This should probably be in chit-chat but how insular American politcs?

[RadioRaheem84]

Looking up some articles on Google for Republican Socialism, as I wanted to read up on the ideology of the Irish and Scottish Republicans. I also wanted to learn more about Republican Socialism in general but I came across a series of ridiculous, utterly stupid articles by people in the States that equated more moderate Republican politicians in the States with Socialism for their support of public spending.

My first thoughts were "they cannot be this stupid" and that American politics must so incredibly insular that perhaps they think it's OK to equate Republicanism solely with a certain right wing economic stance. They don't seem to take into account that the world Republican or Republic is not synonymous with free market conservatism. I swear I had to sift through two pages of bullshit on the same topic of John McCain or other GOP members as "Republican Socialists". Gosh, the debate in the States is probably so skewered some wouldn't be able to wrap their heads around the fact that the Spanish Republicans were mainly leftists and were the good guys in the Spanish Civil War.

But this is a main point that should've been addressed a long time ago. How are we supposed to get anywhere in the States when names and labels mean so much. It's almost as if political parties copyright their names like corporations. We can hardly use the word Libertarian, Republican, Democracy, Leftist or even Socialism without it having a totally opposite meaning in the States. People will just not get it and will be quite skeptical that we're introducing them to new material.

[Raúl Duke]

The quality of some political debate in the U.S. is of a confusing, non-sensical, propaganda type. In the whole, the "mainstream" (by this I'm including the fringe views that are seen in the media a lot) political arena seems to be set up in a way so to upheld the status quo in a paradoxical manner. The "rebellious" tea-baggers are posited as rogues but they are agents of the status quo (in the fundamental sense; i.e. the U.S. being a form of a capitalist imperialist country)

[bailey_187]

Republican Socialism isnt like a distinct type of Socialism you know

[RadioRaheem84]

Republican Socialism isnt like a distinct type of Socialism you know


Oh I know, now. I just thought that it was at first. I just put the two words together and came up with a horrid list of articles.

[Dimentio]

The United States is built on the blueprint of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic did actually have two parties during its later years - the optimates and the populares. The optimates worked for the interests of major land-owners and slave traders while the populares worked for the interests of landless citizens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYrcTd-u3N4&feature=PlayList&p=46EF024B97AF4D06&index=18

It seems like similar systems produce somewhat similar results in politics, despite great differences in time and culture.

[ckaihatsu]

But this is a main point that should've been addressed a long time ago. How are we supposed to get anywhere in the States when names and labels mean so much. It's almost as if political parties copyright their names like corporations. We can hardly use the word Libertarian, Republican, Democracy, Leftist or even Socialism without it having a totally opposite meaning in the States. People will just not get it and will be quite skeptical that we're introducing them to new material.


I wouldn't worry about it *too* much -- obviously those who take politics *seriously* will pick through the meanings to figure out what's what, as you have. And, with the Internet (and Wikipedia) it's easier than ever to do background research. Once one has one's bearings being in the political arena really isn't confusing at all -- not even revolutionary leftist sectarianism -- just annoying at times.

Here's my own contribution to clarity:


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://i49.tinypic.com/ifzgr6.jpg


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://i48.tinypic.com/1zxm51g.jpg


Chris




--

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
tinypic.com/ckaihatsu

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Coming soon through a local area network near you --

[RadioRaheem84]

I worry only because it enters into the political discourse so nonchalantly like its a given that state spending = socialism. Have you ever seen the Time or what it NewsWeek cover that said "we're all socialists now"? It was referring to the bailout.

When I hear serious political commentators like Elizabeth Warren (she's a Harvard Law professor that was featured in Michael Moor's latest doc) on PBS saying that the bailout was socialism not capitalism.

It becomes another way to blame "socialism", this phantom menace that doesn't exist in order to explain away the ills of the system.

[the last donut of the night]

The United States is built on the blueprint of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic did actually have two parties during its later years - the optimates and the populares. The optimates worked for the interests of major land-owners and slave traders while the populares worked for the interests of landless citizens.

The problem is that both the Democrats and the Republicans are the optimates here in the US.

[RadioRaheem84]

The problem is that both the Democrats and the Republicans are the optimates here in the US.

Well the Democrats pretend to be the populares.

[ckaihatsu]

I worry only because it enters into the political discourse so nonchalantly


Well, those are *bourgeois* "commentators" (propagandists), of course -- their particular angle of sensationalization in relation to the facts makes it easy to identify their politics.





like its a given that state spending = socialism. Have you ever seen the Time or what it NewsWeek cover that said "we're all socialists now"? It was referring to the bailout.




When I hear serious political commentators like Elizabeth Warren (she's a Harvard Law professor that was featured in Michael Moor's latest doc) on PBS saying that the bailout was socialism not capitalism.


The handiest thing to keep in mind is that bourgeois politics is entirely *supply*-sided, meaning that its only conception of disbursement (of government-collected public funds) is to the merchant class, *not* to the demand- or *needs* side, directly to the people.

The spin given in your example deliberately confuses the two -- while the actual bailout goes to the supply-side -- banking -- it's spun as being demand-sided / populist, as "socialism". That's all there really is to it.





It becomes another way to blame "socialism", this phantom menace that doesn't exist in order to explain away the ills of the system.


While it's bullshit that the corporate press has a monopoly on the most convenient and well-produced channels of news / propaganda, we shouldn't think that people are ignorant or unintelligent -- culturally conditioned and bought-off, yes, for some, but not unthinking. No matter what kind of political environment one is in there will always be *some* degree of critical thinking going on inside, otherwise we wouldn't even be able to *distinguish* ourselves as individual from the social environment around us.

The bourgeois merchant class distinguishes *itself*, as a group, by demonizing alternative forms of distribution, like social programs or socialism. This reinforces their own collective grip and purported legitimacy over the running of society, even though everyone has probably come up with their own alternative ideas on the matter by the time they reach their teenage years.