On February 16 2012 10:16 Yongwang wrote: A couple people brought up that they don't believe that Obama is a socialist. To those people I would like you to take a look at Obama (and the Democratic Party in general), look at their policies and then take a look at the "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe and their policies. You will see that there is little, if any, difference between the US Democratic Party and the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
Here's a video I posted several pages ago in this thread, it's a speech from a British MEP, in which he details just how similar Obama/Democrats are to the socialists in Europe:
A few posts above this one I told you to look up Labour's abandonment of Article 4. You clearly haven't done so and nor has whatever site you're sourcing this nonsense from. The original text read
The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
It is that commitment that made Labour a socialist party. After Thatcher's victories in the 80s Labour moved away from Socialism and into Social Justice, equal opportunity to succeed within a capitalist system through things such as education rather than socialism. This was symbolically marked by Tony Blair removing it from the party's constitution in 1995, some seventeen years ago.
On February 16 2012 10:16 Yongwang wrote: A couple people brought up that they don't believe that Obama is a socialist. To those people I would like you to take a look at Obama (and the Democratic Party in general), look at their policies and then take a look at the "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe and their policies. You will see that there is little, if any, difference between the US Democratic Party and the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
Here's a video I posted several pages ago in this thread, it's a speech from a British MEP, in which he details just how similar Obama/Democrats are to the socialists in Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doBZ_PPJCY
I looked at them. Not really seeing it. (lol labor=complete socialism)
I'm seven minutes into your video and all he's done is taken a jab at Bill Clinton and French People.
edit: ooh he just called the obama administration a federal czar, hahaha
On February 16 2012 10:16 Yongwang wrote: A couple people brought up that they don't believe that Obama is a socialist. To those people I would like you to take a look at Obama (and the Democratic Party in general), look at their policies and then take a look at the "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe and their policies. You will see that there is little, if any, difference between the US Democratic Party and the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
Here's a video I posted several pages ago in this thread, it's a speech from a British MEP, in which he details just how similar Obama/Democrats are to the socialists in Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doBZ_PPJCY
A few posts above this one I told you to look up Labour's abandonment of Article 4. You clearly haven't done so and nor has whatever site you're sourcing this nonsense from. The original text read
The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
It is that commitment that made Labour a socialist party. After Thatcher's victories in the 80s Labour moved away from Socialism and into Social Justice, equal opportunity to succeed within a capitalist system through things such as education rather than socialism. This was symbolically marked by Tony Blair removing it from the party's constitution in 1995, some seventeen years ago.
Labour is not a socialist party.
I said "socialist" and "social democratic" parties. Would Labour not fall under the latter?
On February 16 2012 10:16 Yongwang wrote: A couple people brought up that they don't believe that Obama is a socialist. To those people I would like you to take a look at Obama (and the Democratic Party in general), look at their policies and then take a look at the "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe and their policies. You will see that there is little, if any, difference between the US Democratic Party and the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
Here's a video I posted several pages ago in this thread, it's a speech from a British MEP, in which he details just how similar Obama/Democrats are to the socialists in Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doBZ_PPJCY
A few posts above this one I told you to look up Labour's abandonment of Article 4. You clearly haven't done so and nor has whatever site you're sourcing this nonsense from. The original text read
The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
It is that commitment that made Labour a socialist party. After Thatcher's victories in the 80s Labour moved away from Socialism and into Social Justice, equal opportunity to succeed within a capitalist system through things such as education rather than socialism. This was symbolically marked by Tony Blair removing it from the party's constitution in 1995, some seventeen years ago.
Labour is not a socialist party.
I said "socialist" and "social democratic" parties. Would Labour not fall under the latter?
No, no you didn't. Allow me to quote you.
the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
On February 16 2012 10:16 Yongwang wrote: A couple people brought up that they don't believe that Obama is a socialist. To those people I would like you to take a look at Obama (and the Democratic Party in general), look at their policies and then take a look at the "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe and their policies. You will see that there is little, if any, difference between the US Democratic Party and the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
Here's a video I posted several pages ago in this thread, it's a speech from a British MEP, in which he details just how similar Obama/Democrats are to the socialists in Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doBZ_PPJCY
A few posts above this one I told you to look up Labour's abandonment of Article 4. You clearly haven't done so and nor has whatever site you're sourcing this nonsense from. The original text read
The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
It is that commitment that made Labour a socialist party. After Thatcher's victories in the 80s Labour moved away from Socialism and into Social Justice, equal opportunity to succeed within a capitalist system through things such as education rather than socialism. This was symbolically marked by Tony Blair removing it from the party's constitution in 1995, some seventeen years ago.
