jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (117 posts)

Republicans are socialists

  1. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be aggressive intervention in the economy or you do not.

    Since Republicans are largely in favour of central banking, inflationary policy, monetary stimulus, bail-outs and large public military and security sectors, it would appear they are ideologically closer to socialism than capitalism, even though they are largely capitalistic in their approach to micro economics.

    Annoying both the left and right at the same time is one of my favourite pastimes wink

    1. profile image84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Republicans are not necessarily true conservatives or capitalists.  They are, however, less socialist, based on this limited definition, than democrats.

    2. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But, but, socialism isn't in favour of central banking inflationary policy, bail outs and large military and security sectors!

      1. profile image84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Real republicans aren't for a lot of this.  Do you really think a real conservative would be in favor of government manipulation of the economy, specifically bailouts?  George Bush might have been for this, but that doesn't mean that he represents conservatives by any means. 

        Conservatives aren't for quantitative easing either.  This is fiction.  Conservatives want the least government intervention, and you should know that.  If you don't, you don't know what a conservative is.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          As the only example of what a conservative is the example given to me by the conservative government of the UK  all I can say is that conservatives are fiction then.

          1. profile image84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe your conservatives are.  Our conservatives are rare.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Our's are all over us like a rash!

        2. profile image61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          R(note the capital "r")epublicans are a political party and populated by a whole spectrum of political and economic philosophies.  Ron Paul was a libertarian Michael Bloomberg a liberal.  Almost all "R"epublicans are such because it aids their aspirations to office and power.  "r"epublican is our elective form of government and those who believe in it.   In this way Brits are "r"epublican as are Germans and any other country run by representative governments.

          Conservative, in the American vein, is a small "c" as it represents certain notions about the nature of the individual and his relationship with government, law and society.  "C"onservative is a political party in Britain.  The referenced political party in this thread is the American Republican Party.   

          The Republicans are  nearly as full of stupid and silly notions as the Democrats when it comes to how much money actually belongs to the government and how it should be used.  On policy issues they are just about as greedy, avaricious and envious as Democrats.  The Republicans are Democrats "Lite."  It is for this reason that the Republican Party hacks hate any kind of reform movement.  They hated Reagan.  They HATED Palin.  Now, they hate the TEA party, Rand Paul and Ted Cruze.

          I do not entirely buy the premise that there are only two competing political and economic philosophies, but  it is an interesting jumping off point for examining the validity of certain policies Republicans are foolish enough to support.

        3. mike102771 profile image82
          mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          They want a government small enough to fit into your bedroom.

          1. profile image61
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What national Republican politician advocates policies predicated on what one does in one's bedroom?   There maybe peculiar individuals in some state offices that espouse silly notions, but the Democrat Party isn't free of loons, either.

            1. mike102771 profile image82
              mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Please don't insult the bird (loons) by comparing them to that party roll
              http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7987850_f248.jpg
              As for the rest it is a metaphor for all the moral regulations the party has tried or succeeded in passing. "I want my freedom to regulate your life by my values" sort of argument.

              1. profile image61
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So, nothing real or specific, just the general animosity one can expect in an internet forum.  Clear, got ya, i understand.  By the way, neither gay "marriage" nor abortion occur in "the bedroom," however, because they both involve sex, they tend to peak the interest of those whose primary focus is on reducing all humans to material things - that would be liberals, if you miss that reference.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sodomy laws, you know the ones Santorum is a big fan of?

                  1. profile image61
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Santorum, Santorum - who is he again?  Didn't he do something at one time?  I am trying to figure out how that faded shadow of a candidate has any real influence over the policies of an entire political party.  I am pretty sure Herman Caine fogged the glass longer than did Santorum.  During his brief stint in Congress, did this Santorum fellow ever introduce any anti-sodomy legislation?  or has all of his "opposition" fallen into the sacred and FIRST AMENDMENT protected realm of personal opinion?  Didn't he say," I personally oppose sodomy, but would never seek to ban it."  or is that the dodge liberal Democrat coward Catholics like  Mario Cuomo use to keep receiving the Holy Eucharist.

