General discussion

Locked

Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is? Well; do they???

By sleepin'dawg ·
.
.
The ?instant-on? protestations of Obama, his campaign, and his Obamabots, indicate one of three things:

1) They are angry that someone has finally had the nerve to call them out on the inequitable practice of wealth redistribution; rewarding the non-productive among us with other people?s hard earned wages.

2) They are arrogantly over-exposing their penchant for playing the race card whenever someone doesn?t immediately roll-over and give them exactly what they want, degrading the hardships, sacrifices and accomplishments of generations past.

3) They have absolutely no clue as to what Socialism is.

Socialism, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is defined as:

?Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; A system of society or group living in which there is no private property; 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.?



During a campaign stop in Richmond, Virginia, Obama scoffed at the charge that his economic policies were born of Socialist ideology and the Marxist influence predominant among the adults who surrounded him in his youth, calling the use of such "implausible" arguments an, "indication they have run out of ideas."

A barrage of callers to conservatives talk radio programs ? not surprisingly the overwhelming majority of them Black, took an indignant tone calling any and all criticism of Barack Obama?s economic policies ? and for that matter any criticism of Barack Obama at all ? as an emanation of the underlying racism that exists in each and every Caucasian heart in the United States...not among other races, not among the Black population, just the Caucasian race.

One Kansas City Star editorialist, Lewis Diuguid, concurred with the talk radio program callers in declaring, albeit in that publication?s blog and at great homage to the art of ?spin,? that those noting the similarities between ?spreading the wealth around? and wealth redistribution are ?racist.? We are, of course, well within our purview in declaring that the mainstream media has become increasingly irrelevant in matters of fact and honesty, especially where the 2008 election is concerned.

Socialism promotes increased government control over the private sector, both socially and in business. It is achieved by instituting a system that redistributes wealth in an effort to artificially equalize wealth in society, regardless of productivity. When a politician says ? in no uncertain terms ? that he believes it is a good thing to excessively taxing the productive only to redistribute those extracted taxes to the non-productive, exclusively for the sake of altering the social status of individuals, he possesses a Socialist ideology.

The belief that government has the authority to take a citizen?s earnings, no matter what the amount, to bestow it upon another citizen in a quest to socially engineer a more equitable society is squarely rooted in Socialist dogma. This belief is championed and possessed by Barack Obama and is proven beyond doubt in his statement to Samuel Wurzelbacher:

?It?s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they?ve got a chance at success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around it?s good for everybody.? (Emphasis mine).

The complete text of Karl Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program statement is as follows:

?In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly?only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!?

Some say that Barack Obama is a great orator. Other say he reads the teleprompter pretty well. And still others think that he is simply a political con-artist specializing in bovine feces. But after comparing Marx?s Critique of the Gotha Program statement and Obama?s ?Joe the Plumber? statement I think it is safe to say that Barack Obama is, simply put, a well-marketed Democratic Socialist peddling a pathetic and failed ideology under the guise of ?hope? and ?change,? just like Fidel Castro circa 1959.

And there?s nothing ?racist? about that.


Dawg ]:)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

54 total posts (Page 4 of 6)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

A better question might be:

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Do Americans Understand W ...
Collapse -

how well does anyone understand

by j-mart In reply to Do Americans Understand W ...

Socialism, or capitalism, or for that matter any other theoretical political system. First off, in the real world, perception, of the ins and outs of any political system and the real world application of any such system is always coloured by the non perfect appliction of the theory.

It is possible to create a perfect world for all, in theory, where everyone is content, happy, treated well and able to have all the opportinties that life can offer. You can create this perfect world with "perfect" capitilism, socialism, a dictatorship, fascist state, or any other system you may dream up, all you have to ignore is all of our human charicturistics such as greed, aggression, lazyiness, bigotry, predudice, stuborness, stupidity and other "human" failings.

For a government, in my opinion to do the best for the population, in the main, is required to take the middle path. Taking an extreme left, or right view benifits the smallest section of the general population. this means that the more affluent in a society may carry a bigger load proportionatley than others, but if you have much more than you need the effect will be hardly noticed. Those of us, the average citizen, as we make up the largest part of the productive part of society do notice the burden of paying fo most of it. We as a socitety need to look after those who are not able to completely look after themselves, we can do this solely from kindness and compassion or for those of a harder nature, the benifit of looking after the less equiped, is backed into a corner with no hope encourages voilence and crime. I is a lot more expensive to deal with serious crime than help out those that are being left behind.

