If Obama is a failure, does that mean the end of American social democracy?

[Marokai Backbeat]

You have got to question your pre-conceived notions.  

And you've got to stop spouting off your utopianistic nonsense and trying to turn terms upside down and inside out acting as if you have the real truth and none of us truly understand the points you're trying to make when, in reality, you're just the political equivalent of the high school stoner philosopher.

Oh dear, perhaps that was a little more harsh than I intended.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You have got to question your pre-conceived notions. 

And you've got to stop spouting off your utopianistic nonsense and trying to turn terms upside down and inside out acting as if you have the real truth and none of us truly understand the points you're trying to make when, in reality, you're just the political equivalent of the high school stoner philosopher.

Oh dear, perhaps that was a little more harsh than I intended.

Utopianistic? LOL. I'm sorry but traditionally, left-wingers of the libertarian sort were ANTI-Utopian unlike socialists and social democrats.

The fact of the matter is he's right. Common ownership has to replace public ownership. This perception of State and Economy being one is going to die.

Perhaps I should've used "delusional" instead. But it's semantics really. The point is simply that I get tired of reading thread after thread where Einzige is spouting off his fantastical philosophy (that apparently you've gotten caught up in to some degree, but given your past tendencies, we can let your political EKG go on) where the political axis is supposedly all wrong, and how we all need to realize certain truths that no one has caught onto yet, and how political alliances are really going to wildly switch and all around nonsense about how things are going to be, or should be, neverrr the saaame agaiiin.

He's really just a one-man philosophy that's just not interested in playing with the rest of the kids properly so he's carved out his own little world. I might be a bit of a dick for saying it, but, I really wish people would get over their obscure philosophies sometime and stop stroking themselves like Einzige does in this thread, and others, and just play nicely with the rest of the playground.

[Marokai Backbeat]

American social democracy can't end, since it never existed.

It did indeed, at one point - I consider Keynesian economics to be little more than social democracy-lite. Their express goal, at any rate, is the same: the indirect redistribution of wealth. And history has shown that merely reappropriating wealth will more often than not get you elected out of office. It offers no lasting legacy that can be built on as the Left gains strength.

You have got to question your pre-conceived notions.  

I actually find the term "social democracy-lite" amusing. Social Democracy is essentially, some might say, socialism-lite, which in turn others call "communism in drag." A "lite" version of another "lite" is not social democracy, it's just social liberalism.

An American version of Social Democracy, being generous, has really only existed in a certain fraction of the population, it was never really a movement, nor a political party, like in many other areas of the world, such as Canada or Europe. A certain faction inside the Democratic Party perhaps resembles the Social Democrats abroad, but they are perhaps a fifth of our government, at best.

The United States is so far behind in progress of other nations precisely because social democracy never actually caught on here. It did with few, and was in vogue for a year or two here and there, but it was never actually strong enough to be in control or change things. There is no American Health Service, there is no program that pays an employee's wages when hard times hit, there is no 50% tax brackets. Liberalism is not Social Democracy.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Everything you know is wrong
Black is white, up is down and short is long
And everything you thought was just so
Important doesn't matter

Everything you know is wrong
Just forget the words and sing along
All you need to understand is
Everything you know is wrong

[Marokai Backbeat]

American social democracy can't end, since it never existed.

It did indeed, at one point - I consider Keynesian economics to be little more than social democracy-lite. Their express goal, at any rate, is the same: the indirect redistribution of wealth. And history has shown that merely reappropriating wealth will more often than not get you elected out of office. It offers no lasting legacy that can be built on as the Left gains strength.

You have got to question your pre-conceived notions.  

I actually find the term "social democracy-lite" amusing. Social Democracy is essentially, some might say, socialism-lite, which in turn others call "communism in drag." A "lite" version of another "lite" is not social democracy, it's just social liberalism.

An American version of Social Democracy, being generous, has really only existed in a certain fraction of the population, it was never really a movement, nor a political party, like in many other areas of the world, such as Canada or Europe. A certain faction inside the Democratic Party perhaps resembles the Social Democrats abroad, but they are perhaps a fifth of our government, at best.

The United States is so far behind in progress of other nations precisely because social democracy never actually caught on here. It did with few, and was in vogue for a year or two here and there, but it was never actually strong enough to be in control or change things. There is no American Health Service, there is no program that pays an employee's wages when hard times hit, there is no 50% tax brackets. Liberalism is not Social Democracy.

[ungodly amount of off topic nonsense]

See, that had nothing to do with what we were talking about, and is why your posts sometimes get on my nerves. We're not talking about what you think about Social Democracy or Liberalism nor how you think they should evolve, again, we're talking about what Social Democracy is in contrast to American-style liberalism. This wasn't supposed to be just another avenue for you to philosophically masturbate all over the Atlas forum. There's a topic here.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Your question was the topic title "If Obama is a failure, does that mean the end of American social democracy?" I responded, as well as others, by saying there never has been such a thing in an organized political force outside of being a faction of the Dems. It wasn't about how you think social democracy should evolve, or how effective social democracy is, or any other of your topics you like to endlessly philosophize on, it is the question of what social democracy "is" in relation to American liberalism and if it ever existed in the first place.

My point was, in relation to something you said, that it's silly to call Keynesian economics "social democracy-lite" when social democracy is a moderate form of another thing to begin with. There can't be a diet-diet-soda. Keynesian economics is Keynesian economics, Social Democracy is Social Democracy, and American Liberalism is American Liberalism. If you want to play these incredible games of stretching definitions to loosely connect the dots between random ideologies, fine, but it basically makes the whole process of even applying terms to something meaningless, and thus this discussion becomes, meaningless.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm the one twisting terms around? Keynesian economics is an economic theory which Social Democracy borrows some of it's positions on, and American Liberalism steals some elements of Social Democracy, but they are not, as you seem to say, interchangeable.