All US Presidents since Hoover have been Socialists

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Hoaxster, Nov 13, 2013.

  1. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Dark Prince of Double Standards Staff Member

    ​I remember getting some weird looks when GW Bush was president and I referred to him as a Socialist. I was doing some reading the other day on Upton Sinclair whose books I read many years back and I was reminded of my classification of GW as a Socialist.
    I found this quote of Mr Sinclair very interesting, "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."
    The way that Socialism will become a major force in politics (at least in the United States) is by not calling it Socialism. People believe too much that it is inherently evil, without knowing what Socialism really is.

    The United States has been governed by Socialist (to varying degrees) presidents for 80 years but until Obama came along, few would admit this truth.

    What do you think?
  2. Gumby

    Gumby *

    I think you get weird looks regardless!.lol
  3. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I would go longer than 80 years but your point is still valid. Americans have yet to grasp IMO that there is both right and left wing socialism but at the same time in the 19th century there were people who called themselves socialists who both called for a vast reduction if not an end to the state as well as advocate for the idea of a free market and yet at the same time were anti-capitalist in the sense that capitalism is today. Benjamin Tucker would be one example.

    Socialist comes from the french Socialiste and in reference to the teachings of Comte de Saint-Simon. Comte de Saint-Simon believed in an aristocratic, technocratic ruling class to rule society and never some "all for one and one for all" egalitarian ideal. The socialism was about protecting their own moneyed, industrial and power interests under the guise of social well being. They felt the masses had and needed to be controlled. This form of socialism grew to influence the likes of Marx as well as the british Fabians to what became State socialism as opposed to the ideas of Mikhail Bakunin and Joseph Pierre Proudhon who advocated a non-state or anti-state form of socialism. Marx even had Bakunin expelled from the First International as Bakunin opposed the idea of using the state to bring socialism to the masses. From these roots (Bakunin/Proudhon) anarchism, mutualism, libertarianism (created a right wing strain with opposition to FDR's New Deal and the cold war) and the more recent voluntaryism all sprang forth.

    Comte seem to anticipate both Marx (class theory) and the Fabians (rules by hierarchy and aristocracy) and you could say the rest is history. Seems now to some degree that Marx and the Fabians won the day.

    Interesting read on Comte and Charles Fourier.
  4. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Dark Prince of Double Standards Staff Member

    ​I figured you would be interested in this topic!
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    However, I would suggest as to others, not many are. Much easier to accept what is [-]sold[/-] told in the way of political narratives and blindly go on.

    The weird looks speak to that.
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Once you understand what state socialism, either rightwing or leftwing, really is then the words of William James makes more sense.

    source: The Principles of Psychology, written 1890'. page 121, written by William James, father of American Psychology.
  7. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    So then, the word has lost its true meaning but its stigma remains. And Sinclair is absolutely correct. People will wholeheartedly embrace socialism because when pushed to the brink of choice between that and a more pure capitalism without regulation and a "safety net", their belief in "free markets" falters.
  8. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    I find it increasingly frustrating when a member starts a thread hoping to promote intellectual discussion on a topic only to have a post like this.

    LOL does not excuse the banality of this post.
  9. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    It's background noise, nothing else. Not unlike cheerleaders at a final four basketball game. It's there, but nobody really pays attention to it.
  10. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    What I find really annoying is that he took the time to quote what Hoke had posted only to make his stupid comment.
  11. oldngray

    oldngray nowhere special

    Most presidents have been socialist to some degree in the past 80 years but not far enough to be called socialist, just some policies leaned towards a socialist direction. I might argue about Ike being included in that list. He was more of a laissez-faire kind of guy I think.
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Maybe the deeper question would be, is it correct to conflate capitalism with the idea of free markets or rather what I would call Freed Markets?

    BTW: I don't.

    But you would be right in defending against the idea of a truly freed market because in such economy and I choose that word purposely understanding it's latin (oeconomia) and greek (oikonomia) origins, both FedEx and UPS along with a whole lot more would likely not exist. Maybe as small shadows of themselves here and there but not as they exist today.

    Hoax was correct that Presidents regardless of party or ideology are socialist in nature as they help create the mechanism upon which the costs of modern capitalism are externalized onto the backs of the taxpayer. They, the Presidents, don't single handedly do it but IMO they act as puppets and confidence men that in turn enables others to do so. bbsam, you should read Gabriel Kolko's book "The Triumph of Conservatism" and don't let the title fool you. Kolko also is no conservative, neither is he libertarian, fact is he's critical of and no advocate of the free market either. But his critique of the roots of political and crony capitalism in this country are so good, that in many circles of libertarian and free market anarchism, Kolko's work is considered a "must read" for his analysis of political economic history. IMO Kolko's work re-enforces Hoax original claim.

    I often chuckle when I hear the mighty so-called free market "CAPITALIST", purely an actor of false rhetoric IMO, decry the tragedy of the commons as I know full and well his own profits would be impossible if the cost burdens of his economic and business model weren't shifted onto the backs of the taxpayer. Now there is the real tragedy of the commons. Even the so-called libertarian/free market Koch Bros. would not be where they are without gov't market interventions and trust me they know it. Research the term Kochtopus and see what some quarters of libertarian thought think of the Koch Bros. You think the so-called political liberal criticisms of the Kochs are harsh. Like Buffet and others, they know where their bread if buttered.

    Looking up the roots of the term Laissez faire and how that term came into being as it applies to economics is a very interesting read. According to some, a french mercantilist minister by the name of Colbert went to a local french village and asked the business folk what he could do for them. A man by the name of Legendre responded, "laissez nous faire" or leave us be or let us do. You could say that Legendre was saying don't interfere or intervene in our economy. What Legendre's motives were may be another question but in the case of Ike, was he "letting do" in the case of the economy? Just for starters with the case of the overthrow of the gov't of Iran in 53' (for BP oil's interest) and the gov't of Guatemala in 54' (for United Fruit interests) purely for business (eg capitalist?) reasons raises serious questions about Ike's laissez faire pedigree.

  13. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Dark Prince of Double Standards Staff Member

    Gumby and Hokey Pokey have a special relationship.
  14. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    The word for today is: banality............statement that is hackneyed , trite or boring (that's without a dictionary just crossword stuff fodder)
  15. UnsurePost

    UnsurePost making the unreadable unreadabler

  16. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    If you were in front of me, I would be interested and then my eyes would glaze over as fantasies of half naked hot soccer moms crowded my mind. The problem is that few want the "promised land" you speak of because there is no way to get there. At every turn there is a caveat that one person or group of people will behave in a certain way. If all people were logical, maybe. They aren't. It's a Mexican standoff between Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, white and black, black and Latino, Latino and white. And sitting patiently on the sidelines are the corporate raiders with an eye on the markets and a private jet ready to head to destinations unknown. And why should they care. The world is their playground. Without the statist authorities alternating between paying them off and threatening their existence, they'd have bled the country dry and moved on long ago.
  17. bleedinbrown58

    bleedinbrown58 ahhh....the mouth breathers

    Dave, lay off IVE...he's good people. And usually much funnier! lol
  18. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Dark Prince of Double Standards Staff Member

    I want an excuse when I miss the free throw.
  19. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Dark Prince of Double Standards Staff Member

    And he was more of a Socialist towards Corporations than the individual although he did warn about the military industry taking over the economy.
  20. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member