BF2S Forums In Defense of Equality ; an argument for democratic socialism

President Barack Obama declared to an audience of Argentinian youth that the differences between socialism and capitalism make interesting discussions but, ultimately, they should just do whatever works.

“So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said during a town hall meeting in Buenos Ares.

“Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical, and just choose from what works,” Obama continued. “You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works.”

Obama wrote:

You have to be practical in asking yourself: How do you achieve the goals of equality and inclusion, but also recognize the market system produces a lot of wealth and goods and services and innovation and it also gives individuals freedom because they have initiative. Depending on the problem you are trying to solve, depending on the social issues you are trying to address, what works? What you’ll find is the most successful societies and economies are the ones that are rooted in a market-based system but also realize a market does not work by itself. It has to have a social and moral and ethical and community basis. And there has to be inclusion otherwise it is not stable.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03 … apitalism/

Have we ever had a president acknowledge the benefits of some socialist policies? What a big change we have made in just a short amount of time. Obama's time in academia seems to have broadened his views in a way that Bush or Clinton never experienced. It reminds me of Woodrow Wilson's acknowledgment that the American government is built in a ridiculous way compared to the governments of the other great powers while he was the director of Princeton.

"Choose from what works," says financially-secure guy when there are people who have to pay more to get health insurance now than before there was Obamacare.

I'm now on a platinum plan and I pay about $5 more a month.  Thanks Obama!

Stalin ran as a Democratic Socialist.  Only a stupid person would want a central government to collect all of a countries wealth.  US does that now and our rights are already eroding.

Stupid people are so stupid.

yo he got that last line right though

Why does America need a Republican party? Its already a Republic.

The worst thing about socialist groups is how reflexively they are against any military action or investment. Especially if a western government does it. It makes it hard to read socialist sources when every other piece of news is a denouncement of the U.S. military.

Workers should have more control and power but we shouldn't adopt pacifism. If anything pacifism hurts workers.

Uh huh

I don't want to bomb everywhere. I only want to bomb Syria. Maybe Yemen.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

And making weapons to sell provides good paying middle class jobs.

Aww, someone read Saul and took away the wrong message.

Nevermind. You know what's more productive than building and dropping bombs? Everything. You could pay people to dig and fill in ditches all day long. It would be more productive.

The Saudi Arabians aren't going to pay Americans to dig ditches. I agree that we get better returns not building some weapons. But as far as exporting and selling them goes, it is great. American socialist shouldn't oppose international weapons sales.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Nevermind. You know what's more productive than building and dropping bombs? Everything. You could pay people to dig and fill in ditches all day long. It would be more productive.

There's nothing actually wrong with the building part, it allows the govt to bootstrap hi tech industry which does have some spinoff benefits.

Its the dropping them on people bit that's counterproductive. When the govt was paying to fire missiles into space that was fine, paying to fire missiles at third-world countries less so.

In the end any govt spending winds up as burnt oil or coal, the trick is to maximise the productive benefit along the way.
The govt could just buy oil and burn it, or it can set challenges such as dam-building and moon-shots, which are ultimately just as futile but do have real trickle-down benefits and do take us forward.

So just fund pure research then. It doesn't have to be military oriented. The whole technology research thing is a marketing tool they use to justify the expense.

I'd rather see the money go into infrastructure. At least at the end of the day you have a new bridge or highway or train system - something that actually improves quality of life rather than collecting dust in a desert like the thousands of excess Abrams tanks we've built and instantly mothballed. Macbeth is right though, the arms trade does employ a helluva lot of people. It's just about the only effective jobs program that our government has, and the only way for people in Congress to actually claim effectiveness in creating jobs. All those campaign promises about job creation and the best they can actually do is squeeze Lockheed to build a 50 person plant in their district.

The reason Republicans are so gung-ho about military spending isn't because they necessarily want to drop bombs on 3rd world countries, but because the defense industry has deftly set up shop in their districts. If they cut military spending they will be blamed for the factory in their district closing down.

Last edited by Jay (2016-04-15 08:12:35)

It's not focused on jobs, it's focused on giving defense contractors a lot of money.

And Jay I agree with you all the way up until the idea that Repubs are gung-ho about military because the defense companies set up shop in their district.  This does happen frequently, but politicians follow the money - both Dems and Repubs reward the people who lobby them.  Repubs are generally more gung-ho on military in rhetoric and from a platform perspective because the American "right" generally skews that way.