Obama, is just annother politician how he goes in the job has nothing to with any attempt to a "socialist " pigeon hole just in looking for a reason for him to fail to make the USA you want. His success or failure in the job will be the same as those who have come before him. Partly determined by what happens in the rest of the world, partly by his own integrity and characture, partly by the integrity and characture of those he has in his team, his intelligence (he's defininatly ahead Bush in this area), he does not ge shot by some half wit who can't accept the majority of voters choice and also an element of blind luck. Wait and see how he goes. Judge him on what he does not some obscure BS you seem to be trying to pull out of nothing.

Collapse -

I found this interesting

by JamesRL In reply to Do Americans Understand W ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=1

The general thesis is that Obama's economic policies will generally **** off both the left and the right. He certainly gives a nod to capitalism and acknowledges Reagan's tax changes as a good thing.

James

James

Collapse -

Agree Dawg

by TriDom In reply to Do Americans Understand W ...

Obviously, considering a lot of the replies here- the answer to the question is either "no", "don't care", or "Yes, but I want it anyway".

And BTW- people can spin Obama's words any way they want to. What he describes is, in fact, a tendency toward Socialism. As for "wanting to open opportunities" as someone quoted him- the fact of the matter is that he espoused "redistribution of wealth" on more than one occasion...in those exact words.

Don't know about the rest of you, but I want the government to stay out of my business, and out of my pocket. I have no heartburn helping those who need and deserve it, but I most certainly do not believe in redistribution of wealth to those who do not.

Collapse -

I want for myself what someone else earns . . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Do Americans Understand W ...

.....and I want the government to serve as the broker to get it for me; but no, that's not socialism. Socialism is that USSR thing, ya' know.

(Dripping with sarcasm for those who can't see it.)

Collapse -

The reverse bogeyman effect

by road-dog In reply to I want for myself what so ...

The thing is, so many things have moved us ever further down the socialist path that now too many hands are dirty. To call all of it socialism overuses the term and sounds hysterical.

People don't see incremental socialism. Use of the word evokes no response, like comparisons to Hitler. Our socialism isn't the USSR, therefore it's not socialism.

In other words, the word has become irrelevant through overuse. It's a cuss word that has lost impact.

Someone once told me that the most effective lie Satan ever got away with is that he doesn't exist.

Collapse -

We're headed for Democratic Socialism . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to The reverse bogeyman effe ...

.....although we're a significant way down that path already. Sweden, Germany, France - those are our models, right? At least they're honest about it; they actually call themselves Democratic Socialists.

What happen to the idea (and ideal) that we should be the model for the world? The model that placed individual liberty as the cornerstone for our society and political system?

In short, a rose by any other name is still a rose. And garbage by any other name still stinks.

Collapse -

No, plenty of euphemisms left

by road-dog In reply to We're headed for Democrat ...

Like "spreading the wealth", "some can pay a little more" and the like.

Individual liberty is secondary to security these days it seems. People want guaranteed success, if they don't get it, somebody else is at fault somehow.

I'm big on the fair tax. Everybody pays. Then, let's see if the tide turns. It's easy to vote away somebody else's money. Socialism in favor of somebody else is seriously objectionable when one pays part of the tab.

Collapse -

More euphemisms

by maxwell edison In reply to No, plenty of euphemisms ...

People just want a piece of the pie, suggesting the pie is finite in size. But in reality, it's infinite in size.

As an answer to pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, Jesse Jackson replied that some people don't have any bootstraps. I guess he doesn't realize that bootstraps is a euphemism for suggesting people DO have the wherewithal, the gumption, the courage, the ability, etc. to overcome obstacles and better themselves. To suggest otherwise (as Jesse Jackson did) is actually the real insult.

P.S. I also support the Fair Tax plan.

Collapse -

Oh yeah, and "Winners of life's lottery"

by road-dog In reply to No, plenty of euphemisms ...

I cringe when I hear this. The assumption that people who enjoy success somehow just "won". No account for effort, sacrifice, deferred gratification.

Marginalize the effort and that legitimatizes theft. Yes, you read me right, theft. We need to start calling things what they are. Words mean things.

Yeah, that "piece of the pie" thing grates me, like my piece of the pie somehow came at the expense of yours, the classic zero sum.

Back to Windows Forum
54 total posts (Page 4 of 6)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums