whole democratic process and turning it into an Oligarchy...the Electoral College needs to be replaced with a Direct Popular vote, its the only fair way...

Mississippi gets about a 1.2% of the vote in the electoral college.
compares to Cali's 10.2%
but looks how popular voting would change the representation.
about 3 million people(and thats rounding up) out of 300 million would give Mississippi only 1% of the total possible vote
and would also give California 36 million people (rounding down) 12% of the vote. 2000 was a fair election because it was played by established rules (all vote blocking/not counting allegations aside). the system did exactly what it was meant to do, the reason you cry unfair is you did not produce the results you wanted.
It is sort of like baseball Versus Home run derby. In baseball having the most home runs doesn't always give you the win but it does help.

And on the Ballot, Yes that would be a little extreme, I would propose Stricter Requirements to enter the Candidacy...and, Idk if you realize this, but, the Presidency is a NATIONAL ELECTION the Individual States should not get to decide whos on the ballot,
the election of the presidency is a federal election which means while it is for national positions it is comprised of the states. I suggest you read the constitution or the federalist papers for a understanding of how the system works and the intent of our founding fathers.

I shall once again use my own state for an example, I would like to vote for Ralph Nader, but, because he's a third party candidate, unless you can get enough signatures on a petition to get him on the ballot, then you dont get to vote for Nader, and because Mississippi is a Bible Belt Conservative State, its not very likely ill get that opportunity, The Current System Disenfranchises people like myself who hold Independent opinions...

No no the system only disenfranchises those to dumb to use a write in ballot. Sir all you had to do was go down past all the other candidates and spell Mr Nader's name in the blank by write in candidate(or type on the more modern computer voting systems).

And on the Money Donations, yes it is a way of showing support for a Candidate, but when your Contribution of a paltry $50 to $100 dollars is compared the THOUSANDS of dollars Corporate America is able to send, its a Moot Point...Not to mention, it favors big name Candidates, and Fuels the further Extortion of our Political System by Special Interest Groups...and you wouldnt need to raise taxes to facilitate a Fund for Candidates, simply shift funds, we Spend so much fucking money that we could easily make room for this in the budget...Do we really need to know Bear DNA, or Have Rats use Rakes to move food? i think not...

like i said before we need to fine tune the system not replace it limit the amount people are able to donate in one year to say 2,500 dollars. And find a way to apply the limit fairly to special interest groups (maybe 2,500 per member max donation to all people up for election). Also in the 2004 election both Bush and Kerry accepted federal funding of 74.6 million each and in return did not accept or use any other money once they received their parties nomination. Seems like the system works out fine. also if we are cutting funding form anything cut it out of the social programs not the sciences.

That's what I just stated.
Why do you assume that it would come from conservatives? Nazis were members of the National Socialist German Workers' party. Fascism is socialist. Are you saying that Republicans are socialist?

Why do you assume that it would come from conservatives? Nazis were members of the National Socialist German Workers' party. Fascism is socialist. Are you saying that Republicans are socialist?

Socialism frankly can be applied by fascistic nations as well as republican nations, Christian nations. Socialism is foremost an economical principle.

However, even thought the NSDAP called itself socialist, it practically was in no way socialist. Look alone at how they treated the 'lesser valuable' people like disabled...

However, even thought the NSDAP called itself socialist, it practically was in no way socialist. Look alone at how they treated the 'lesser valuable' people like disabled...
I wouldn't say they weren't very socialist. The state controlled the economy and the society pretty tightly, made lots of propmises for prosperity, and invented enemies for the people to rally against. By contrast, the Communists to the east controlled their economy and society pretty tightly, made lots of promises for prosperity, and invented enemies for the people to rally against. The biggest difference between the two was that the fascists' invented enemies were racial, enthnic, and religious minorities, while the commies' invented enemies were the rich, privileged, and talented.

I wouldn't say they weren't very socialist. The state controlled the economy and the society pretty tightly, made lots of propmises for prosperity, and invented enemies for the people to rally against. By contrast, the Communists to the east controlled their economy and society pretty tightly, made lots of promises for prosperity, and invented enemies for the people to rally against. The biggest difference between the two was that the fascists' invented enemies were racial, enthnic, and religious minorities, while the commies' invented enemies were the rich, privileged, and talented.

Hm, you got a good point there. However, there were just too many things plainly contradicting socialistic ideals. Especially the fact that society was controlled obscenely tight for no gain.
Also inventing enemies to rally against is NOT socialist :P

Also inventing enemies to rally against is NOT socialist :P
May not be an idea but it is a practice. At least it was for the commies. You gonna tell me that the commies weren't socialist?

If the Socialst Party of the US won the election I'd be checking the temperature of hell and for winglike mutations on pigs.

May not be an idea but it is a practice. At least it was for the commies. You gonna tell me that the commies weren't socialist?

Oh, they were not ONLY socialist. They also were oppressive, fascist and manipulative.
And yeah... the US invented such an enemy, too. Does today still.
And they are not socialist.

while the commies' invented enemies were the rich, privileged, and talented.

They shot their olympic athletes?

May not be an idea but it is a practice. At least it was for the commies. You gonna tell me that the commies weren't socialist?

In other news, Hitler was a vegetarian, so all vegetarians are Nazis.

Yes, the USSR did invent enemies for the people. Yes, they were at least somewhat socialist. No, this does not mean that inventing enemies is a guaranteed part of socialism. It is instead much more a part of totalitarianism, which the Nazis also fitted into.

Interestingly, the current US government has invented a nice enemy...

In other news, Hitler was a vegetarian, so all vegetarians are Nazis.

Yes, the USSR did invent enemies for the people. Yes, they were at least somewhat socialist. No, this does not mean that inventing enemies is a guaranteed part of socialism. It is instead much more a part of totalitarianism, which the Nazis also fitted into.

Interestingly, the current US government has invented a nice enemy...

To deny the existance of class enemies, that being the bourgeois exploiters and their allies, is to deny reality.

To deny the existance of class enemies, that being the bourgeois exploiters and their allies, is to deny reality.

To ignore the perils of a state, to believe that any state will voluntarily 'wither away', is to deny reality.