Quantcast

Explaining Socialism To A Republican

ProudProgressive 2012/12/11 12:27:24
One thing that becomes obvious pretty fast if you spend much time on this site is that the average Right Winger has no idea what the very words they use to insult and attack mean. They freely interchange words like "communist", "socialist" and "marxist" without much clue what any of them actually mean. They have the same problem with words like "liberal" or "progressive", but that's a topic for another time. What it seems to boil down to for them is that any time anyone does anything for anyone other than themselves, that's communism and that's bad.

Article excerpt follows:

Explaining Socialism To A Republican
2012/12/11
By Nurse Pam

I was talking recently with a new friend who I'm just getting to know. She tends to be somewhat conservative, while I lean more toward the progressive side.

When our conversation drifted to politics, somehow the dreaded word "socialism" came up. My friend seemed totally shocked when I said "All socialism isn't bad". She became very serious and replied "So you want to take money away from the rich and give to the poor?" I smiled and said "No, not at all. Why do you think socialism means taking money from the rich and giving to the poor?

"Well it is, isn't it?" was her reply.

I explained to her that I rather liked something called Democratic Socialism, just as Senator Bernie Sanders, talk show host Thom Hartman, and many other people do. Democratic Socialism consists of a democratic form of government with a mix of socialism and capitalism. I proceeded to explain to her the actual meaning terms "democracy" and "socialism".

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens take part. It is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Socialism is where we all put our resources together and work for the common good of us all and not just for our own benefit. In this sense, we are sharing the wealth within society.

Of course when people hear that term, "Share the wealth" they start screaming, "OMG you want to rob from the rich and give it all to the poor!" But that is NOT what Democratic Socialism means.

To a Democratic Socialist, sharing the wealth means pooling tax money together to design social programs that benefit ALL citizens of that country, city, state, etc.

The fire and police departments are both excellent examples of Democratic Socialism in America. Rather than leaving each individual responsible for protecting their own home from fire, everyone pools their money together, through taxes, to maintain a fire and police department. It's operated under a non-profit status, and yes, your tax dollars pay for putting out other people's fires. It would almost seem absurd to think of some corporation profiting from putting out fires. But it's more efficient and far less expensive to have government run fire departments funded by tax dollars.

Similarly, public education is another social program in the USA. It benefits all of us to have a taxpayer supported, publicly run education system. Unfortunately, in America, the public education system ends with high school. Most of Europe now provides low cost or free college education for their citizens. This is because their citizens understand that an educated society is a safer, more productive and more prosperous society. Living in such a society, everyone benefits from public education.

When an American graduates from college, they usually hold burdensome debt in the form of student loans that may take 10 to even 30 years to pay off. Instead of being able to start a business or invest in their career, the college graduate has to send off monthly payments for years on end.

On the other hand, a new college graduate from a European country begins without the burdensome debt that an American is forced to take on. The young man or woman is freer to start up businesses, take an economic risk on a new venture, or invest more money in the economy, instead of spending their money paying off student loans to for-profit financial institutions. Of course this does not benefit wealthy corporations, but it does greatly benefit everyone in that society.

EXAMPLE American style capitalistic program for college: If you pay (average) $20,000 annually for four years of college, that will total $80,000 + interest for student loans. The interest you would owe could easily total or exceed the $80,000 you originally borrowed, which means your degree could cost in excess of $100,000.

EXAMPLE European style social program for college: Your college classes are paid for through government taxes. When you graduate from that college and begin your career, you also start paying an extra tax for fellow citizens to attend college.

Question - You might be thinking how is that fair? If you're no longer attending college, why would you want to help everyone else pay for their college degree?

Answer - Every working citizen pays a tax that is equivalent to say, $20 monthly. If you work for 40 years and then retire, you will have paid $9,600 into the Social college program. So you could say that your degree ends up costing only $9,600. When everyone pools their money together and the program is non-profit, the price goes down tremendously. This allows you to keep more of your hard earned cash!

