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

[k-onmmunist]

We live in hope.

[k-onmmunist]

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.

[k-onmmunist]

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.

I see. And how is he 'delusional' in this thread? He simply asked a question and pointed out the methods Keynes and ilk came up with aren't applicable to the current situation. Social democracy is simply a cruel joke; it seeks to guarantee workers rights to the means of production by taking it into the state's hands. The fact is, the means of production SHOULD be owned by workers, but not on behalf of the state; by ACTUAL worker's ownership, which has worked so well with the Co-operative in Britain and Mondragon in Spain for example.

The state, while I'm sure you think it means well, has only it's own interests in mind. They are simply in the pay of huge corporations, and the best way to end the dominance of the military-industrial complex is to do away with the state and to introduce mutual credit and ACTUAL worker's ownership through association.

[k-onmmunist]

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.

Far behind? There is no such thing as progress, and anyone who has any basic knowledge of politics should be able to tell you that. If you think otherwise, you're simply being egotistical and intellectually dishonest.

[k-onmmunist]

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

So glad you heeled. Good night.

[k-onmmunist]

Marokai why do you feel the need to be so condescending towards posters of different views?