Daredevil Message Board

Neilan · Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject:

I voted for Obama, which may not bode too well for him. This is the ninth presidential election that I have voted in, and my record of voting for the winner, up to this point, is 1 for 8.
_________________
It's never too late to have a happy childhood!

Dash · Flying Blind Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Posts: 94

I voted McCain. Obama's "share the wealth" campaign didn't appeal to me that much. Mainly because I like not living in a socialist regime.

james castle · Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject:

Dash · Flying Blind Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Posts: 94

well crap.

excellent point.

Maybe there is no winning.

rgj · Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:10 pm Post subject:

james castle is on the money.

Now, congratulations to Dash for making more than $250,000 a year. But, back on jc's point, it's halarious how corporate welfare is okay by the Joe the Plumber ilk, but taxing 5% of the (wealthiest) people (3% increase, mind you) is socialism. Ridiculous. What exactly has trickled down these last 8 years?

Now, if you want to vote for McCain, more power to you. But, the "spread the wealth" argument is amazingly weak. I actually have a coworker calling Obama a Communist. Geez.
_________________
rgj

Dash · Flying Blind Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Posts: 94

I'm not against Obama. I could have just as easily voted for him.

james castle · Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject:

jumonji · Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject:

I know no one asked for it, but may I just add some thoughts on the whole ideology debate here, because I've always found American politics to be very vague on this point.

All western-style democracies are grounded to some degree in social liberalism. We share a belief in the liberal ideas of the enlightenment that assure people certain basic rights and liberties (and please refrain from interpreting my use of the word "liberalism" as it's commonly used in the States as a catch-all descriptor of everything construed as leftist. I'm speaking in terms of classic ideology here). The United States were founded on these basic enlightenment ideas and other countries have since followed suit. Over time, and in part inspired by some of Marx's theories, we've seen a certain socialist influence on some policies. The U.S., contrary to popular belief, is not exempt in this regard. The last time I checked, there was no flat tax and people probably take pretty much for granted that certain things like schools and other public services are funded through taxes on people and companies.

What I'm getting at is that we're talking about degrees here, not huge and fundamental differences in how governments should be organized. Of course Obama is not a socialist. Compared to McCain, he leans farther to the left. But that's it. It's a simple matter of degrees.

There are no socialist democracies in the world. Pure socialism dictates that everything should be owned by a centralized state on behalf of all citizens. Socialism, in its purest form, is incompatible with basic ideas like the right to private ownership and democracy, and is generally hugely detrimental to human progress and development, as evidenced by the fact that all so-called communist regimes have failed miserably (since they never got to the point of getting rid of a centralized government they never reached the communist utopia Marx envisioned and got stuck solidly in the socialist phase).

When Americans talk about a fear of socialism, I believe that most are referring to a greater re-distribution of wealth compared to what is currently in place. It is perfectly alright for someone to be opposed to that, I'm not taking issue with it at all. But please don't label any and all such intiatives as "socialism." Obama is hardly the next Pol Pot or Fidel Castro.

Okay, rant over. Wink

_________________
The Other Murdock Papers

james castle · Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject:

Um, yeah, this goes into the "degrees" camp as well but I disagree with the way you're using the word "socialist". Socialism isn't communism. Socialism, unlike communism, doesn't want to get rid of all private ownership. Socialism just focuses on a higher re-distribution of wealth (higher taxes, more services). There are lots of "socialist" countries. Bunches of European countries are widely considered to be socialist. Canada, from time to time dances on the line.

Also, I don't know if you meant to but you seem to imply that the US came up with social liberalism and the rest of the world followed suit. Those principles existed long before the US and were first popularized by the French.
_________________
JC

So why can't you see the funny side?
Why aren't you laughing?

jumonji · Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject:

james castle · Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject:

jumonji · Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:31 am Post subject:

harryhausen · Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject:

This 'socialist' argument is fascinating to me, too. I really think that the Republicans trot out the word (and 'liberal') to scare voters, as jumonji suggests. You're right in that we're talking degrees of difference in terms of taxes and services. Tiny ones, even.

Did anyone else notice how the rhetoric in the last days harked back to the past (the period between WWI and WWII, in particular). You'd think - from listening to the right-wingers - that 'anarchist bastards' were gonna be duking it out with 'Pinkerton men' and fat cat 'railroad bosses.' Throwing sticks of dynamite and succmbing to TB in boxcars. It's like some John Dos Passos novel. Where's Woody Guthrie? Oh, well, there's Bruce Springsteen........

As an aside, I'll let on that I'm a fairly ardent Totskyite who agrees that we are yet to see the realization of communist ideals. [Or haven't been allowed to see them - embargo!] It seems obvious that 'free-market' capitalism is sick unto death and there's a better world a-comin'.........

A truly hopeful night and a new day in America. It sure feels weird to support my President-elect! Good weird.

james castle · Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject:

It's useless to argue about what socialism really means. It's not clear who invented the term (it wasn't Marx) or what it originally meant.

As for the US being the first liberal democracy, I think the point is arguable. At the time of the American Revolution the UK had an elected government and a constitution (although unwritten). Admittedly the number of people who could actually vote was ridiculously small. On the other hand, however, the US allowed slavery long after it was outlawed in the UK so, you know, it's really not clear.

In any event I agree with Harry. Communism has never really gotten a fair shake which is too bad. Capitalism is deeply flawed and no real answer to anything (unless, of course, you don't consider a necessary underclass that literally starves to death a failure).

In any event, good for the US for voting Obama in. There's hope for you guys yet.
_________________
JC

So why can't you see the funny side?
Why aren't you laughing?

The Message Board is currently in read-only mode, as the software is now out of date. Several features and pages have been removed. If/When I get time I intend to re-launch the board with updated software.