Health care is another example: If your employer does not provide health insurance, you must purchase a policy independently. The cost will be thousands of dollars annually, in addition to deductible and co-pays.

In Holland, an individual will pay around $35 monthly, period. Everyone pays into the system and this helps reduce the price for everyone, so they get to keep more of their hard earned cash.

In the United States we are told and frequently reminded that anything run by the government is bad and that everything should be operated by for-profit companies. Of course, with for-profit entities the cost to the consumer is much higher because they have corporate executives who expect compensation packages of tens of millions of dollars and shareholders who expect to be paid dividends, and so on.

This (and more) pushes up the price of everything, with much more money going to the already rich and powerful, which in turn, leaves the middle class with less spending money and creates greater class separation.

This economic framework makes it much more difficult for average Joes to "lift themselves up by their bootstraps" and raise themselves to a higher economic standing.

So next time you hear the word "socialism" and "spreading the wealth" in the same breath, understand that this is a serious misconception.

Social programs require tax money and your taxes may be higher. But as you can see everyone benefits because other costs go down and, in the long run, you get to keep more of your hard earned cash!

Democratic Socialism does NOT mean taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It works to benefit everyone so the rich can no longer take advantage of the poor and middle class.

Read More: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/11/explaining...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • The Lib Hater 2012/12/11 16:31:36
    The Lib Hater
    +5
    Explaining Socialism To A Liberal, or Dumb Progressive, whatever suits you.Why is 0bama still campaigning? This is what socialist, communist, and Marxist do. It's all about continuing the campaign, continue the indoctrination, and continue the revolution. You libs don't even know, or care to know what socialist, communist, and Marxist means. If you did know or care, well, a good example is what Mr Communist puts up as a blog, so he must not know what it means either. Again, what does it matter what we say it is, fact of the matter is YOU DON'T CARE WHAT IT MEANS. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT TAX INCREASES, BECAUSE YOU DON'T PAY FEDERAL TAXES, SO WHO CARES WHAT 0BAMA DOES, AS LONG AS YOU GET YOUR FREE STUFF. Let's take a peek, and maybe you libs will do a little research on your own, and you just may find out that 0bama was a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s, and sought its endorsement for the Illinois Senate. However, the best way to describe 0bama is here: 10 Conditions For Transition To Communism, or FORWARD....LOL
    Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    Abolition of all right of inheritance.
    Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    Centralisation of credit in...