Labour is not a socialist party.
I said "socialist" and "social democratic" parties. Would Labour not fall under the latter?
On February 16 2012 10:16 Yongwang wrote: A couple people brought up that they don't believe that Obama is a socialist. To those people I would like you to take a look at Obama (and the Democratic Party in general), look at their policies and then take a look at the "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe and their policies. You will see that there is little, if any, difference between the US Democratic Party and the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
Here's a video I posted several pages ago in this thread, it's a speech from a British MEP, in which he details just how similar Obama/Democrats are to the socialists in Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doBZ_PPJCY
You're mistaking reform liberalism for socialism. The two ideologies have very different goals, with liberalism being concerned with providing each individual an equal opportunity to succeed, where as socialism is more concerned with each individual recieveing an equal share of progress. There is a large difference between making sure each citizen of your country has a right to live in dignity (welfare programs) and each individual has the right to an equal share of all goods produced (socialism). So next time you say "Obama is a socialist" you can instead say "Obama is a welfare liberal" (still derogatory and ignorant, which i'm sure you'll appreciate). This way, instead of sounding like a mad conspiracy theorist, you can at least present your arguments from a somewhat legitimate perspective.
On February 16 2012 10:16 Yongwang wrote: A couple people brought up that they don't believe that Obama is a socialist. To those people I would like you to take a look at Obama (and the Democratic Party in general), look at their policies and then take a look at the "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe and their policies. You will see that there is little, if any, difference between the US Democratic Party and the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
Here's a video I posted several pages ago in this thread, it's a speech from a British MEP, in which he details just how similar Obama/Democrats are to the socialists in Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doBZ_PPJCY
A few posts above this one I told you to look up Labour's abandonment of Article 4. You clearly haven't done so and nor has whatever site you're sourcing this nonsense from. The original text read
The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
It is that commitment that made Labour a socialist party. After Thatcher's victories in the 80s Labour moved away from Socialism and into Social Justice, equal opportunity to succeed within a capitalist system through things such as education rather than socialism. This was symbolically marked by Tony Blair removing it from the party's constitution in 1995, some seventeen years ago.
Labour is not a socialist party.
I said "socialist" and "social democratic" parties. Would Labour not fall under the latter?
No, no you didn't. Allow me to quote you.
the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
Social democracy is a subdivision of socialism though, and I was more referencing to my statement above that:
take a look at the "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe
No, it is not. Socialism is a non revolutionary ideology dedicated to redistributing the fruits of labour to the workers. If you'd taken the time to look it up when I first suggested it (or if whoever told you Labour was socialist had known shit about his subject) you'd know that Labour have rejected that ideology.
But that's just one of the things wrong with your example. Your argument basically reads "Obama sounds like these guys, these guys are socialists, therefore Obama is a socialist". Firstly he doesn't sound much like Labour, he's actually quite far to the right of most of Labour. Secondly, Labour aren't socialists so even if they did believe the same it wouldn't make him a socialist. Thirdly, it's a false conclusion.
On February 16 2012 09:59 KwarK wrote: Okay. Do you feel that Europeans might legitimately be pissed off if you make the argument that something will cause everything to go to shit like it has done in Europe when you're using a Europe which "hasn't happened (yet)" to justify the argument? It's normal to wait for things to fail before you use them as evidence of failure, not doing so is pretty impolite.
Yes, of course Europeans have every right to be legitimately pissed off, especially when I brought up the communist thing. However there's no reason they should get upset over me criticizing the European Union. Especially since many of the members here are from the United Kingdom, which is one of the top three most anti-EU countries in the EU. There is quite a bit of evidence to support that the European Union is a failure and that the Europroject is falling apart at the seams.
