Extremist views

As an outsider (Canadian), I feel that some of extremist views expressed on this forum are actually hurting the democrat cause. You're mostly preaching to the converted and any moderate visitors or even swing voters are likely to be turned against the democrats for some of these views, even if they dislike Bush.

It's unfortunte that the USA basically has a two-party system, because the polical spectrum within the Democratic party is much too wide. Many people here are outright socialists while the mainstream Democrat tends to be pro-capitalism with some social conscience.

Sorry to tell you, but if you guys are really interested in living in a socialist country, you're going to have to move out of the USA. FYI, I live in Canada and I confirm to you that Canada isn't exactly socialist either.

To me, there's a big difference between being a liberal and a socialist. Socialism is not liberty.

Sure. OK.

...by spouting all this bullshit about "Kerry vs. Bush, no difference".

not vote for or support Kerry at all.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and for the record, I have stated multiple times (search my posts) Kerry has my vote, cyberstalking notwithstanding.

Are you saying that people should aspire to moderation? Or that a progressive's dream is unattainable in America?
And what's your solution?

If I'm an extremist, it's because the right wing is so extreme it has made perfectly mainstream left-wing beliefs look/sound like socialism. If "moderates" don't like that, I can cope.

than you think. CM may be once again just expressing his distaste for Socialists on this site. It's the only type of "extremist" opinion he explicitly dissents from in his post.

I am not familiar with the poster. If you have some history, then ask a question.

Under the current two-party system in the USA, especially when it comes to federal politics, that is the only hope that progressives have.

It sucks, but it's reality.

The only solution would be true proportional representation with a more diverse choice of political parties and ideologies.

If the Democrats turn too far left, the party will not be able to defeat the Republicans. The reality is that Americans, in general, are a pretty conservative bunch of people.

Hey, as an outsider, my main hope is that you guys oust Bush. If Kerry's the person with the best chance to do that, you should all back him. Even if you don't like him, he's the lesser of two evils.

Is that the Republicans are moving the goalposts. Moderates are now called extreme liberal socialists and extreme right wing views are getting more attention and being called mainstream.
I'm afraid this trend might start to spread around the world. Although I realize most people around the world express shock and horror at Bush's policies.

To me extremism is what the neo-cons are offering, or Stalinists. That's extremism. The goalposts have been shifted, not us.

It depends on the... socialism? I'm still not sure if people are refering to socialism the-step-between-capitalism-and-communism-as-outlined-by-marx or socialism the-nicer-word-we-use-for-commies half the time.

Our Socialism is more Methodist than Marx, as the saying goes. It is Social Democracy. We accept that the market exists, but wish to guide it rather than submit to it. We believe Government should mitigate inequality and work for social justice. We believe in strong democracy as close to the people as we can get it. We believe in a balance between humanity's urge to better itself and the well-being of its environment. We believe in equality of opportunity and to strive towards equality of condition. We believe in a guaranteed income for all, and that all should pay taxes according to their means.

57% for legal abortion (Gallup, 2000)

86% agree with the goals of the Civial Rights Movement (Gallup 2000)

83% agree with the goals of the environmental movement (Gallup, 2003)

94% want federal saftey regulations on handguns, 86% even if it makes the guns more expensive (National Opinion Research Center, 2001)

8 out of 10 believe health insurance should be provided equally to everyone in the country (News Hour w/ Jim Lehrer survey, May 16 2000)

62% support changing current laws so that fewer nonviolent offenders go to prison. (Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, 2003)

85% support equal oppertunities in the workforce for gays and lesbians (Gallup, 2003)

58% think labour unions are a good idea (gallup poll, 2002)

It has been suggested, but I'm thinking the parties are afraid they will lose power and have to actually be accountable to the voters. They benefit from the polarization and we don't.

It would decimate their power base almost immediately because the two majors are the bogeymen everybody else would run against.

Also at-large election of all congressmen.

No, of course the parties will not go for it. But hopefully the people of this country can influence events without revolution. (Isn't that the definition of democracy?)

IRV is mathematically and strategically flawed, and also suffers from serious implementation problems.

I live in Canada and we have decent, but not great, social programs to take care of peoples' basic needs.

I was born and grew up in the Netherlands (70's and early 80's) and, to be honest, I would not want the same level of social-democracy they had during that time. It was excessive and it hurt their economy.

I believe in liberalism, but I don't believe we should confortably support all freeloaders.

And I disagree, I believe we should comfortably support all "freeloaders."

You have to qualify (and periodically re-qualify) for a social program eg. AISH.

Being on welfare is a full-time job (all puns intended) going to courses, looking for work. If you haven't done your paperwork - you're toast.

If Canada's economy is so badly affected by socialism, why is it the only G7 country to post a surplus?

I already said in my initial post that Canada is not exactly socialist. It is basically a capitalist country with a few more social programs and regulations than the USA has.

I don't think Canada's economy is badly affected by social programs. I support the level of programs that we current have in place.

