Skip to main content

26 replies

Socialism? Really??

B beternUOld Faithful
There is a strong tendency for persons on these forums of a conservative persuasion to vehemently denounce the current administration as "socialist." I invite your attention to a definition of that term below and encourage all who would accuse the Obama administration of socialism to compare that accusation to what socialism actually is. I suspect that there will be references to the takeover of General Motors, but I would remind you that this was intended to be a temporary expedient in a crisis situations, so be careful there.

FROM 1 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

socialism: 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 state3 : 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

Ask yourself, and answer honestly: Are we living in a society in which there is "no private ownership of property"?

As to "unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done," we can certainly point to many examples of that in an economy in which the CEOs of large corporations are nailing down salaries and benefits several hundreds of time greater than the compensation of the average employee. You betcha that is unequal and it is often a contrived and artificial thing that ought to be denounced. In many other developed nations, the ratio is much smaller, without hurting productivity. Of course, the next stage of Marxism--pure communism--contemplates a radical leveling of the differences in wages, but we sure ain't moving toward anything like that in the U.S. The movement is in the opposite direction, with the ever-widening gap between rich and poor.

Think about it before you decide to push the socialist button again
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

BFred07BFred07Hall of Famer
quote:
collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Utilities? Too tired to look up a bunch of stuff on the subject right now but utilities are the first thing that comes to mind, of course this is not something new to the Obama administration. Another thing is Social Security, fine that we should be required to pay into Social Security but I would think our retirees would be much better off if what they paid into Social Security was not handled by the government but instead a choice of options with private companies. They tried on healthcare with the public option but ended up passing a "semi-socialist" healthcare reform plan.
Well anyway, it’s late and I’m tired but I’m sure there will be guests to this thread who will name off a few more examples of how socialism is getting its foot in the door here in the USA.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
And,one wiki definition states, "Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources."

Therefore, the strict definition of government ownership need not apply. However, government control of the means of production does. That is also a tenet of fascism.

As to redistribution of wealth, Obama made it quite clear when he stated, "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

http://themoderatevoice.com/23...th-quote-in-context/

Communism, terminal socialism, has failed in every nation, in every variant tried upon the earth. The results were ghastly -- mass graves and hundreds of millions dead.

The European model for the socialist welfare state has utterly failed. Yet, this is the model espoused by the Obamites.
LG Lets Go Jeepin'Hall of Famer
Beternu -

I dont think anyone said America is a socialist society at this point, so lets rephrase your question to be more appropriate. Lets change it from:

quote:


Are we living in a society in which there is "no private ownership of property"?



To Do we honestly believe that the current adminstration believes in socialist policies and would like to move to a more socialist society?

My answer is yes, no doubt in my mind about it....

Jeepin'
b50mb50mOld Faithful
Is control of the media socialism? See the new FTC report.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...doesnt-need-bailout/


Forget how much the media already adore President Obama. The Federal Trade Commission just released what it called “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism,” a 47-page terrifying bureaucratic plan to insinuate government into the very information that forms the basis for democracy. The draft document is just in time for the FTC’s third workshop on the future of journalism, set for June 15. Coming on the heels of the government’s new $350 billion national broadband plan, this shows an extensive attempt by the Obama administration to seize control of the press.

This is the simplicity of what they are trying to mess with, our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Those freedoms don’t matter to the left. And many journalists, too. They’re desperate for funding and for a career future. Their industry is facing hard times and that’s what they care about. So a coalition of hard-left groups, some respected journalists like The Washington Post’s Vice President Len Downie, and a horde of Big Government types are looking for a bailout as well as funding for a new, openly left-wing replacement.

Of course, anything coming out of the Obama administration is also automatically about taxes. This working paper mentions some form of the word “tax” 95 times in 47 pages. If government wants to make the media dependent on it for cash, it has to tax us to do so.

The paper listed five possible new taxes to pay for a “Citizenship Media Fund.” Those include a $4 billion tax on consumer electronics like your TV or iPod; a $5 billion to $6 billion advertising tax; and a tax on both Internet service and cell phone bills.

It also listed a host of other possible solutions for the problems that impact journalism – everything but the free market. That concept is foreign to the same administration that seized control of Wall Street, the auto industry and our health care system.

At the very same time this has been happening, the National Hispanic Media Coalition whined to the FCC about “‘hate speech’ on talk radio and cable broadcast networks,” according to The Hill. The coalition, which includes a variety of lefty groups such as Common Cause and La Raza, wants the FCC to shut down speech it doesn’t like on cable and talk radio – in other words, Fox and conservative stations.

While their complaint avoided naming names, it’s obvious what’s going on here. Left-wing groups pressure the government to fund media even more than it does now for PBS and NPR. Then they pressure the government to regulate conservative media they don’t like. And the Obama administration gets to pull it all together and come up with a Big Government solution that taxes all of us to support new media alternatives that are forever tied to that Big Government.
AlabamaSonAlabamaSonHall of Famer
I'm not sure people fully understand the goals or purposes of what is happening in society. I saw some of the most staunch Republicans who previously called President Obama a socialist until they realized their retirement was on the line. Then he was a socialist but he had better save the car companies.

