Recently on here the conclusion has been arrived to that Barack Obama is some kind of "socialist" although he doesn't follow the picture perfect text book definition (complete state ownership of means of production, etc.).

But I began to wonder, at what point does one who holds certain beliefs about certain safety net programs does one become a "socialist"

For instance, it seems like most people believe it's ok to pay some kind of tax (whether it be consumption, property or income, etc. isn't the point here) in exchange for protection from a local police department.

In essence, we agree that it's ok to give up some element of our liberty/freedom in order for some kind of civilization, societal well-being, collective "good" or what have you...in this case delegating the responsibility of defending my personal property (most of that responsibility, not all per se), to a local public police force.


Then on the other extreme end of the spectrum...it seems like most of us would not be ok with paying a federal tax in order to have a federal nanny tuck us in bed at night and feed us baby food.

In there, there is a line somewhere...and where might it be? Any ideas?

During the healthcare debate, the bill was often called "socialist" and "government healthcare"...but why not the same sentiments toward Medicare? Am I a socialist if I support "social security"

What's the difference between a "contemporary liberal" and a "socialist"?

Why does it seem like a large, paternal, overpowering dominant military force isn't lumped in with "nanny-like" notions?

Am I a socialist if support unemployment insurance?

What about if I support the high speed rail ideas?

When does regulation become too much regulation to the point where there's no longer a "regulated capitalistic system" but a "socialist" one?

What say you? What are the criterion?

The point is when you don't agree with the specific policy but are too lazy/stupid to make a rational explanation for why you believe it is a bad idea.

You make some very good arguments and questions in this post.

I guess the easy answer is when you put EVERYTHING into the control of the government OR think that everything should belong to the government...

However,
I truly think that there is no line that has to be crossed to become a socialist, communist, fascist.... All of these words are "bad" in this country. We have been conditioned to think negatively when these words are spoken. So, it's a scare tactic that is used to make people think go against a certain person or group.

The dems are merely having the tactics that they invented turned around and used against them for a change. Sucks having to play defense now, huh?

I think the modern definition of when you become a Socialist would be when Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh proclaim you one. Until then, you are only a likely suspect. After that, there is no doubt because the two great experts on Socialism have come down from the mountain and proclaimed before their flock who the unwashed out there really are.

Old, tired, half-dead talking points:

- It's Bush's fault
- "They" listen to Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh
- John Kerry looks equine-ish
- Obama is a socialist
- Tiger Woods is a cheater
- Lassie died
- smokers are bad peeps
- global warming

This country already has had a certain amount of "socialism" for how many years now?

I think the real question would be something like: How much are we going to proliferate/expand the Socialistic Ideology in this country?

Its automatic when an R calls you one,

They are so bright. lol

When QuakerOats says so.

Lots of funny posts and quips in the replies but I'm serious...Are we not quite socialists if we think Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance are justified programs but then become socialists once we think it might be a good idea to expand the social safety net further?

Why is Barack Obama a socialist and Mitt Romney not one? Is it because of suspicions about what BHO's true political ideology is underneath what he has expressed in public whereas we know Mitt Romney must be ultimately a capitalist because he was a damn good one at Bain Capital? They've essentially both signed similar "socialist" legislation, except BHO's jurisdiction was larger.

I believe our Conservative posters are sincere in that they consider BHO's ideas about government to be too in favor of large federal government...but where exactly is the line...let's expound on this.

I think the actual "line" or point is less important than 'the process'. You either believe that moving toward socialism is a valuable goal or not. I would tend to believe that socialism is not a favorite word in most American's mind, which is why Democrats and liberals run away from it...and refuse to own it even as they further the 'process'. They look for ways they can seperate themselves...."see we are NOT really Socialists, because real socialism is when (fill in the blank with an extreme)"

The problem is that socialism is creeping. Almost all conservatives would agree that we can't go back on socialistic programs like Social Security...and therein lies the problem. Once people become dependent on these programs we are stuck with it. Hence, the conservatives only defense is resistance to the process....justifiably fighting it at every turn.