Individual Liberty does not work in a system where people must do whats the government deems to be good for all.

You are however, regurgitating stereotypes of socialisms, so congratulations on the indoctrination. Try to understand the difference between socialist principles and communism.

Socialist democracy is the richest form of democracy, and it is an ideal to be striven for. Some of the greatest examples of this are in the writings of social anarchists and progressives. In recent times, Howard Zinn describes the kind of American society that I believe would be far more just and far more free for far more people, and explains the apporpirate contributions of socialism and progressive thinking.

Doesn't fit into that, IMO. Paper communism, not commufacism ala China.

n/t

It's a (very) loose group of people who are (mostly) Democrats. Some are farther to the left. Others are far right; the less stealthy of these get tombstoned. Many different viewpoints are expressed.

Thanks for our advice about the Red Menace. Keep your stick on the ice!

but my only concern is that you guys don't lose sight of the fact that Kerry is the only person who can oust Bush.

In the current system, if you don't vote for Kerry, you may as well vote for Bush. It's pretty sad, but it's reality.

Don't let the world down America. Anybody but Bush. Go Kerry!

As a Texan, I was told that my 2000 presidential vote wouldn't matter since Bush was going to carry the state. I even contemplated voting for Nader--I liked lots of the Green platform & am probably far too Left for your tastes.

But I abandoned that idea as the election neared & Nader kept campaigning in states still in play. I proudly voted for Gore (& all the other Democrats on the ballot). It turned out that nobody's vote "mattered" unless they were on the Supreme Court.

So I'll gladly vote for Kerry. I'll hope for something more to my tastes in the future. But I want there to be a future.

Socialism protects people's liberties more than 'liberal' democracy. But nevermind that, and especially nevermind that all the hardline Marxists and socialists I know are ABB, you go on being afraid of the red menace.

Does not protect anyone's liberties....it stiffles innovation and creativity and makes it not worth it to show any innitiative, thereby lowering the quality of just about everything. Why put your heart into something if the government is just going to take it away and give it someone who didn't put a damn thing into it?

Heyo

Maybe because humans are not only motivated by the mighty $? Or do you reckon no innovative research or creative thinking has ever gone on in socialist countries?

PS Besides of which, the vast majority of workers are better off under a socialist system fincancially as well as in other ways.

You seem to confuse the two. Let me put it this way, helping those in need to get out of the hole they are in helps society. We're not talking about eliminating capitalism, just limiting it through checks and balances. How can people innovate when living from paycheck to paycheck? Or working 90+ hours a week to support their family? Being one paycheck away from homelessness, with no opportunities to improve?

The thing that people assume is that socialism=communism=total government control of means of production. Let me ask then, are community owned banks communism? City owned utilities, public schools, or even the far out idea of government run health care? I think the debate should revolve around how to encourage innovation on an equal footing. Not everyone having the exact same pay, but everyone having the same opportunity for success or failure. The best way in my opinion, is to ensure everyone that the costs of health care is spread to the entire populace therefore reducing the cost to the individual. To ensure that you do not have to work over 40 hours a week to support yourself, and when you really succeed to actually live well. To ensure that your employer will not abuse their power over you as an individual. To make sure that when you fail, you do not starve, so you can try again. That is what I am for, what about you?

... to each according to their WORK.

What you're talking about is communism -- from each according to their means, to each according to their needs.

Under socialism, everybody works. Also, everyone gets to share in the fruits of that labor, as opposed to the majority of benefits going to those who happen to hold large amounts of idle capital (like under modern-day laissez-faire capitalism).

You could not come off as more misinformed on the subject of socialism if you consciously set out to do so.

I have to disagree slightly here - neither communism nor socialism would either stifle innovation or disincentivise people from working. I am a socialist myself, but I think both socialism and communism are incomparably better alternatives to the status quo.

You will always have inequities in society, as some jobs are simply more skilled than others, meaning that a smaller number of people will be able to do them. The key is to minimize those inequities, and to also make them relative to the difference in importance of their jobs to the overall health of society.

The Rev. William Sloane Coffin said recently in an interview with Bill Moyers, "We need to keep asking the socialist questions, but not necessarily rely on the socialist answers." I could think of no better quote than to sum up my personal philosophy, which continues to evolve over time. The one constant, however, is the asking of the basic socialist questions of how to eliminate exploitation and gross inequity, and how to form a society that takes care of each other and the environment for future generations.

IMHO, foresight is the next big evolutionary leap that humankind must make if it is to survive. It is becoming quite clear that we will not survive without it, as we will literally destroy our own environment, much like a virus rather than a mammal.

A few more thoughts on edit...

You are failing to take into account the issue of power concentration within a society. Under communism, there absolutely MUST be a powerful, centralized state apparatus to effect the transition to a communist system. The dangers of this centralization can be readily pointed out by referencing Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, etc. The reason I advocate democratic socialism and do not embrace communism is because democratic socialism advocates a diffusion of power throughout society to prevent its abuses. Democratic socialism is more about reprioritizing society to valuing people over profits than it is about focusing on the forced redistribution of material wealth in a more equitable manner in order to achieve a peaceful and happy society, as is espoused by communism.