    Explaining Socialism To A Liberal, or Dumb Progressive, whatever suits you.Why is 0bama still campaigning? This is what socialist, communist, and Marxist do. It's all about continuing the campaign, continue the indoctrination, and continue the revolution. You libs don't even know, or care to know what socialist, communist, and Marxist means. If you did know or care, well, a good example is what Mr Communist puts up as a blog, so he must not know what it means either. Again, what does it matter what we say it is, fact of the matter is YOU DON'T CARE WHAT IT MEANS. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT TAX INCREASES, BECAUSE YOU DON'T PAY FEDERAL TAXES, SO WHO CARES WHAT 0BAMA DOES, AS LONG AS YOU GET YOUR FREE STUFF. Let's take a peek, and maybe you libs will do a little research on your own, and you just may find out that 0bama was a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s, and sought its endorsement for the Illinois Senate. However, the best way to describe 0bama is here: 10 Conditions For Transition To Communism, or FORWARD....LOL
    Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    Abolition of all right of inheritance.
    Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
    Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
    Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
    Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
    Really, do you libs really care? Hell no, you only think of your greedy selves, and fu-- everything else. You will suffer soon for your greed where you won't be able to afford food once the new regulations by the EPA kick in, meaning your utilities will double, and maybe triple by the year 2014. FACT-How can you keep a tax cut when the prices of everything else sky rockets? LOL. Ask yourselves that, LOL. The argument cannot be broken. Oh, you can insult me all you want, I don't care, fact of the matter is, it will not change the suffering that is going to happen to you for re-electing this SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST, and MARXIST 0bama.
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • james2013 2012/12/12 04:41:11
    james2013
    Socialism has been thoroughly explained by Marx, Lennin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and many others that I don't feel like listing here in this short space. Socialism does not work in the long run. It eventually destroys itself or leads to rebellion because the HAVES (Ones in charge), keeping the workers in their place doing their jobs. Did you ever see a line of Russians waiting to get into the "supermarket" to see if they could buy enough food to get them through the day. Do you even care that the wonderful cell phones you carry every where are made in Chinese sweat shops where young people have to live in dormitory-like buildings and make very little pay and still have to pay for their food and send home what they have left. They live in a capitalistic form of socialism. That's what our fearless leaders have in mind for us here. (By the way, the rich Chinese shop owners take advantage of their poor) There is no middle class in China, nor Cuba, nor anywhere there is full blown socialism. Quit reading BS and take a long hard look at the rest of the world. America was the richest country in the world. There are countries who have not repaid us for our giving them defensive weapons during world war II, and yet we are fooliish enough to keep on giving foreign aid as if we were stil...
    Socialism has been thoroughly explained by Marx, Lennin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and many others that I don't feel like listing here in this short space. Socialism does not work in the long run. It eventually destroys itself or leads to rebellion because the HAVES (Ones in charge), keeping the workers in their place doing their jobs. Did you ever see a line of Russians waiting to get into the "supermarket" to see if they could buy enough food to get them through the day. Do you even care that the wonderful cell phones you carry every where are made in Chinese sweat shops where young people have to live in dormitory-like buildings and make very little pay and still have to pay for their food and send home what they have left. They live in a capitalistic form of socialism. That's what our fearless leaders have in mind for us here. (By the way, the rich Chinese shop owners take advantage of their poor) There is no middle class in China, nor Cuba, nor anywhere there is full blown socialism. Quit reading BS and take a long hard look at the rest of the world. America was the richest country in the world. There are countries who have not repaid us for our giving them defensive weapons during world war II, and yet we are fooliish enough to keep on giving foreign aid as if we were still the richest country in the world. When we fall there will be no country to give us foreign aid. China, Japan and Sudi Arabia, who have lent us money money to keep our economy alive will want their share of our COUNTRY when we default on our loans. Which states do you want to give to who?
    (more)
  • Osama McDonalds 2012/12/12 02:39:26
    Osama McDonalds
    Excellent article!
  • Heptarch 2012/12/11 21:16:27 (edited)
    Heptarch
    +2
    so·cial·ism [ sṓshə lìzəm ]

    noun.

    1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles

    2. Republican version: Anything that moderates, regulates or eliminates the abuse of labor.

    3: Republican version: Anything that utilizes taxes for social programs they don't agree with.
  • Joe Shwingding BN-ZERO 2012/12/11 21:08:33
    Joe Shwingding BN-ZERO
    +1
    Willful stupidity remains mind-numbing.
  • Mj PINKYFINGERDOWN 2012/12/11 20:29:48
  • santa6642 2012/12/11 18:46:25
  • zbacku 2012/12/11 18:30:43
    zbacku
    +3
    An article by 'Nurse' Pam???? Really?
    The problem with the article is that is all a lie. To say that Democratic Socialism does NOT mean taking from the rich and giving to to the poor AND the middle class is delusional at best. When the rich are taxed to the max and it is not enough, the middle class will be hit hard and thus destroyed.

