The bailout WAS NOT socialist in the least

[RGacky3]

The mainstream American media, keeps pointing to the Corporate bailout as "socialist," just goes to show how twisted the public American view of Socialism is (created very skilfully by politicians and the media), its tthought that "ANY" government intervention is Socialist.

I doubt there are ANY Socialists that would consider this a socialist bill, not one. This is the government saving Capitalists and public expense, pretty much one of the most un-socialist thing you can do.

[GPDP]

If the bailout was "socialism", it was "socialism for the rich", as some people like to say.

[Killfacer]

Is it not the part nationalisation of the banks which is being called socialist?

[spice756]

The mainstream American media, keeps pointing to the Corporate bailout as "socialist," just goes to show how twisted the public American view of Socialism is (created very skilfully by politicians and the media), its tthought that "ANY" government intervention is Socialist



Why because most Americans want a small government than a big government and want a free-market no government intervention ,bailout ,money to rich or businesses,subsidize money so all.

They blame the problem on the government than the free-market .And socialist take all the blame not the free-market .The American culture is mess up.

[GPDP]

Why because most Americans want a small government than a big government and want a free-market no government intervention ,bailout ,money to rich or businesses,subsidize money so all.

They blame the problem on the government than the free-market .And socialist take all the blame not the free-market .The American culture is mess up.

Do not conflate the opinion of the mainstream media with that of the American people as a whole.

Few Americans are free market ideologues. Most favor regulations.

[Faux Real]

I describe these phenomena as privatising profits and socializing losses

[redSHARP]

this was the least socialist thing you could have done!

[Dust Bunnies]

Maybe Socialist as in National Socialist (Nazi Germany). But I would rather call it Fascist.

Something about the free market just makes me love it.
When buisnesses are doing good the government don't help the little guys because after all its a free market.
When Corporations take a nose-dive the government intervenes.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

No reasonable person believes this is socialism, hence why you see media pundits and right-wingers asserting as much.

[JimmyJazz]

If the bailout was "socialism", it was "socialism for the rich", as some people like to say.

This is the only type of reference to "socialism" that I've heard wrt the bailout. And yes, phrased this way, it does make some sense. It's socialism for the bourgeoisie (which =/= "the rich", exactly).

If you believe in the concept of a ruling class, however, then every action taken by the government is in the interests of the bourgeoisie. Even public welfare (http://www.amazon.com/Regulating-Poor-Functions-Public-Welfare/dp/0679745165/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223605661&sr=1-2). There are different factions within the ruling class, some of them favoring imperialism and some opposing it, some favoring public welfare and some opposing it, some favoring corporate welfare and some (very, very few) opposing it. But all the actions taken by the government are taken to prevent a fundamental, radical, democratic revolution in the property rights of a nation, and the different preferences for government ultimately boil down to different visions of how to most efficiently conserve capitalism.

Kind of the way that both liberals and conservatives agree that Muslim radicalism is the enemy, but one takes a hard line (no negotiation with Islamofascists) and the other takes a soft approach (we should build coalitions of Western allies, sit down to talks with leaders of "rogue" nations, etc).

I don't think the bailout is anti-capitalistic whatsoever. At any time from the end of the 1930's to the 1970's, it would have seen like a more acceptable move. What the bailout really contradicts is neoliberalism, which has been the dominant bourgeois faction since the 70's, and has preached about free markets uber alles. I can't remember where, but I read someone saying that this bailout was "the end of Reaganism-Thatcherism, not the end of capitalism". That seems pretty accurate to me.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yeah, I would distinguish between "rich" and "wealthy." Stephen King probably doesn't have much say in Washington. :laugh:

[JimmyJazz]

Yeah, I would distinguish between "rich" and "wealthy." Stephen King probably doesn't have much say in Washington. :laugh:

Yeah, I usually use the example of Paris Hilton when I'm trying to get the point across to someone that class is about power, not dollars.

So which one are you using to mean capitalist--"rich" or "wealthy"? Because I think of them as the same, i.e., Paris Hilton is both rich and wealthy. I would say she's rich but her money is not money-in-use (capital) and she's wealthy but her wealth is not productive wealth (capital).

Whatever, I'm fucking nitpicking, ignore me please.

[Sendo]

the right wingers are hooking onto a universally hated plan of action. They are presenting a public face of outrage and at the same time conflating it with socialism. You have to respect the skills of American propagandists, they're quick and they're persistent.

[Bud Struggle]

No reasonable person believes this is socialism, hence why you see media pundits and right-wingers asserting as much.

Though since I've been hanging around RevLeft and learned some of the more precise meaning of terms I've noticed how off base American journalists and pundits are in their use of Socialist ideas. North Korea is ALWAYS mentioned as Communist. So is the Soviet Union. Countries like Sweden are "Socialist" not Social Democracies.

Every term is moved one place over to the Left. Which means that while the bailout isn't Socialist--it is the beginning of a trend towards Social Democracy.

And that's what the right wingers are talking about.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Every term except libertarian.

I think it's amusing that even classical liberals would be called 'socialists' in America. Rockwell and Ron Paul would try to claim that right-libertarianism is just a continuation of their ideology, but Adam Smith was more alike Benjamin Tucker than Milton Friedman. He was very skeptical about one being able to possess wealth just from property and not labor.

[cb9's_unity]

Giving shit loads of cash to capitalists for fucking poor proletarians. I can't think of something more socialist! [/sarcasm]

Sometimes people forget that the capitalists love using the government as tool to reach their goals. Thats the only reason why they keep the government around and that more extremist libertarianism will never gain any real ground in American politics.