                2. mike102771 profile image82
                  mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You still need to apologize to the birds (Loons) for calling them members of the Democratic Party.

          2. profile image84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ?  Please explain.  ?

            I have no idea what your talking about.

            1. mike102771 profile image82
              mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The GOP says on one side they want government out of their lives, then they say that they want their values enforced on others as law. The "do as we say" crowd. Now both sides have that crowd.

        4. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Part of socialism's definition is 'intervention in the economy', so all of those things have to be considered socialistic acts.

          It has occurred to me before that there is a gulf between what you believe 'true' socialism is compared to what it strictly is in the real world. All socialists states to date have used a central bank, and most of them have had large militaries. Also, Josak supports central banking.

          I really do wonder what you believe socialism to be.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So the conservatives in the UK bailing out the banks at the expense of the man on the street were acting as socialists!

            Name those socialist states that have used a central bank? You must of course include the US and the UK in that list as both use centralised banks. And while you are at it, name some of those states that have had large military forces for other than defending themselves against imperialism.

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely, and many on the left were in support of such a measure too.

              The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and East Germany all had central banks and large militaries. I see "defending themselves against imperialism" as an arbitrary excuse.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh lord, you have to resort to dragging Nazi Germany and East Germany into support your argument. Neither of them were even remotely socialist. I don'y even agree that the soviet union was socialist - more state capitalism.

                1. innersmiff profile image79
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  They all meet the central assumption of socialism: that voluntary economic affairs must be aggressed against. Whatever your utopian vision of socialism is, you can't deny that.

      2. GNelson profile image84
        GNelsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We have the greed party and more greed party.  You pick which is which, it really doesn't matter.

      3. jdw7979 profile image80
        jdw7979posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The two party system changes to appease their base, and whatever feelings or ideals they may carry at the time.

        Also, if tired of said base, implementation through indoctrination to install a whole new political philosophy is put in motion.

        Democrats had more in common with the current small government conservative in 1860 than Republicans. That mold has obviously changed.. and if you really look hard at these two, especially these days, former conservative republicans are now soft while being basically light weight dems and liberal democrats are now far left progressives.

        The only group that really sticks to their ideals and basic plan are Libertarians.

        So, who really is who anymore? I think there is an identity crisis with the Big Two, and regardless of their political ideals currently, I do not trust either of them!

        1. profile image61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This is an often repeated and purely inaccurate distortion shouted by Democrats to replace the reality of their racist roots.

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's almost as absurd as saying that the GOP are progressives because they "ended slavery"

            1. profile image61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ending slavery has little to do with progressive politics in America since progressivism is a late 19th/early 20th century phenomenon.  The Democrats were the slavery party during the Civil War and the Republican Party was the abolition party.  Historically factual. 

              The elimination of slavery easily adheres to the original ideas of the Declaration of Independence, in so far as it is an expansion of Natural Law Theory over the United States.   This is a conservative idea, in that it is an expansion and perpetuation of the original founding idea of the country rather than an attempt to further the subjugation of an entire group of humans in contradiction to the nations foundational document.  The slave states sought to continue a practice that denied the fundamental nature of humans, just as the old political orders and habits of Europe continued them. 

              Therefore, the Republican Party was the human rights party and the Democrat Party was the human as property party.  Modern liberals tend to cast the Civil War as a states rights issue without understanding the root cause of that war as slavery. 

              Modern liberals continue to ignore and obfuscate the history of their own party by continuing to fete Thomas Jefferson - hypocrite slave holder who promised to free his slaves but sold them instead and Andrew Jackson - violent, ignorant butcher of American Indians.  Democrats love their racist heroes while lying about the racial attitudes of men like Eisenhower, Bush(es) and Reagan. 