It is not a case of 'at what point', but of contributing to the disease.
You are a 'socialist' if you knowingly, willingly, contribute to the process. If you don't think socialism is a valuable goal then don't contribute to the problem. If you DO think socialism is what we should strive for...then have the courage to OWN it.

HitsRus wrote: I think the actual "line" or point is less important than 'the process'. You either believe that moving toward socialism is a valuable goal or not. I would tend to believe that socialism is not a favorite word in most American's mind, which is why Democrats and liberals run away from it...and refuse to own it even as they further the 'process'. They look for ways they can seperate themselves...."see we are NOT really Socialists, because real socialism is when (fill in the blank with an extreme)"

The problem is that socialism is creeping. Almost all conservatives would agree that we can't go back on socialistic programs like Social Security...and therein lies the problem. Once people become dependent on these programs we are stuck with it. Hence, the conservatives only defense is resistance to the process....justifiably fighting it at every turn.

It is not a case of 'at what point', but of contributing to the disease.
You are a 'socialist' if you knowingly, willingly, contribute to the process. If you don't think socialism is a valuable goal then don't contribute to the problem. If you DO think socialism is what we should strive for...then have the courage to OWN it.

I see. But how about this. Suppose a person thinks that every child, regardless of where they live should be able to go to school in nice, brand new public schools and that, because some states have limited resources, this should be paid for through federal taxes and that money granted to state boards of education who administer this program.

(I'm not saying this is a good idea or anything...just follow me, it's just an example)

This is undoubtedly an idea that is reminiscent of the democratic-socialist state's like say, Denmark. This idea, in and of itself perhaps doesn't create a "socialist" America but it would undoubtedly bring us closer.

Nonetheless, suppose I ultimately don't really want a socialist economy/country and then god forbid that it eventually becomes a communist society...but I nonetheless am gravitated toward that kind of socialistic education system.

Since I don't want a socialist society overall, am I to give up on my desire for a "socialist style" education system because it's a necessary contributing step for a "socialist society overall"?

Since it's a process towards socialism, is it right to be against a socialist style idea here and there because of the ultimate end of avoiding total, full-fledged socialism?

It doesn't seem true, to me at least, that if you like a socialist style idea here and there that you necessarily like to have socialism as a whole...for instance, it seems like someone could be justified in saying that, Medicare is a justifiable social-welfare program because seniors have significantly more medical costs and would be much more burdensome on private insurers and it might be fair to spread this cost out to the population as a whole through the Internal Revenue Code and sacrifice private sector efficiency to help provide more security for that particularly vulnerable group while at the same time not believing that younger people of working age of relatively good health ought to have publicly funded health care because it's not worth sacrificing private sector efficiency, etc.

Hence, it seems like that person could like a particular socialistic idea, but not want socialism overall.

BS,

I see what you're trying to say but think of this.

You are only speaking of one person wanting one aspect.
There are other people out there, each wanting their own aspect of "good" socialism.
Put all these people together who want all these different types of socialism and one by one, legislation is passed giving all these people what they want.... what do you have then?

You become a socialist when those who oppose you need a new, kickass buzz word to arbitrarily throw in their repertoire.

You have to have those sharp words thrown in there to perk people's ears up.

ts1227 wrote: You become a socialist when those who oppose you need a new, kickass buzz word to arbitrarily throw in their repertoire.

You have to have those sharp words thrown in there to perk people's ears up.

So now we go from a good discussion to "buzz" talking points.
Nice.
Thanks.

HitsRus wrote: I think the actual "line" or point is less important than 'the process'. You either believe that moving toward socialism is a valuable goal or not. I would tend to believe that socialism is not a favorite word in most American's mind, which is why Democrats and liberals run away from it...and refuse to own it even as they further the 'process'. They look for ways they can seperate themselves...."see we are NOT really Socialists, because real socialism is when (fill in the blank with an extreme)"

The problem is that socialism is creeping. Almost all conservatives would agree that we can't go back on socialistic programs like Social Security...and therein lies the problem. Once people become dependent on these programs we are stuck with it. Hence, the conservatives only defense is resistance to the process....justifiably fighting it at every turn.