No matter its current problems, the EU overall has been a tremendous succes. The simple fact that western europe is as peaceful as it is has quite a bit to do with the existence of the EU, or at least quite a few IR scholars argue so. Europe has also made all of us richer, simultaneously help certain countries develop their economies (think Ireland, Finland), the acceptance of the Acquis by new members and the simple fact is that a divided europe is a weak europe on an international stage.
People get rightfully upset over you making a caricature of an organization you clearly have very little understanding of. You can't say something, then agree that what you said was wrong and then claim that it didn't matter because there is other valid criticism to be made. The EU is far from perfect, I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that, but at least try to make an effort to understand what it does. Not only in economic terms but also in terms of international stability and the cultural effects of it.
There are so many examples, but just to name one: the fact that as a European you can, without any effort, study at pretty much any university in Europe you want with the same rights as a national is something that's hard to put into economic terms, but does enrich all of our societies.
On February 16 2012 10:16 Yongwang wrote: A couple people brought up that they don't believe that Obama is a socialist. To those people I would like you to take a look at Obama (and the Democratic Party in general), look at their policies and then take a look at the "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe and their policies. You will see that there is little, if any, difference between the US Democratic Party and the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
Here's a video I posted several pages ago in this thread, it's a speech from a British MEP, in which he details just how similar Obama/Democrats are to the socialists in Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doBZ_PPJCY
A few posts above this one I told you to look up Labour's abandonment of Article 4. You clearly haven't done so and nor has whatever site you're sourcing this nonsense from. The original text read
The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
It is that commitment that made Labour a socialist party. After Thatcher's victories in the 80s Labour moved away from Socialism and into Social Justice, equal opportunity to succeed within a capitalist system through things such as education rather than socialism. This was symbolically marked by Tony Blair removing it from the party's constitution in 1995, some seventeen years ago.
Labour is not a socialist party.
I said "socialist" and "social democratic" parties. Would Labour not fall under the latter?
No, no you didn't. Allow me to quote you.
the socialist parties of Europe, such as the Labour Party (UK).
Social democracy is a subdivision of socialism though, and I was more referencing to my statement above that:
take a look at the "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe
Therein lies your problem US right wing rhetoric tends to conflate them all into a single term and associate it all with communism. Parsing the terms and being very specific with the definitions and intended meanings never hurt anyone. Rather than bludgeoning arguments with crude political slogans.
Social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy.
Social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy.
If you are saying that all institutions of liberal democracy lead to socialist economy and therefore a socialist democracy, I think you have painted a very wide brush for liberal democratic institutions.
On February 16 2012 10:36 Yongwang wrote: From Wikipedia:
Social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy.
If you are saying that all institutions of liberal democracy lead to socialist economy and therefore a socialist democracy, I think you have painted a very wide brush for liberal democratic institutions.
I was pointing out that social democracy is a subdivision of socialism.
Yongwang, I think if you actually did some research into British political history you'd be surprised. Following the second world war and the centralisation and state control that went with it we were actually quite a socialist nation. Rationing continued for some time, coal and steel were nationalised and a series of Labour governments were elected on very socialist platforms. It began to break down in the 70s due to the inherent weaknesses of state run business and the 80s were a very revolutionary decade. There was huge social turmoil as Thatcher attacked the old union power blocs and the idea of the obligation of the state to provide full employment, there was a massive shift to the right as socialism failed in the UK. We are currently living in a capitalist consensus in this country.
It's this stuff that pisses me off. That's ripe with examples that you'd absolutely love to use. Socialism was a huge failure in the UK and the cost of subsidising failing industries for so long was that when the system finally went bankrupt it destroyed whole communities built upon it. If you actually cared enough to research your examples before making your claims you'd find a lot of material to work with. However the USA didn't give a fuck what ideology Britain followed back then, as long as we were in NATO, you've only actually been using us as examples for the last few years. When we were full on socialist nobody complained and now we're in a period of consensus capitalism there's a bunch of retarded Americans going on and on about how Britain is a communist nation. Have a bit of intellectual integrity, before you make an argument ask yourself "do I really know about this subject?" and if not, look it up.
Social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy.
This is not what Labour wants. Labour doesn't want a socialist economy.