I watch people scream about the government not allowing offshore drilling in deep water. Then once a spill happens they claim they never meant deep water or water at all. They also decry the government's response even though they don't want big government. They want President Obama to take action. What action? It is a foreign company. The only thing Obama could do is take BP's American assets through receivership. Highly unlikely action due to our relationship with the British government.

President Obama isn't always correct in his choices. But think about what is going on around you. Look at what you are saying. Drop the talking points and develop your own thoughts.

We are so far from socialism it isn't even funny. Our country is a republic that has overtones of various other governmental forms to try and solve today's problems. And we are not fascists either. Nor are we headed that way.

We get the kind of government we want because we are the government. Like it or not, we elected the officials we have today and we will get another chance to vote. Many folks think we will change presidents at the next election. That could happen. If it does take a deep look at the candidates and vote independently.
AlabamaSonAlabamaSonHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Is control of the media socialism? See the new FTC report.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...doesnt-need-bailout/


Forget how much the media already adore President Obama. The Federal Trade Commission just released what it called “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism,” a 47-page terrifying bureaucratic plan to insinuate government into the very information that forms the basis for democracy. The draft document is just in time for the FTC’s third workshop on the future of journalism, set for June 15. Coming on the heels of the government’s new $350 billion national broadband plan, this shows an extensive attempt by the Obama administration to seize control of the press.

This is the simplicity of what they are trying to mess with, our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Those freedoms don’t matter to the left. And many journalists, too. They’re desperate for funding and for a career future. Their industry is facing hard times and that’s what they care about. So a coalition of hard-left groups, some respected journalists like The Washington Post’s Vice President Len Downie, and a horde of Big Government types are looking for a bailout as well as funding for a new, openly left-wing replacement.

Of course, anything coming out of the Obama administration is also automatically about taxes. This working paper mentions some form of the word “tax” 95 times in 47 pages. If government wants to make the media dependent on it for cash, it has to tax us to do so.

The paper listed five possible new taxes to pay for a “Citizenship Media Fund.” Those include a $4 billion tax on consumer electronics like your TV or iPod; a $5 billion to $6 billion advertising tax; and a tax on both Internet service and cell phone bills.

It also listed a host of other possible solutions for the problems that impact journalism – everything but the free market. That concept is foreign to the same administration that seized control of Wall Street, the auto industry and our health care system.

At the very same time this has been happening, the National Hispanic Media Coalition whined to the FCC about “‘hate speech’ on talk radio and cable broadcast networks,” according to The Hill. The coalition, which includes a variety of lefty groups such as Common Cause and La Raza, wants the FCC to shut down speech it doesn’t like on cable and talk radio – in other words, Fox and conservative stations.

While their complaint avoided naming names, it’s obvious what’s going on here. Left-wing groups pressure the government to fund media even more than it does now for PBS and NPR. Then they pressure the government to regulate conservative media they don’t like. And the Obama administration gets to pull it all together and come up with a Big Government solution that taxes all of us to support new media alternatives that are forever tied to that Big Government.


Okay, let's sit back and see if this really happens or if it is just another stir of the pot. It is very unlikely. People complained about the Patriot Act. But in the end it really didn't affect the common citizen. In my opinion it is simply more talking points.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
I agree you made some good points.

I think the sticking point on SS is we do fund that ourselves through our 30 or so years of working, so yes, I get ticked that the government blew the money and now can't pay me back.

As for drilling, it needs to be done if we want to cut the umbilical cord to the Saudis.

No Obama can't do a darn thing about the oil spill. But he needs to quit saying he was on it from day one when the government did nothing for 2 weeks.

We will get new faces in Washinton, if it changes anything remains to be seen.

As for the FTC report, it is socialism if it goes through.
AlabamaSonAlabamaSonHall of Famer
I don't believe we've had a true statesman in decades or more. Greed rules the day and the common person can't afford to be in office. What drives a person to be in office these days? I know I have no interest in it (not to say I'm not greedy). Wait, are we talking millions? Nah, it would age me too much.

Edit: Maybe it is the sex. But I've got all I need with my wife so that won't work either.
Chuck NorrisChuck NorrisHall of Famer
Times change. Definitions change. Today's socialism is different than yesterday's. As the brilliant economist Fridrich Hayek recognized 30 years ago in Europe (and is now coming here): "Socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and institutions of the welfare state."

The government dictates the terms of production through red tape and regulation and then reallocates the fruits of production through taxation.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.
LG Lets Go Jeepin'Hall of Famer
I dont think we are moving toward fascism, at least not under this administration:

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I dont see strong leadership.....

Since he has bowed to or apologized to so many other countries, I dont think "the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong" applies to Obama either......
LG Lets Go Jeepin'Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by AlabamaSon:
We get the kind of government we want because we are the government. Like it or not, we elected the officials we have today and we will get another chance to vote. Many folks think we will change presidents at the next election. That could happen. If it does take a deep look at the candidates and vote independently.


