Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 17, 2011, 2:25 a.m. EST by looselyhuman
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Here's one thread full of stuff they don't want anyone to see (from http://occupywallst.org/forum/liberalism-is-not-socialism/ ) . They are using sockpuppets and other fraudulent methods to vote down comments they disagree with. The moderators seem to be powerless to stop it. Anyway, for the record:
sockpuppet: Actually your definitions come up short. You didn't tell us specifically what you as "Liberal/Progressivel" stand for.
looselyhuman: I stand for the moral mandate of government to the welfare of the people, which includes addressing the issues of crushing inequality, and the regulation of the market in a manner that benefits the common good, not just enriches the few.
sockpuppet: Thank you for your reply. Where in the Constitution is this "moral mandate"? Where does the Constitution mention Govt. must address social and economic "inequality? Also where do you find the part that states the Govt. must regulate the market? Do you believe in "social justice"?
looselyhuman: I think the constitution is a framework that offers for a system of self-governance. Government is authorized to promote the general welfare and the nature of that activity is left to the voters. I am sure we disagree that our republic is a form of democracy, and that the constitution is a living document, so there's not much else to say.
I can only point out that during the era when the policies I support were dominant, the people were free, prosperous, and relatively equal. We had a stable and just society. Things have changed, and I see little do do with the constitution in what has happened since Reagan's neoliberal policies put us on the path to decline.
sockuppet: What "era" are you talking about? Please,in years.
looselyhuman: The 40s-late 60s (I see the 70s as a transitional period). The "liberal consensus" years. Recommend the wiki article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States ). Also this is repetitive so maybe review: http://occupywallst.org/forum/liberalism-is-not-socialism/#comment-368382
sockpuppet: You are correct that Liberal does not mean Socialist. Unfortunately for you the people that highjacked the term are Socialists so it does not matter what the definition is. If you identify with them you are a socialist regardless of what the term means.
looselyhuman: I think that's the propagandist's view. Liberals were always about mixed economies. Look at the greatest period of prosperity and relative equality in our history, when the middle class became dominant. It was the 1940s-70s era known as the "liberal consensus." Compared to today's neoliberal climate of privatization, deregulation, free trade, and otherwise unfettered capitalism, spiced up with a healthy dose of propaganda, the liberal worldview has become synonymous with socialism. It was not always so.
Read the wiki piece. Everyone from FDR to Ike to Kennedy to Nixon were part of the liberal consensus, but by today's definition they are all statists/socialists. We haven't changed, the narrative has.
Before you go into debt and all the other indicators of big government, consider that revenue as a percent of GDP is the lowest in 60 years. Also review this cogent anaylsis of tax policy by a fellow OWSer: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
sockpuppet: One of the few intelligent responses I've had on here. I think we are saying the same thing but I still want to know who you identify with. BTW thx for the link. I will review it directly.
looselyhuman: Thank you.
Who I identify with... I voted for Obama, because I bought into his rhetoric. His policies have been a bust. The presidents I think most highly of, especially against the current background, are Lincoln, Teddy and FDR, as well as Kennedy. Looking around the world, I find the systems in places like Germany, Sweden and Canada to be closest to my ideal. These parliamentary social democracies more closely reflect the liberal policies of our 40s-70s than we do today.
You might read about the Marshall Plan in Europe, which was really a continuation of the New Deal, and, especially in Germany, shows how succesful these policies can be over the long haul.
In terms of current American politicians/economists/etc, I identify with people like Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, Paul Krugman, and others.
<next, all my (and many other) posts were voted into oblivion, while the sockpuppets scores jumped up rapidly>
sockpuppet: Well after reviewing your statements and info. I'm still of the same opinion,Liberalism is just another form of Socialism/Communism. ...
Does everyone know how to expand a collapsed comment and vote it up? Figure it out please. Help your beleaguered fellow OWSers.