[spice756]

Giving shit loads of cash to capitalists for fucking poor proletarians. I can't think of something more socialist! [/sarcasm]


Sometimes people forget that the capitalists love using the government as tool to reach their goals. Thats the only reason why they keep the government around and that more extremist libertarianism will never gain any real ground in American politics.


No the banks should not give loans to the poor the banks got greedy and should go under.

If the people are too poor to pay the loan off than they should not get loans , that is where the problem is and people need to protest for better wages.Why because we have way too much debt and it is going take 100 years if not more to pay the house off and car off.

People don't have the money and just keep getting loans and charging every thing.You can't keep doing this the loans are not infinite .

The problem with the US system is this artificial wealth.

[spice756]

Though since I've been hanging around RevLeft and learned some of the more precise meaning of terms I've noticed how off base American journalists and pundits are in their use of Socialist ideas. North Korea is ALWAYS mentioned as Communist. So is the Soviet Union. Countries like Sweden are "Socialist" not Social Democracies.


Every term is moved one place over to the Left. Which means that while the bailout isn't Socialist--it is the beginning of a trend towards Social Democracy.

And that's what the right wingers are talking about.

Ya:rolleyes:

The word Socialist/communism is loose word like socialism.The traditional socialism is state run like Cuba and USSR.But after 60's got other meaning anyone who supports money from rich to the poor and big welfare state and 5% or 10% state run stuff but still 90% or 95% private property .Thay suppor lots of social programs !!

The old socialism support the means of production/tools/goods and distribution are controlled by the people or state and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles and dvocating an end to private property and the exploitation of workers.

In Marxist theory same has above but after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism.

In communism all property and wealth is owned by all the members of that society not the state and there is no state.

In fact on the news about Cuba the other day there where people giving stuff to other Cuban people with out the state.People sharing and working collectivly and building stuff.So Cuba is 90% socialism ,5% communism and 5% capitalism.

China 90% capitalism and 10% socialism.

And communism is about collectivly and people sharing and working collectivly !! And helping one other.And socialism not really it more state control or people control the means of pruduction and every thing goes to the people by state according to equity and fairness rather than market principles

The word communism /socialism is loose word but we are all anti-capitalism and anti- free-market.

All Socialist country where state run not the working class running or control the means of pruduction .The problem with state run in those countries they put profit in command/state capitalism or run by totalitarian do to lack of foresight to implement laws and protocols to ****er this..



Some times people use word interchangeable with other word.Call communist country but mean a socialist country or call a socialist country but mean communist country .I have seen lot people to that.

[RGacky3]

Every term is moved one place over to the Left. Which means that while the bailout isn't Socialist--it is the beginning of a trend towards Social Democracy.


Social-Democracy is about using public funds to benefit the public, and getting those funds, either through very progressive taxes or selective nationalization.

What the bailout is about is using public funds to benefit the Capitalists. The complete opposite.

[Bud Struggle]

Social-Democracy is about using public funds to benefit the public, and getting those funds, either through very progressive taxes or selective nationalization.

What the bailout is about is using public funds to benefit the Capitalists. The complete opposite.

No: it benefited everybody. Want to buy a house? Or a car? Small businesses to get loans to pay employees. To pay bills.

This helped small business in the end--it's their momentum that keeps 80% of the people of America employed.

[Killfacer]

No: it benefited everybody. Want to buy a house? Or a car? Small businesses to get loans to pay employees. To pay bills.

This helped small business in the end--it's their momentum that keeps 80% of the people of America employed.

This is true, much of the wests prosperity is built on the banks which were bailed out, so in reality the bail out will help everyone.

[Trystan]

This is true, much of the wests prosperity is built on the banks which were bailed out, so in reality the bail out will help everyone.

The rich especially.

[RGacky3]

This is true, much of the wests prosperity is built on the banks which were bailed out, so in reality the bail out will help everyone.

Exactly, in this system, the poor depend on the rich for their livelyhood, the same way peasants depend on their lord for their livelyhood. By bailing out the rich they are supporting that kind of system, the trickle down, i.e. keeping the rich in power, and keeping the poor dependant on the rich.

[Killfacer]

Exactly, in this system, the poor depend on the rich for their livelyhood, the same way peasants depend on their lord for their livelyhood. By bailing out the rich they are supporting that kind of system, the trickle down, i.e. keeping the rich in power, and keeping the poor dependant on the rich.

Also true, but this means you must support the bailout to some extent? Without it the poor would become poorer.

[RGacky3]

Also true, but this means you must support the bailout to some extent? Without it the poor would become poorer.

No, because although it saves the poor somewhat, it keeps them subjected to the rich, I support something that saves them AND liberates them, which would be, in the wide sense of the word, revolution.

[Killfacer]

But as it is hugely unlikely that the governments of western countries are going to dissolve themselves, this must be seen as a good step even if it is keeps the poor "oppressed".

[RGacky3]

But as it is hugely unlikely that the governments of western countries are going to dissolve themselves, this must be seen as a good step even if it is keeps the poor "oppressed".


Well your excactly right, which is why people should never rely on the government for anything.

That being said the government could have invested directly to working class people and providing jobs, rather than just holding up Capitalists, I"m not saying thats the answer, or that would nessesarily work, but they could have gone the social-democracy road rather than the corporatist road they've been taking for years.