I dont think this is the case. We are groomed to get the kindof government we have. A minority of Americans understand true economics or politics. Is that their fault? Partially. But it is really the fault of our education system. And its the govt that dictates the majority of what is taught. One semester of economics in high school? Geez! The one thing everyone needs to know. The one thing that makes the world go round. One semester.

The government, in general, does not want people to understand. That way they can fill our heads with pretty speeches and lies, and the majority of Americans buy it hook, line and sinker.

What has to happen is Americans must ween themselves off the government teet and begin to understand why things truely are as they are....

jeepin'
Last edited by Lets Go Jeepin'
Flatus the AncientFlatus the AncientHall of Famer
Since we are not all living in a kolkhoz, we can all agree this isn't communism (yet). Although fascism is normally associated with nationalists and not internationalists like Obama (share the wealth worldwide), the economic system we have fits the fascist model best.

quote:
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Here's a refresher on 'isms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded
Chuck NorrisChuck NorrisHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
A minority of Americans understand true economics or politics. Is that their fault? Partially. But it is really the fault of our education system. And its the govt that dictates the majority of what is taught.


1% make things happen; 10% watch things happen and the rest wonder what happened.

I like to think I'm watching, but sometimes I wonder ...
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
To be fair, the Obamites appear to be guiding the nation to the EU socialist, welfare state. The EU has an impressive parliament, which is almost powerless, except for passing nonbinding resolutions. The true power is in a non-elected bureaucracy, whose decisions may not be overridden by the parliament. So far, a couple of really boneheaded decisions simply died on the vine as the populace refused to obey. But, not many. BTW, the bureaucracy is even more corrupt than that of the UN. So far, I don't believe their auditors have ever issued a final report that was released.

The EU economic model is coming apart at the seams. The PIGS were supported by German and other retirement funds. Now, the PIGS want more more money from the other states and the IMF (including the US, of course).

Its a big nanny state that knows whats best.
marksw59marksw59Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Communism, terminal socialism, has failed in every nation, in every variant tried upon the earth. The results were ghastly -- mass graves and hundreds of millions dead.

The European model for the socialist welfare state has utterly failed. Yet, this is the model espoused by the Obamites.


Oh come on now! They did NOT fail, they just ran out of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
marksw59marksw59Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
Oh come on now! They did NOT fail, they just ran out of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.


Given that the US fronts 17.09% of IMF funds and investors like Soros are betting on countries like Greece will default on their loans and have invested in credit default swaps from US firms, the EU will have some of our money also.


Well, our money is other people's money to them. Wink
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
Oh come on now! They did NOT fail, they just ran out of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.


Given that the US fronts 17.09% of IMF funds and investors like Soros are betting on countries like Greece will default on their loans and have invested in credit default swaps from US firms, the EU will have some of our money also.


Credit default swaps are a form of insurance. However, Soros, etc. use them as a form of betting. Ordinarily, people are allowed to only insure what they own. You next door neighbor is allowed to buy insurance against you home. This would give him an interest in burning it. Nor, do we allow people to insure a home for much more than its value. They would have an interest in burning their own home.

Similarly, only those who own the bonds should be allowed to buy credit default swaps.
AlabamaSonAlabamaSonHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by AlabamaSon:
We get the kind of government we want because we are the government. Like it or not, we elected the officials we have today and we will get another chance to vote. Many folks think we will change presidents at the next election. That could happen. If it does take a deep look at the candidates and vote independently.


I dont think this is the case. We are groomed to get the kindof government we have. A minority of Americans understand true economics or politics. Is that their fault? Partially. But it is really the fault of our education system. And its the govt that dictates the majority of what is taught. One semester of economics in high school? Geez! The one thing everyone needs to know. The one thing that makes the world go round. One semester.

The government, in general, does not want people to understand. That way they can fill our heads with pretty speeches and lies, and the majority of Americans buy it hook, line and sinker.

What has to happen is Americans must ween themselves off the government teet and begin to understand why things truely are as they are....

jeepin'


The only way the people don't participate in the government is by not voting. The government is decided by the people. We got rid of taking a test to vote a long time ago and I don't think it was intended by the Founding Fathers. If, in your opinion, they don't decide like you then it doesn't make them not be the government. But you do have a right to your opinion.
LG Lets Go Jeepin'Hall of Famer
I dont think it is a matter of their opinion as much as it is a matter of their 'uneducated' opinion. Even with voter turn out as low as it is, it doesnt take a lot for someone like Obama to energize the uneducated public and push them to the polls for one big push. Also, many of the actual voting public are uneducated in regards to things like economics and true politics. So, when they go to the polls, they either vote based on the bull they have been fed (because they really dont know any better) or who gave the best speach when they were trying to make up their mind. How many people did you hear say they voted for Obama because of what he said he could do in his speeches, when it has been proven time and time again that the majority of what a politician says he is going to do never actually gets done. If folks had voted on him based on his past work history, his past religious connections or his past track record, instead of his current telepromtped speech, the election would have probably had a different outcome....

Jeepin'

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×