              Woodrow Wilson segregated the military and was an avid racist; Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the Klan and filibustered the Civil Rights Act and William J. Fullbright was a staunch opponent of Civil Rights and Desegregation.  Does anyone actually believe that LBJ would have signed the Civil Rights Act if JFK hadn't been slain?

    3. profile image60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

      I would have to agree that Republicans are socialist just like Democrats,Green Party,etc.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Another one who has been reading the big capitalist definition of socialism!

        1. gmwilliams profile image82
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          John, enlighten us.  How would YOU actually describe socialism?   I'll wait...............
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7921673.jpg

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There is this thing called the dictionary...

            1. gmwilliams profile image82
              gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I KNOW what socialism means.   However, John seems to have a different take on the word as you do.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It's strange, the two socialists on this forum seem to have the wrong idea of socialism whilst those who aren't socialists seem to think they have the right idea - something fishy going on here.

                I'll give you a hint, unemployment payments are not socialist, in fact the socialist party in the UK fought against them because they saw there purpose and that was to oppress the workers. True socialism means work for everybody.

                1. profile image84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I just think you don't know what a capitalist or a conservative is.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, yeah, any time a conservative or capitalist supports or does something stupid, greedy, illegal, or unpopular, they are not a "true" conservative or a "true" capitalist.  That's the same bull$h!t position that Christians take when crimes are committed by Christians in the name of their religion.

                    1. John Holden profile image59
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Usually when they do something stupid, greedy, illegal or unpopular they call it socialist!

                    2. profile image61
                      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Do you mean the positions consistently taken by McCain, Graham, Hagel, Lugar and now Rubio?  These are not illegal just stupid and liberal, thus rendering them none conservative.  When a Republican does something that mirrors Democrats it is decidedly not conservative, even if it is texting your privates to a co-ed, like Weiner.  It is when a Republican decides that capitulating to Democrat pressures on tax increase, immigration, anti-2nd Amendment policies and other silly liberal ideas that he stops being a conservative - if he was any thing but a pretender to begin with.

                      Michael Bloomberg ran as a Republican because Rudie Giuliani raised the value of that label to record highs in NYC, but, since his election, has worked to contract the freedom of New Yorkers to eat and drink as they choose.  He is not, nor has he ever been a conservative despite the label and he did nothing illegal to be rejected from the ranks of conservatives.

                      Your premise is flawed.  After all, to be rejected by American liberals all you have to do is be pro-life - not an illegal position.  To be embraced by liberals all you have to be is anti-American, anti-Israel or anti-Freedom - as we have witnessed for decades with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Castro, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Yassir Arafat, and the ignominious list rolls on and on....

                    3. profile image84
                      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      How do you come up with this stuff?  Of course there is greed in capitalism.  There are greedy conservatives too. Greed and stupidiy is present in every form of government and every philosophy.  I do not deny that there are greedy or stupid capitalists.  Please provide my quote where I claim this.

                  2. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Then please tell me.

        2. profile image60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't know there was a capitalist book on socialism. I know that taking my money and giving to somebody else is socialism.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, that is exactly the opposite of socialism. It's capitalism that takes your money off you and gives it to the unwanted members of society so they won't come and trash your factories and riot in the streets.

            1. profile image84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              This is simply wrong.  True capitalists don't tax much.

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                True capitalism is no taxation, representing complete recognition of private property and contract. Any move to the contrary has to be considered socialistic.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So by that reckoning the UK Conservative government is more socialistic than the UKs left wing - they must be because the Conservatives all ways tax more highly than the left.

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Taxation is not the only socialistic policy a party can implement, but I wouldn't want to insinuate there was a significant difference between the major parties in the UK.

                    1. Josak profile image61
                      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      There is a fundamental error in your analysis of this whole issue, economically I agree there are only two camps interventionist and non interventionist with a variety of stops along the way but to label non interventionism capitalism and interventionism socialism is wrong on both counts.

