House of Eratosthenes

A new poll has really got a lot of people chattering around the innerwebs and elsewhere. It says two thirds of self-identified Republicans believe President Obama is a socialist. Those who would like more people to be receptive to President Obama in general, and to His policies in particular, have responded the way they always do: Like a six year old who has no arguments. Yoooooouuuu’re Stooooooooopppiiiidddd!!!!

This argument was already hashed out a couple months into Obama’s term. Similar technique. Identify the attack as a “myth,” pick out some factoids that pose a little bit of a problem for the attack, and then act as if you’ve rained down a devastating salvo upon the argument and pronounce it “debunked.” Don’t treat it with any respect at all; that way, you can start out precisely where you want to end up, and not do any intellectual work at all.

OF ALL THE inane accusations about President Obama, the silliest has to be this: The president is a socialist.

Obama’s plans are “one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment,” asserts House minority leader John Boehner. He’s “the world’s best salesman of socialism,” says Republican Senator Jim DeMint.

“Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff,” declares Mike Huckabee. Sean Hannity derides his agenda as “socialism you can believe in.” Obama is “a radical communist,” warns kooky Alan Keyes.

“Epithets are substituting for thinking,” observes Marc Landy, professor of political science at Boston College.

Are they ever.

Well…funny thing about that. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term rather broadly.

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

And I’m thinking Definition #1 qualifies Him pretty easily. President Obama is generally not neutral on the question of centralizing decision-making authority, particularly when it comes to running businesses. And He certainly isn’t generally hostile to such centralization.

If you want to assert that Obama is taking us down a road that would, if pursued to the end, ultimately lead to communism — and I’ve got a feeling a great many of those polled would say precisely that — then it becomes reasonable to qualify Him under the third definition as well.

The dictionary definitions all mirror each other so perfectly, it seems they are xeroxed from a common prototype. There is one exception: Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unless the “mods” don’t like the edit that you did, in which case you are a “vandal” and they’ll revert it right back again.

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

Not centralized control, not collective control, not government control; worker control. Got their material out of a socialist pamphlet, it would seem.

Turn to the talk page, and you’ll find a real party goin’ down.

Barack Obama is not a socialist. Anybody with even the most basic knowledge of socialism is perfectly aware of that.

Like I said. Yoooooouuuuurrrr’e Ssstttooooooooooopid!!!

And there’s more.

And besides, “national socialization” is a nonsense phrase. Get an education!
——–
If we’re calling Obama socialist, we’d might as well call Bush fascist by those standards
——–
I think that the widespread description of Obama as socialist is an important factor in society, particularly among the political right, but at the same time I think that it should be noted as largely baseless accusations and not as widely accepted.
——–
Obama is not particularly seen as a socialist. The political right just uses it as a meaningless buzzword for anyone they don’t approve of. Bill Clinton was called a socialist plenty of times as well.
——–
Obama is no sort of socialist. Period.

That is the form and substance of the counterargument. Shut up!

But this one has gotta take the cake:

Another Vandal Oh dear. While we are over here on the talk page discussing the fact that Obama is nearly as far from Socialism as Reagan yet another vandal was linking Obama into the Socialism page. I can tell this one will be on my watchpage basically indefinately.

You don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I’m sure the ostensible reason for the “watchpage basically indefinately” [sic] is so that Wikipedia preserves its value as a resource, to enhance the reasons people would have for going there, and diminish the reasons they would have for going somewhere else. Simonm223‘s achievement, I’m afraid, is the polar opposite of the intent behind it.

And no, before anyone asks: I’m not the vandal. I guess there are quite a few of us getting snookered by this.

I’m still waiting for something to save me from being hoodwinked. So far I’m not saved. One thing you will not find at that talk page, or anywhere else so far as I can see, is this: What, exactly, do you have to do to fulfill a minimalist litmus test for this word, that the Obama administration has not, in fact, done?

The whole question, once evaluated logically, would boil down to essentially that. Wouldn’t it? What am I missing here?

