Now we’re just haggling over the price — what kind of socialist is Barack Obama?
[Update a few minutes later]
It’s a long piece, but I thought this a useful excerpt:
The non-hot socialism Hayek was describing often goes by the name of “social democracy,” though it is perhaps best understood as an American variant of Fabianism, the late-Victorian British socialist tendency. “There will never come a moment when we can say ‘now Socialism is established,’” explained Sidney Webb, Britain’s leading Fabian, in 1887. The flaw of Fabianism, and the reason it never became a mass movement on the Left, is that the revolutionary appetite will never be sated by its incrementalist approach. The political virtue of Fabianism is that since “socialism” is always around the corner and has never been fully implemented, it can never be held to blame for the failings of the statist policies that have already been enacted. The cure is always more incremental socialism. And the disease is, always and forever, laissez-faire capitalism. That is why George W. Bush’s tenure is routinely described by Democrats as a period of unfettered capitalism and “market fundamentalism,” even as the size and scope of government massively expanded under Bush’s watch while corporate tax rates remained high and Wall Street was more, not less, regulated.
This is the scam that they’ve been running for decades. Let’s hope that it’s finally coming to an end. The current polls, at least, would indicate that it is.
I would add that in today’s environment, it is not capitalism that is “unfettered” (and it’s been many decades since that was the case, if ever) but, given the rampant disregard for the Consitution, it is government that has no fetters. That’s what the Tea Parties are all about.
Damn those Germans and that crappy Social Democracy they’re running.
And, again, Obama? A socialist? In your dreams.
We understand why you didn’t try to read the link, David. It would have been far beyond your intellect.
Rand, old boy, an argument which starts from a false assumption doesn’t get right becuase you agree with it.
By your logic and the “logic” you’ve graced us with here there was no chance that Obama would get the nomination.
But carry on please. It’s becoming so entertaining.
Anyway, I did read the article and I do tend to agree with Charlie Stross on the subject of the author.
Any hoo. The 4th paragraph is the main one. What kind of socialist is Obama?
He’s not. It’s simple. You and others can pretend all you like though I’d if it makes losing the last election feel better.
Ugh. iPhone keyboard. Drop the extraneous “I’d” from the last post.
The fact is some of the socialists in the EU have more market liberal approaches than the current Democrats have. However the current Conservatives are not significantly different in most policies. Really.
It would say it all depends on what is perceived as working or not. My guess is Obama protected the US auto industry because countries which did not in Europe quickly found their manufacturers either bankrupt or bought off by someone else for doing boutique cars few people will buy. I am talking about the UK here. That was one of the legacies of Tatcher. That and the progressive dismantling of their aeronautical infrastructure. As the UK becomes a nation of bankers and stock analysts there are not a lot of viable technological or productive enterprises there. One of the few is probably ARM. Perhaps precisely because they do not manufacture anything anymore.
‘S true. He doesn’t have the intelligence or the education to be anything but a waffle-eating puppet of the Chicago machine.
“My guess is Obama protected the US auto industry…”
Yes, and Ford refused his “protection” and is doing better than GM or Chrysler. Of course, if Ford gets too good, they can have a problem that the government just has to fine them for to level the playing playing field for those GM and Chrysler
donorsworkers.Oh Dave, what part of “spread the wealth around” don’t you understand?
IMO GM probably needs to be dismantled in order to shed their legacy commitments and infrastructure which keep dragging them down. Chrysler has been bought oh so many times. Surprised they haven’t gone the way of the dodo already.
Ford actually invests in R&D which is put into production. This is one of the reasons they are faring better. GM was stupid enough to have EU divisions with better performing engines, or lower cost production techniques, and not incorporate any of it into their US models. GM had a lot of duplication of work. Then they wonder why no one will buy their cars and their cost structure is all out of whack. Plus the whole story about Saturn. Or the EV-1. GM clearly lacks the ability to reform itself. Or provide interesting new products.
As for the auto stimulus I suspect it would have been better to leave the big 3 to their own devices, then fund specific initiatives for improving the US auto technological base, rather than dumping money into a company that has long demonstrated poor leadership.
BTW what would you say of a plan where the state assumed control of the pension fund of GM (which allegedly is their biggest financial drain) to safeguard pensioners and left the company to their own devices with the lighter liability? I am kind of interested in your reactions on solutions of this kind.
Well, I guess Daveon’s brilliant exegesis of Goldberg and irrefutable Aristotelian logic pretty much puts you in your place, Rand.
Godzilla Says:
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:35 am
Putting taxpayers on the hook for private pension problems is a TERRIBLE idea. Funding their R&D is a TERRIBLE idea too. Yours is the whole statist vision that got us into this mess. The state is us. Why do people keep talking about the government as some separate singular entity? Letting businesses fail teaches them to be better businesses. Sorry fotr the rant but the government is the LAST place we should go for help.
May we drop the rest of your posts for the same reason?
More to the point, the troll plays the oldest socialist trick in the book: only socialists get to define what socialism really is.
There’s no reason for anyone to fall for it.
only socialists get to define what socialism really is.
No, that cuts both ways, you don’t get to define socialism as what you want it to be either.
I don’t have to.
Obama isn’t a socialist, he’s a Fascist. Which is maybe a different flavor of socialist. It’s really irrelevent what flavor of “ist” you call him. It all results in the same misery in the end.
Yep, we’ve pretty well established ad nauseum here that the difference between democratic socialism and fascist socialism isn’t the socialism component.
I don’t have to.
So you seem to believe.
Fortunately that has very little impact on reality otherwise we could all be in a lot of trouble.
But, if believing these things makes you feel better about yourself then that’s your call.
It all results in the same misery in the end.
It does? Amazing.
So you seem to believe.
Obama is all about the redistribution of wealth. He is just not that keen on doing it equitably.
He is certainly not the Socialists dream, which is the guy that finally does it right.
“Of course, if Ford gets too good, they can have a problem that the government just has to fine them for to level the playing playing field for those GM and Chrysler donorsworkers.”
And some people wonder why the Ayn Rand estate is doing so well.
Websters:
Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
If you think that definition does fit the Obama administration you’ve not been paying attention.
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
And that sounds even more like The O.
“It all results in the same misery in the end.
It does? Amazing.”
Not amazing, dipstick. History.
“It all results in the same misery in the end.
It does? Amazing.”
Not amazing, dipstick. History.”
To Daveon, Jim B., it isn’t misery. The more Daddy State cracks the whip, the more vicarious jollies Daveon gets from it.
You know, until the day the whip lands on his back. Although he might like that, too.