                      Socialist based economies can be non interventionist (see syndicalism) and governments can be interventionist without being socialist (see Fascist and communist) so the premise is wrong to begin with.

                      Furthermore the words carry a lot of non economic baggage.

                      Non interventionist economies have proven to be unable to compete with interventionist ones economically, dealing with central banking for example the fiat currency and fractional reserve banking gave the nations that used them enormous ability to raise capital for use in periods of need be that for war for stimulus or for infrastructural spending. This also however introduces an element of instability and when badly used, the potential for bubbles. Unable to compete pretty much all developed nations adopted the superior system.

                    2. John Holden profile image59
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Well since Tory Blur declared his admiration for Thatcher I would have to agree that both major parties in the UK are now right wing capitalist parties.

    4. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

      Besides the bail-out, I don't see any other similitudes with the socialists.

    5. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago

      I agree with you, and here's why.

      The philosopher A.J. Ayer famously claimed of morality, "The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content."

      Why then, are there moral disagreements?  Ayer asserts:

      "But, in all such cases, we find, if we examine the matter closely, that the dispute is not really about a question of value, but a question of fact.  When someone disagrees with us about the moral value of a certain action or type of action, we do admittedly resort to argument in order to win him over to our way of thinking.  But we do not attempt to show by our arguments that he has a "wrong" ethical feeling towards a situation whose nature he has correctly apprehend.  What we attempt to show is that he is mistaken about the facts of the case.  We argue that he has misconceived the agent's motive: or that he  has misjudged the effects of the action, or its probable effects in view of the agent's knowledge; or that he has failed to take into account the special circumstances in which the agent was placed.  Or else we employ more general arguments about the effects which actions of a certain type tend to produce, or the qualities which are usually manifested in their performance."

      PLEASE READ THE ABOVE QUOTE.  It took forever to type tongue.

      While I'm not convinced this is completely true, it is a good rough description.  Most Republicans are not libertarians; they are not against taxes per se.  They think SOME people (not all) on welfare abuse the system, or the government tends to waste a lot of money, so paying too high of taxes is throwing money down a black hole.  Democrats believe people on welfare need it, and the government spends money on social programs efficiently.

      What's really interesting is defense spending.  Republicans generally flip and say the government spends every defense dollar with the efficiency of Rockefeller, while Democrats believe the budget is massively bloated.  I also think beliefs about the efficiency of government are tied into support for universal health care.  If Republicans saw the government as a lean mean service providing machine, I think a sizable majority of them would favor universal health care. 

      So, to tie this back in to supporting your point, the difference between most Democrats and Republicans are FACTUAL differences, just like Ayer says.  If Republicans suddenly decided all welfare recipients were deserving, then I think they would support welfare programs, and if Democrats suddenly decided there was massive corruption in the welfare system, they would reduce their support. 

      You don't have to agree with his verificationism to see his analysis is sharp.

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting point, but I'm struggling to see how it supports mine. I do believe there are ideological differences, but the point I am making is that the difference we are presented with is not a significant difference at all because both parties hold the same basic assumptions.

        You could quite easily say that Republicans' disagreement with Libertarians only lies with their inability to see how society would operate without taxation, and according to the point you're making, make the disagreement meaningless. Then that doesn't support my point at all.

        The quote has made me think, though.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Principles my good man.

          Republicans are not "against government" IN PRINCIPLE the same way libertarians are.  They simply believe the government wastes money, whereas you believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that all taxation is theft and a violation of private property and the non-aggression principle.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Right. Then I completely agree, and is the point I was trying to make to Education Answer.

            1. profile image84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              This was the point I, too, was trying to make.  Conservatives are not against government.  They just don't want excessive, wasteful government, the kind we see right now in America and the kind that is going bankrupt in Europe.  Conservatives want laws.  They just don't want excessive laws that erode liberty. 

              We just went about making our points in a different manner.  Still, good points.

    6. profile image84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago

      This whole discussion is unnecessary.  Conservatives want small  government that is less intrusive.  Socialists want bigger government that offers more services.  They are polar opposites.