We, as in most Canadians who’ve ever lived thru a Socialist government (NDP Party), knew even before he was voted into office he was a socialist. Everything about Obama’s politics are socialist. In order to get him elected, they called it Democrat… but in reality, its really Social Democracy… and there is a difference. The NDP bankrupted many a province with their lofty ideals

KC
- KC | 02/04/2010 @ 09:12
You know, I didn’t make the connection while I was scribbling the above, but it reminds me of the WMD thing. Oh you found some Sarin, but it was in a really old shell. Oh you found some Ricin. But it wasn’t weaponized. Oh you found some Anthrax but it wasn’t treated with silicon so it would be a proper aerosol. Oh you found some Uranium but that wasn’t what Secretary Powell was talking about. NONE of it counts so we still get to ask “where in the heck are the WMD?”

Except in that argument, the left had some pretty convincing points to make. It devolved into a “You must see things my way for this to make sense, but let’s not fixate on that” and they managed to fly it under the radar of most people. On this issue…they’re splitting hairs still, but deftly avoiding any discussion of HOW.
- mkfreeberg | 02/04/2010 @ 09:34
Earlier this week I left a comment expressing the same thoughts on a youtube video out there somewhere:

if Socialized Medicine isn’t socialism … if nationalizing companies isn’t socialism … if redistribution of wealth isn’t socialism … maybe we have diffferent dictionaries.
- philmon | 02/04/2010 @ 09:36
“national socialization” is a nonsense phrase. Get an education!

Isn’t “national socialism” simply the long form of the more familiar term “nazi?” I think the person who wrote this sentence is the one in need of education.
- cylarz | 02/05/2010 @ 00:05
If we’re calling Obama socialist, we’d might as well call Bush fascist by those standards.

I have never understood the origin of this bit of “reasoning.” What, exactly, was “fascist” about any plank of the Republican party’s platform in general or Bush’s agenda in particular? No, seriously. I want to know.

The Patriot Act? Riiiiiiiight.

Is anyone else getting sick of the Left throwing around words and phrases that it does not really understand? Their misuse of the word “fascist” is even more tiresome than their misuse of “peer-reviewed.”
- cylarz | 02/05/2010 @ 00:10
Is anyone else getting sick of the Left throwing around words and phrases that it does not really understand? Their misuse of the word “fascist” is even more tiresome than their misuse of “peer-reviewed.”

Oooh! Ooooh! Meeeeeeeeee! 😉

I also love this new tactic … or maybe it isn’t so new… of pretending to be open to other ideas if they’re “legitimate” or from a “legitimate” source.

Ties back in to the whole peer review thing. If you get to define away everyone who does not agree with you as a non-peer… doesn’t mean much at that point.
- philmon | 02/05/2010 @ 06:35
Isn’t “national socialism” simply the long form of the more familiar term “nazi?”

Odd way of putting it, since the long version came first. Nazi is short for Nationalsozialist … which was a term for supporters of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party

Be very suspicious about any political movement with the word “workers” in the title.

The fascism was the Italian National Socialist movement. Hairs are split about how “socialistic” national socialism really was because the global socialists (eg: the Soviets) considered it “right-wing” socialism, which is probably why the term is used. Either way, they were collectivist systems. And does it really matter if the state runs the corporations or the corporations run the state? Either way, the State and Corporations are one in these systems.

National Socialism was considered “right-wing” because of it’s emphasis on strong, strict, social control.

But are you really going to try to convince me that the Soviets didn’t use strict social control?

I think the globalists kid themselves about how different they really are, and how egalitarian they really are.
- philmon | 02/05/2010 @ 08:04
I forgot a little winky after the “odd way of putting it” bit. I meant to be a winky jab. nudge nudge. wink wink.

We’re really on the same page, I was just expounderating.
- philmon | 02/05/2010 @ 08:05
Phil, my observation is that fascism, socialism, communism, and nazi-ism may have fine differences between them, but they’re all on the left nonetheless. I take enormous umbrage with the people who’ve been spewing this nonsense for years, this idea that fascism or nazi-ism in particular are on the right. They aren’t.

To argue that they’re on the right, is to suggest that some political ideal that IS found on the right, would lead to nazi-ism or fascism if carried to its logical conclusion. The moment anyone suggests that, I am going to demand to know: Exactly which one would that be?