It is not a case of 'at what point', but of contributing to the disease.
You are a 'socialist' if you knowingly, willingly, contribute to the process. If you don't think socialism is a valuable goal then don't contribute to the problem. If you DO think socialism is what we should strive for...then have the courage to OWN it.

Does the same process of "you are xxx if you contribute towards xxx" apply towards fascism and authoritarianism?

See where I'm going with that? Any policy can be linked to something that we deem unsavory so saying that because you support xxx policy which is a movement towards an xxx country you are a xxx is pretty stupid to me.

Medicare? Yes
Am I a socialist if I support "social security" Yes
Am I a socialist if support unemployment insurance? Yes
What about if I support the high speed rail ideas? Yes if it is public and not self sufficent.
Why does it seem like a large, paternal, overpowering dominant military force isn't lumped in with "nanny-like" notions? Protection.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

ts1227 wrote: You become a socialist when those who oppose you need a new, kickass buzz word to arbitrarily throw in their repertoire.

You have to have those sharp words thrown in there to perk people's ears up.

So now we go from a good discussion to "buzz" talking points.
Nice.
Thanks.

Definitely wasn't the intention, but it is a truth with some. I hate when discussions get derailed on here as much as anyone.

When government takes control, a bit of freedom is lost...whether it is in the form of taxes, laws or programs. In some cases we willing surrender that freedom for what we percieve to be a greater good. It might seem right, it might seem like a good idea, but it is a surrender of freedom nonetheless, and taken over a long period of time the little bits we give up add up.


freedom>>>>>>>A.>>>>>>>>>>B.>>>>>>>>>C.>>>>>>>>D.>>>>>>>>>>E.>>>>>>>........F.>>>>>>>>>G.>>>>>Complete Gov control
....................Civil War............Fed Inc Tax.......Soc Securty......Great Society......Univers.HC................socialism.......Communism....


If we look at it as a line with complete freedom on one end and complete government control on the other, one can see how we are creeping towards socialism. Beginning with the rise of the Fed over the states in the civil war and progressing thru our latest steps towards universal health care, one can follow the line....and the problem is that the arrows only go in one direction like a rachet. Once you rachet the next arrow to the right, you cannot go back.
No way can we rescind the previous steps. The problem too is that it becomes a slippery slope. As a new generation becomes accustomed to the last racheted step, the push begins for the next. Twenty years from now, I can see Universal healthcare being used as a precedent for unversal housing....and why not. Government provides for your old age...government provides for your health...shouldn't government provide for your house? Our money is taken so the government can run our retirement, and we accept that. Our money will be taken to run our healthcare and we will get used to that. It isn't that far of a stretch to think that someday our money could be taken, and the government will own our house.
The process will continue...and you either resist the erosion of freedom or you push the process farther along the line.

So when someone is called a "Socialist"...it doesn't mean necessarily that they are at 'point F.'...but that they are pushing us toward that point.(if you need to look at it like a 'point'.)

Yeah, maybe BHO is not a 'Socialist' proper but he is advancing a socialist agenda.
Like I said...if you truly believe this process.... the progression toward a socialistic society is good... then OWN it.

I Wear Pants asked>>>

"Does the same process of "you are xxx if you contribute towards xxx" apply towards fascism and authoritarianism? "


Yes, if you are talking about an irreversible usurpation of power by the government.

HitsRus wrote: Like I said...if you truly believe this process.... the progression toward a socialistic society is good... then OWN it.

I think that is a fair thing to ask.

Is there anybody who doesn't think that's a fair question?

CenterBHSFan wrote:

HitsRus wrote: Like I said...if you truly believe this process.... the progression toward a socialistic society is good... then OWN it.

I think that is a fair thing to ask.

