PDA

View Full Version : Nader's Campaign for Socialism (Okay not really)




Knightskye
11-06-2008, 01:14 AM
http://www.november5.org/

Toward the end of the video, it lists a couple candidates (Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, and some others). Looks like they want us to join them.

Nader wants to take over Congress, just like Paul does.

We have different philosophies, though.

What do you guys think?

Jeremy
11-06-2008, 01:18 AM
oh i get it... Nov 5th just means the day after election day

I'm guessing they haven't seen V =p

ArrestPoliticians
11-06-2008, 01:18 AM
http://www.november5.org/

Toward the end of the video, it lists a couple candidates (Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, and some others). Looks like they want us to join them.

Nader wants to take over Congress, just like Paul does.

We have different philosophies, though.

What do you guys think?

The most important thing is to put the bums in jail. Then we can have a REAL free market vs socialism debate. The national IQ will double.

Knightskye
11-06-2008, 01:37 AM
We'll need some coordination, so we're not trying to take over the same districts.

Yes, a libertarian suggesting we avoid competition.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
11-06-2008, 02:32 AM
I hate how many times I have to repeat this, but calling Nader a socialist is a VAST oversimplification of his ideas. He's not at all opposed to capitalism, but merely wants to bring the chopping block to bear on areas where we've gone astray. I fail to see what's wrong with this.

That said, I don't agree with a lot of what he would propose. However, you must also consider that what we have right now isn't good enough to be either capitalism or socialism. It's a klepto-corporatocratic oligarchy. Even the socialism envisioned by Brian Moore would be a massive improvement.

And if you really, really bothered to clue yourselves into what people like Gravel, Kucinich, and Nader have said, you'd see that they certainly do believe in an unmitigated free market as it applies to one of our most important resources: IDEAS. That if we could at the very least kick the crooks overboard and set the stage for an open and honest debate, then whichever ideology is best will naturally rise to the top without the need for any sort of hostility.

Please for fuck's sake, I know socialism is undesirable to most of us, but have a sense of humility. Carry yourselves with the knowledge that perhaps our market theory isn't 110% foolproof, but that peace, justice, and transparency should be key to achieving the rest.

And if nothing else, at least understand that you'll get NOWHERE by using socialism as simply an epithet. Acknowledge that it's a valid philosophy that needs to be attacked through discussion, not covering your ears and shouting until the monsters go away.

AutoDas
11-06-2008, 04:50 AM
Nader is a socialist.

MRoCkEd
11-06-2008, 06:41 AM
We would have to compromise on the four planks. I don't think single-payer healthcare is on ron's agenda.

The_Orlonater
11-06-2008, 08:07 PM
Not completely free market, but I like Nader. End the corporatism!

heavenlyboy34
11-06-2008, 10:03 PM
I don't accept the speaker's premise. He assumes that all social goods/ills flow from the government. BOOOO!!!

nobody's_hero
11-07-2008, 07:13 AM
Nader is a socialist.

Nader is a work in progress. I didn't vote for him. I've not yet given up on Bob Barr, either, I just couldn't vote for him, because he needs work.

We can continue to isolate the liberals in our ranks (and those who will join when Obama disappoints the heck out of them after Kucinich, Nader, Gravel, etc. point out what he's done to destroy the credibility of the democratic party), or we can open some doors of communication and start winning them over.

It isn't, "If you can't beat them, join them," anymore. It's, "if you can't beat them, convince them to join you." ;)

Grimnir's right, in that Nader isn't exactly a socialist. McCain was a socialist. The bail-out that he voted for now means that the government practically OWNS Bank of America. That's socialism if there ever was any.

Nader, on the whole, proposes more government regulation than I would feel comfortable with. That's mostly because he's never seen the free-market in action, so I can't say that I can blame him for his views. I think if the free-market had been allowed to work, and the government allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fail, so that the next-largest tycoon could come in and clean up better than the government ever could, it would have blown Nader's mind. But, he listens, and if there's anyone I'd want to break the bonds between corrupt corporations seeking taxpayer-funded bail-outs and corrupt politicians seeking corrupt-corporation-funded kickbacks for votes, Nader is the man I'd want on the job.

I don't agree with him on much else, but I respect him.

nobody's_hero
11-07-2008, 07:21 AM
We would have to compromise on the four planks. I don't think single-payer healthcare is on ron's agenda.

Which four planks are you talking about?

(to be clear, I don't support government-managed healthcare, single-payer or whatever. Not that I think Nader hasn't worked out the details, but because whatever goon comes into office behind him would probably screw it all up; I think the free market would do a better job)