Try this then:

1) Find anybody who self-identifies as a socialist.

2) Ask them if Obama is a socialist.

3) Make more excuses when you fail.


I love webdip. No matter how obvious a simple point is, there's always one giant tool who has to come on and take issue with it. Today, that tool is you, Invictus. Congrats?

It was a joke

Obama is no socialist. Socialists actually expect the citizens to participate...throw in what they can. Obama is pretty content to let a large number of people do nothing and still collect form the government...so I don't even know what the hell he is.

That's a really terrible argument, YJ.

The point is that Obama's not a socialist (and Kshama's awesome). There's not much else to it.

Really, semck?

Is it as convincing as the one you just made for why it's a terrible argument?

@invictus sorry then :)

I was giving you a chance to recant before I humiliated yoiu.

No you weren't, you were waiting for me to say something stupid so you'd have something to actually follow up on. Today I won't do you the favor, and instead await the shredding due to me at your hands in its current form.

Actually Yellowjacket, what you said was pretty stupid. Obama isn't a socialist (he's the apotheosis of American liberalism), but saying he's not a socialist because socialists say he's not a socialist is nonsensical.

You're the 2nd person to say that, but it doesn't seem quite so obvious to me. Would you care to elaborate?

I'm not saying it's definitive proof, but it seems to me to be fairly weighty evidence. Certainly should not be dismissed out of hand, as you two seem to be doing.

One isn't a socialist because socialists say one is, one is a socialist because one believes in socialism or, when in power, pursues socialist policies. Obama hasn't really done either (at least since he's been in public life), so he isn't a socialist. It's his actions and beliefs which define his being or not being a socialist, not what other people may say.

All true all true.

And if I may tack onto the end of this clear argument one simple question:

What one group of people is best positioned to describe most accurately what it means to be a socialist, or what policies a socialist might pursue?

Anyone knowledgeable in the subject. If you listened to some socialists the only socialist state that ever existed was Albania.

By which I mean your blanket statement that if one socialist says another person is not a socialist that is not, in and of itself, enough to mean that that person is not a socialist.

"What one group of people is best positioned to describe most accurately what it means to be a socialist, or what policies a socialist might pursue?"

Cool, a quiz question. Is it lumberjacks?

Well invictus, that is a misrepresentation of my blanket statement, which was that if a group overwhelmingly says a person is not a member, the truth of that statement ought to be generally accepted at face value. The opinions of one individual are fairly meaningless (barring the experts you mention).

In other words, since every political group from Fascists to Communists disavow Barack Obama in their political accord - every group, that is to say, except American Democrats, is it not reasonable to conclude that Obama is not a socialist, fascist, or republican. In fact even to conclude with a marginally high degree of confidence that Obama is in fact an American Democrat?

To do otherwise appears to be defining political movements by what their opposition believes they mean, as opposed to their own beliefs.

Now you're trying to edit what you said.

OK. First I'll just note that I'm not actually asserting that Obama is a socialist -- just that this is a poor argument for why he's not.

There are two problems with it. First, socialism is a set of ideas, not a social club. If you want to know if somebody is a shriner, maybe ask the shriners. But anybody can judge whether somebody adheres to a particular set of philosophical ideas based on his own statements.

To complicate this, there's the fact that being a socialist is a socially unfavorable thing to be in the US, so you can't necessarily find "a socialist" except those more than usually devoted.

Second, most political persuasions who get somebody in power end up being disappointed by that person's compromises. I know a lot of conservatives who will argue that George W. Bush was not a conservative, not even close to conservative. You tell me if this is a reasonable position.

So, in brief, for various reasons, acting like a person of persuasion X is a dispositive authority on whether another person in power is also of persuasion X is wrong, and a fallacy.

I left the window open from earlier. I see these points have already been successfully made.

"Well invictus, that is a misrepresentation of my blanket statement, which was that if a group overwhelmingly says a person is not a member, the truth of that statement ought to be generally accepted at face value"

No, you're ignoring the additional fact that "socialist" has an extremely negative connotation in the US. If there were actually a socialist in the white house, it would be in the overwhelming interests of socialists to deny that he was a socialist, since if he were recognized as one, it would become much harder for him to accomplish things.

No. I suppose it's quite possible due to my usual poor wording that you could interpret my meaning that any one individual can speak for an entire group. However, that would have been a patently ludicrous point for me to try to make. Even in your response you acknowledge the implied plural - "not a socialist because socialists say", you do it twice in two separate posts (7:48 & 7:58). It isn't until your 3rd response that you clarify this "singular" idea. At best you are guilty of the same vagueness as I.

It's fairly irrelevant to me, however, what you thought I meant, or what I thought you meant. If you wish to insist that you have eloquently and masterfully argued me off of so ridiculous a position, by all means do tell the world how you feel. More importantly, it seems clear that we both understand each others position now, and it seems you do not take further issue with my argument.

^^ that was for invictus... semck shall follow.

@ semck:

So you have a two part answer, the first problem being, much like invictus argues, that a person can judge for himself based on the merit of voting records, statements, etc. whether or not another person is, indeed a socialist. The opinions of other socialists need not enter the equation.

As with Invictus, I won't disagree with this statement, since it doesn't seem to contradict my position, which is that it is not unreasonable to judge whether or not a person belongs to a club by the opinions of other members of that club when overwhelming consensus is reached that he is or is not. It's not foolproof, but its certainly not unreasonable.

In your second point, you seem to attempt to dismiss my argument with a counterexample of good old GW. This would be effective, if you could show a consensus amongst self-identified conservatives that GW is not one of them - the same consensus that socialists would give about Obama. I presume that you cannot do so, and being a reasonable man will admit that it is unlikely that such a consensus exists.

To your final... afterthought.... I can name several examples of socialists (and other "outlying" political parties who have been voted into office, who have not tried to hide the fact that their views are not mainstream, since it helps brings their party's message further into the forefront. Can you, Senator McCarthy, present examples of your claim, that there exists a conspiracy among avowed socialists to cover up other socialists election to office because they are afraid of backlash and obtaining political goals? Or is that just conjecture?

YJ this is honestly really dumb and you're better than this

Thank you for that well thought out counter-argument President Eden. After taking these new facts into consideration, it has become clear that my position is untenable and I retreat forthwith.

For what it's worth, I agree pretty much with what YJ has been saying here.

YJ,

I said nothing about a conspiracy, of course. Quite the contrary. I said motives exist that encourage such behavior. Where those motives exist, a conspiracy is not needed.

You also mischaracterized my point about it being unacceptable to be a socialist in the US. The point is that, when you talk about "avowed socialists," you are already talking about (I claim) a rather extreme group of socialists, since there are likely to be people who are socialists but not avowed socialists. This (I would argue) creates a selection bias -- those who are avowed socialists are exactly those who are less likely to admit that a compromising socialist is a socialist at all.

This argument is getting really boring, though, because it's so very, very obvious that the point you're trying to argue is irrelevant. Obama's policies and expressed beliefs are a matter of public record, and so is the rather large, inchoate set of beliefs known as socialism. It's so obvious that whether he's a socialist is a question to be decided purely by analyzing the one in terms of the other that I can't rouse much interest to oppose a claim otherwise.

I mean, it's all taxonomy at the end of the day. Suppose there were somebody who believed that Jesus died and was raised from the dead for the sins of the world, but that he wasn't actually God, just a very old creation of God -- something like an Aryan. Would you call that person a Christian? An overwhelming majority of Christian churches would not accept him as one, and by the definition that's important to them, they're right. On the other hand, he's obviously a Christian in some senses. What would you say?

Socialism is a relatively coherent view on the world.
Obama is not a socialist.