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        They both agree that there should be a government, and that it should be intrusive, they are just arguing about how much. Polar opposites, right . . .

        1. profile image84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, modern, your-kind-of-conservative argues that.  Real conservatives believe in a federal government but not like what we have.  They believe in a government that is much, much smaller, one that consumes fewer resources and leaves them for the people to invest.

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, Burkian conservatives (REAL CONSERVATIVES) are fine with a huge police state.  Burke saw the stability of society as the most important thing to preserve and strive for.

            1. profile image84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'll admit my own ignorance about Burke.  I've read about him, but I can't necessarily say that you are or aren't right.  What I can say is that he was from centuries ago, and politics have changed a bit, a lot.  You're looking at modern "conservatives" and people from the 1700's as examples.

          2. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm quoting you directly here: " They believe in a government that is much, much smaller... that consumes fewer resources"

            So you believe in a government. And you believe that that government should consume resources. That's two fundamental things that form the basis of conservatism and socialism. I'm really not seeing any proper ideological differences.

            1. profile image84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Conservatives absolutely believe in a government.  Yes, we know that governments require funding.  What's your point?  Do you really think that conservatives believe in no government or a government that runs on fairy dust?  The difference is in how much government and what cost.  There is a big difference.  Try drinking one shot of vodka versus three bottles and tell me there's no difference.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                EA, I did ask you to define your understanding of "conservative" several pages back. Perhaps you missed it.

                1. profile image84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I've already described what a conservative is.  Look in this thread.

                  John, do you believe republicans are socialists?  I'm gussing that you don't.  I certainly don't.  What do you say?

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Apart from the comment that conservatives don't believe in big government . . . that can't be all can it?

                    And no, I don't believe US republicans are socialist.

                    1. profile image84
                      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Republicans aren't necessarily conservatives.

              2. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The amount of vodka one must drink is not an ideological difference but a practical one. The fact that both socialists and conservatives believe in government do some degree proves that they have an ideological similarity.

                1. profile image84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Conservatives agree with socialists on very little.  This is a stretch.  It's like saying we are similar to ants, because we work together and are animals.  At what point does the comparsion get pointless?

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Here's a question for you then: what would be preferable, socialism or anarchy?

                    1. profile image84
                      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Socialism would be preferable to anarchy.

    7. prettydarkhorse profile image65
      prettydarkhorseposted 3 years ago

      There is no pure capitalism or socialism, mixed to some degree or approximates the economic ideology. America is mixed socialist and capitalist - in between - depending on what party is the majority.

    8. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago
      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I saw his subsequent argument against the NAP a week ago and David Gordon came up with a good rebuttal I thought.
        https://mises.org/daily/6414/In-Defense … Aggression

        I would add that I agree that the limits of an acceptable level of pollution can easily be figured out through the conventions and traditions of the society in question, and enforced through insurance. For example, the owner of a street could say that light must be kept at a certain level, but if there are no such rules, the person looking for a house will have to look somewhere else. With no monopoly deciding the rules there is a greater chance of peaceful solutions.

    9. SparklingJewel profile image67
      SparklingJewelposted 3 years ago

      dictionaries were written by humans, so their definitions change across time and from place to place

      I see conservatives redefining themselves, hence republicans and even democrats...20 years from now what will the common definition be of socialism or conservatism???


      THE answer to what is, anything, can never be found because it is all human ego creation. So this is a conversation that will continue, round and round, to infinity.

      THE only answer to stop the vicious cycles of human ego creations that never work for everyone completely all of the time, is to desire the highest conscience as guide and to continue to seek to understand and live a lifestyle of the pillars of morality and ethics, even some religious thought,  that have been postulated through the centuries. And learn to work on building society by finding and understanding common grounds within groups that you can agree with on what are the most important aspects to agree upon and not letting the other less important aspects divide the group.

     
    working