On February 16 2012 10:33 Derez wrote: People get rightfully upset over you making a caricature of an organization you clearly have very little understanding of.
Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they "have little understanding" of the topic. I've studied the European Union in great detail, moreso than most Europeans even. I'm not calling myself the premiere expert on the subject or saying that I know more about it than everyone else, but you cannot deny that I do know quite a bit regarding the subject.
On February 16 2012 10:33 Derez wrote: People get rightfully upset over you making a caricature of an organization you clearly have very little understanding of.
Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they "have little understanding" of the topic. I've studied the European Union in great detail, moreso than most Europeans even. I'm not calling myself the premiere expert on the subject or saying that I know more about it than everyone else, but you cannot deny that I do know quite a bit regarding the subject.
Given your abysmal understanding of British politics I highly doubt that knowing anything about the subject is a prerequisite for you preaching your preconceived ideas on the subject. However all I want is for next time you're having a right wing circle jerk and someone brings up Britain you can correct them and explain to them that they're actually forty years out of date and should probably do some reading.
On February 16 2012 10:33 Derez wrote: People get rightfully upset over you making a caricature of an organization you clearly have very little understanding of.
Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they "have little understanding" of the topic. I've studied the European Union in great detail, moreso than most Europeans even. I'm not calling myself the premiere expert on the subject or saying that I know more about it than everyone else, but you cannot deny that I do know quite a bit regarding the subject.
Yes we can, considering your asenine statements. You've yet to post anything remotely correct, and instead jump around any arguement that is directed at you.
On February 16 2012 10:42 KwarK wrote: Yongwang, I think if you actually did some research into British political history you'd be surprised. Following the second world war and the centralisation and state control that went with it we were actually quite a socialist nation. Rationing continued for some time, coal and steel were nationalised and a series of Labour governments were elected on very socialist platforms. It began to break down in the 70s due to the inherent weaknesses of state run business and the 80s were a very revolutionary decade. There was huge social turmoil as Thatcher attacked the old union power blocs and the idea of the obligation of the state to provide full employment, there was a massive shift to the right as socialism failed in the UK. We are currently living in a capitalist consensus in this country.
It's this stuff that pisses me off. That's ripe with examples that you'd absolutely love to use. Socialism was a huge failure in the UK and the cost of subsidising failing industries for so long was that when the system finally went bankrupt it destroyed whole communities built upon it. If you actually cared enough to research your examples before making your claims you'd find a lot of material to work with. However the USA didn't give a fuck what ideology Britain followed back then, as long as we were in NATO, you've only actually been using us as examples for the last few years. When we were full on socialist nobody complained and now we're in a period of consensus capitalism there's a bunch of retarded Americans going on and on about how Britain is a communist nation. Have a bit of intellectual integrity, before you make an argument ask yourself "do I really know about this subject?" and if not, look it up.
Actually I'll admit that I didn't know that, I knew things were a lot worse before the Tories took back Britain in the 80s, but I had no idea just how bad it was. I focused most of my research on British politics from around the birth of the Anti-Federalist League to recently, mostly recently.
Social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy.
Social democracy is an international political movement and political ideology that has undergone three major phases throughout its history. In contemporary uses, social democracy generally refers to advocacy for some form of regulation of the economy and support for a welfare state and ameliorative measures to benefit the working class within the framework of a market economy structured upon private enterprise. Historically, social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy. Contemporary Social democracy, beginning in the Post-War era, is defined as a political movement that seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while retaining the capitalist mode of production rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system. Contemporary Social democratic policies include support for a welfare state, Keynesian macro-economic policies, and collective bargaining arrangements to balance the power of capital and labor. Examples of contemporary social democracy include the Nordic model and social market economy. Historical Social democracy in the 19th century encompassed a wide variety of non-revolutionary and revolutionary currents of socialism, but excluded anarchism. In the early 20th century, social democracy came to refer to a political strategy of reformism favoring a gradual process of developing socialism through existing political structures, and an opposition to revolutionary means of achieving socialism.
See when you actually post what the article says, it's the opposite of what you're claiming. But that one sentence fragment, out of context and missing a key description ("Historically") looks like it's saying something else entirely.
EPT