The Right, at least in this country, as a group, favors lower taxes, smaller government, gun rights, less discretionary non-defense spending, free speech, and individual rather than group rights. Those things have always been part of the conservative agenda. We had the same platform in the 1930s (when fascism and nazi-ism were catching on in Europe) as we do today. The Republican party wanted to let the market sort itself out during the Depression; socialist ideas like the New Deal came from the Left. Fascism takes away freedom and requires government to control the means of production. The Right doesn’t favor any of that. It favors capitalism. None of our ideas would take our nation toward fascism; just the opposite.

Yes, some of the fascist leaders adopted ideas that would appeal to conservatives, like “law and order,” but in practice that meant siccing the army and police forces on anyone who dared do anything which opposed the state’s agenda.

The idea that any flavor of fascism is to be found on the Right is absurd. And I’m beyond tired of hearing people suggest otherwise. It’s a lie and I’m sick of it.
- cylarz | 02/05/2010 @ 12:32
So we’re agreed then, cylarz.

I hope you didn’t think that I am arguing that they are on the right. Rather, I was explaining where that false charge idea came from, because I, too, am sick and tired of it.

The charge came from the global socialists, to whom their brothers appeared to be to the right of them, relatively speaking.

If you go check the longer post I turned this comment into at my place, it’s probably clearer — especially since I argue there that the globalists were just as bad with the social controls as the national socialists — the global socialists (eg; the Soviets and their ilk) were deluding themselves if they thought otherwise.

The global socialists are what we think of as communists, who in theory wanted complete top to bottom central planning — not cooperation and mutual co-pting. As I said in my post, though, does it really matter if the state runs the corporations or if the corporations run the state? Tomato, Tomahto …

My point is that the idea that the national socialists were “right-wing” comes from argumets between people on the left.

Frankly the whole “right-left” thing is too simple. It’s a linear scale. The World’s Smallest Political Quiz is much more realistic. There’s really no room for Libertarians on the right-left scale. Morgan and I took a similar one a while back. I ended up over Thomas Jefferson’s heart. Which warmed mine. 🙂
- philmon | 02/05/2010 @ 21:05
(a better term than “linear” would be “one dimensional”. The World’s Smallest Political Quiz is two-dimensional)

Oh… and that’s an “edit-o”. Not “false charge idea” …. but rather just “false charge”.

But you get the idea. 😉
- philmon | 02/05/2010 @ 21:27
[…] for being a socialist that the President fails to meet. That never seems to happen. They just threaten to make fun of me or anyone else who dares to call Him a […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 04/06/2010 @ 06:04
[…] now helping them with that. To the best of my knowledge, Congressman Paul never did take on my favorite question about this: So if ya wanna be called a socialist, what exactly do ya gotta […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 04/11/2010 @ 07:31
[…] things. Nobody’s been able to supply a good logical explanation for what socialists are supposed to do and say, that He hasn’t done or said. Why is there any disagreement, anywhere, that He is one? 6. The […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/04/2010 @ 06:45
[…] that’s a problem. As we’ve pointed out before, it’s pretty hard to come up with something a socialist is supposed to do, that the President has not in fact already done. Inglis is effectively saying if you’re a socialist, once you manage to get yourself elected […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 08/09/2010 @ 07:40
[…] We seem to be caught up in a big national debate about socialism. I notice the socialists are lately deploying an argument that could be expressed as “if you think a socialist is what I am then you obviously don’t know what socialism is.” I hear lots of people begin this argument but then they don’t complete it — they don’t say what exactly it is a socialist does, that they are not doing. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 12/07/2010 @ 06:52
[…] If you’re going to discuss in detail how an established word does not apply to an established person or thing…seems to me the emphasis needs to be on the gap. What is required that is not being met. In other words…if Barack Obama wants to be a socialist, what else has He gotta do? […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/14/2012 @ 19:20
[…] up to four now. Five and six would be: Simple things complex, and vice-versa. Calling Obama a socialist is often met with angry rebuttals, taking the form “do you know what that word means?” […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 11/07/2012 @ 11:44

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

So If You Wanna Be a Socialist, Whaddya Gotta Do?Thursday, February 4th, 2010

So If You Wanna Be a Socialist, Whaddya Gotta Do?
Thursday, February 4th, 2010