Is there anybody who doesn't think that's a fair question?

I think that is fair.

And, as far as i am concerned, i believe it is a GOOD thing, but not the way Obama is doing it. Hence why i don't believe Obama is a socialist. We're not going down a socialist path under him, IMO. We're simply following down the same path we've been on for quite some time, which isn't actual socialism. I would be all for us following down a democratic socialist path, but that isn't where we're going. His ideals and ideas do not mesh with the democratic socialist parties i am interested in.

First off let me say socialism in and of itself is not an evil ideology. My local school district owns most of the means of the production of education in my district. As does the local fire and police departments own most of the means of producing security in our area. For the most part these social institutions have served the public good. Occasionally corruption and evil individuals gain control of these institutions. But their corruption and unjust practices are limited to the local level. If one is unable to purge the corruption at least the individual possesses the freedom to leave the realm of this limited social institution.

Socialism requires turning over a percentage of the productive value of an individual or group of individuals to a governmental body in return for some form of collective benefit or security. It requires relinquishing personal freedom and placing it in the hands of a governing authority.

It is my opinion that placing that authority into the hands of a few is dangerous. This is where we get our impression of socialism itself being evil. Recent history shows us when social control was centralized into the hands of a few, corrupt and evil individuals were able to get control of the reigns and use it to impose their will on the masses.

BoatShoes wrote: In there, there is a line somewhere...and where might it be? Any ideas? What say you? What are the criterion? When does regulation become too much regulation to the point where there's no longer a "regulated capitalistic system" but a "socialist" one?

I would say the line is when it centralizes its control over the masses. The federal government has the power to enforce its will over 300+ million people. I would say when we place the governance of social institutions into the hands of the federal government we cross the line.

BoatShoes wrote: Why does it seem like a large, paternal, overpowering dominant military force isn't lumped in with "nanny-like" notions?

This is a good question. Not only did the constitution restrict the authority of the federal government concerning social issues, it also laid out the federal governments power regarding the army and navy. Because many of the founders feared large standing armies they required a two year limit on federal funding or the army. Of course the Air Force since it came about after the founding was never considered to have its powers defined by constitutional amendment. The Air Force also possesses great power in suppressing a civilian population, yet has no constitutional limit on its funding.

HitsRus wrote: I Wear Pants asked>>>

"Does the same process of "you are xxx if you contribute towards xxx" apply towards fascism and authoritarianism? "


Yes, if you are talking about an irreversible usurpation of power by the government.

Then why don't you shout about how every policy that takes us closer towards those ideals is fascism/authoritarianism? If you believe in those policies then OWN up to it.

See what I mean? Just because a policy is socialist/fascist/whatever in its base origins doesn't mean that the people who support it support socialism or fascism.

You don't have to own up to being a socialist if you believe in social security because it's possible to believe in a social program without being a socialist. Things aren't so damned black and white.

I Wear Pants wrote:

HitsRus wrote: I Wear Pants asked>>>

"Does the same process of "you are xxx if you contribute towards xxx" apply towards fascism and authoritarianism? "


Yes, if you are talking about an irreversible usurpation of power by the government.

Then why don't you shout about how every policy that takes us closer towards those ideals is fascism/authoritarianism? If you believe in those policies then OWN up to it.

See what I mean? Just because a policy is socialist/fascist/whatever in its base origins doesn't mean that the people who support it support socialism or fascism.

You don't have to own up to being a socialist if you believe in social security because it's possible to believe in a social program without being a socialist. Things aren't so damned black and white.

No I don't see what you mean at all.
I think I gave a pretty good example of creeping socialism over the past 150 years. Do you have an actual example of what your point is?.

I stated pretty clearly that I did not think Obama was a "Socialist", but that he was advancing a socialist agenda. What part of that do you disagree with?

I don't really disagree with what you said.

My point is that you can advance a socialist or fascist or whatever agenda without being a fascist or socialist or thinking that more socialist/fascism would be a good thing.