The reason I am a socialist and not a communist is that while I agree with communists on nearly all practical questions, I disagree with them on the theoretical direction in which they want society to go. For example, I do not think that all jobs are equally important for a society to function (as I suspect from your post neither do you), but I do believe that everyone should have a wage and living conditions that treats them with the dignity they deserve as a human being. So that is redistribution, and if it means that the very richest in society will have to come back down to Earth a bit then I couldn't care less about that. But this is a 1% difference in direction which does not undermine the 99% agreement on practical policy between myself and communists.

A communist society would be infinitely more democratic than the current shambles of 'liberal' democracy IMO, because it would involve the concrete empowerment of the working class as opposed to the bone of 'voting' that is chucked at its feet currently. It irritates me when people suggest that communism stifles innovation, because they regard human beings as being motivated only by fincancial reward in their actions. But as I said before, I suspect we agree on most things in practice anyway.

All I have to say.

I believe that corporations cannot regulate themselves, that the people through government has to put limits on how they operate.

I believe it is the right of every person on the planet to have access to health care without having to sell their home.

I believe in the right to self-determination, and the right to be represented in my government.

I believe in that we need to give those who need help to give them that help so that they can get back on their feet.

I believe anyone should be able to support themselves on one 40 hour a week job.

I believe all workers should have the right to organize as they see fit, to improve working conditions for themselves.

These are a few of the beliefs I have, does that make me an extremist? Socialist? I do not know, but to me it seems like common sense.

A place to stay, enough to eat,
Em C
Somewhere old heroes shuffle safely down the street
G D
Where you can speak out loud about your doubts and fears,
Em
And what's more no-one ever disappears,
Cmaj7
You never hear their standard issue kicking in your door
G D
You can relax on both sides of the tracks,
Em C D7/C
And maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control,
G D
And everyone has recourse to the law,
C G Em
And no-one kills the children anymore
C G
No-one kills the children anymore

I'm moderate dem myself who will vote for Kerry, I agree totally, but the way to get our voice heard on this forum is for people like us to stick around and let our views be heard.

expressed on this forum are actually hurting my eyes, on account of excessive rolling. :eyes:

What is a moderate anyway? Where is the centre? From my personal perspective and background Social Democracy is a moderate viewpoint.

What's moderate in Canada is considered socialist by many Americans.

The international definition of "liberal" is also very different from the US definition of "liberal".

I'm sure they consider you an outright commie in Calgary.B-)

I'm probably somewhat right-of-centre when it comes to Toronto politics. I have even voted Progressive Conservative in the past though I'm mainly a Liberal.

In case you didn't notice, this place is called the Democratic UNDERGROUND. If you're looking for mainstream views, go populate the DNC website. Places with the label "underground" tend to attract people who are a little out of the "mainstream".

On the whole, your post is extremely misinformed and stereotypical.

Many people here are outright socialists while the mainstream Democrat tends to be pro-capitalism with some social conscience.

One way to interpret this statement would be to say that many people here want to look at the root causes of gross inequities in society in order to minimize/eliminate them, while the mainstream Democrat just happens to feel a bit guilty about those inequities, so he/she advocates nibbling around the edges of the root causes in order to feel better about him/her self without really changing the inequities.

Sorry to tell you, but if you guys are really interested in living in a socialist country, you're going to have to move out of the USA. FYI, I live in Canada and I confirm to you that Canada isn't exactly socialist either.

How many people here have said that they wanted to live in a socialist country? I'm a democratic socialist, and I have never said such a thing. What I WOULD like for us to do, however, is to seriously ask the socialist QUESTIONS about our society, even if we're not necessarily relying on the socialist ANSWERS to them. That at least would be a start toward recognizing some of the real problems, rather than continuing to pretend they don't exist.

To me, there's a big difference between being a liberal and a socialist. Socialism is not liberty.

Socialism means from each according to his means, to each according to his WORK. Nothing about freeloaders there -- according to socialism, all able-bodied people are expected to work. But they're also expected to be able to share in the production from the work of society. Someone being paid adequately for their work seems to do a helluva lot more to promote liberty, IMHO, than the amassing of fortunes through exploitation and possession of idle capital. If you're interested in a "type" of socialism that might challenge your preconceived notions, I'd suggest you check out http://www.dsausa.org.

*defining terms ("socialism," "liberty")--A+++++++
*provides new, useful information--A+++++++++++++++++++++++++
*brings fresh insight or fresh view of a previously overlooked issue--A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


i'd say that that's about.... a 6.2 on a 0.0-4.0 scale.

:hi:

How the heck are ya, anyway? Still expressing your righteous indignation at the sorry state of the world? ;-)

you know. same as always. also good to see you around still.