    By the way. 75% of Obama proposed taxes are for NEW SPENDING. Nothing like reducing government spending, thus reducing the deficit.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com...
  • The Lib Hater 2012/12/11 16:31:36
    The Lib Hater
    +5
    Explaining Socialism To A Liberal, or Dumb Progressive, whatever suits you.Why is 0bama still campaigning? This is what socialist, communist, and Marxist do. It's all about continuing the campaign, continue the indoctrination, and continue the revolution. You libs don't even know, or care to know what socialist, communist, and Marxist means. If you did know or care, well, a good example is what Mr Communist puts up as a blog, so he must not know what it means either. Again, what does it matter what we say it is, fact of the matter is YOU DON'T CARE WHAT IT MEANS. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT TAX INCREASES, BECAUSE YOU DON'T PAY FEDERAL TAXES, SO WHO CARES WHAT 0BAMA DOES, AS LONG AS YOU GET YOUR FREE STUFF. Let's take a peek, and maybe you libs will do a little research on your own, and you just may find out that 0bama was a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s, and sought its endorsement for the Illinois Senate. However, the best way to describe 0bama is here: 10 Conditions For Transition To Communism, or FORWARD....LOL
    Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    Abolition of all right of inheritance.
    Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    Centralisation of credit in...





    Explaining Socialism To A Liberal, or Dumb Progressive, whatever suits you.Why is 0bama still campaigning? This is what socialist, communist, and Marxist do. It's all about continuing the campaign, continue the indoctrination, and continue the revolution. You libs don't even know, or care to know what socialist, communist, and Marxist means. If you did know or care, well, a good example is what Mr Communist puts up as a blog, so he must not know what it means either. Again, what does it matter what we say it is, fact of the matter is YOU DON'T CARE WHAT IT MEANS. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT TAX INCREASES, BECAUSE YOU DON'T PAY FEDERAL TAXES, SO WHO CARES WHAT 0BAMA DOES, AS LONG AS YOU GET YOUR FREE STUFF. Let's take a peek, and maybe you libs will do a little research on your own, and you just may find out that 0bama was a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s, and sought its endorsement for the Illinois Senate. However, the best way to describe 0bama is here: 10 Conditions For Transition To Communism, or FORWARD....LOL
    Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    Abolition of all right of inheritance.
    Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
    Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
    Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
    Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
    Really, do you libs really care? Hell no, you only think of your greedy selves, and fu-- everything else. You will suffer soon for your greed where you won't be able to afford food once the new regulations by the EPA kick in, meaning your utilities will double, and maybe triple by the year 2014. FACT-How can you keep a tax cut when the prices of everything else sky rockets? LOL. Ask yourselves that, LOL. The argument cannot be broken. Oh, you can insult me all you want, I don't care, fact of the matter is, it will not change the suffering that is going to happen to you for re-electing this SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST, and MARXIST 0bama.
    (more)
  • Todd~AF... The Lib... 2012/12/11 16:39:19
    Todd~AFCL~PWCM~JLA
    +5
    I love how you hit these anti-American leftists with the facts. Bravo
    Applause
  • The Lib... Todd~AF... 2012/12/11 16:51:21 (edited)
    The Lib Hater
    +4
    Wouldn't have to if they did a little research. It seems that liberals are just getting dumber everyday, notice that? Ever since 0bama got re-elected they are still miserable as hell.
  • Kaleoku... Todd~AF... 2012/12/11 20:51:29
    Kaleokualoha
    +3
    Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on his economic policies. Not only do critics conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    Obama's "Marxist threat" is just as delusional as the "Iraqi threat" before the 2003 invasion. Both delusions are phantom menaces (i.e, fairy tales), fabricated and circulated by the Conservative Disinformation Network*. Both delusions are "straw men" designed to demonize their targets. Both delusions were swallowed in good faith by angry Americans, eager for excuses to attack their targets, who then circulated these myths further. Both delusions exploited the confirmation bias and ignorance of some Americans.

    In a classic display of masterful propaganda, both were also swallowed by others, who now had a REASON to attack the same targets, and circulate these myths further!

    BACKGROUND: According to dictionary.com, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of th...



















    Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on his economic policies. Not only do critics conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    Obama's "Marxist threat" is just as delusional as the "Iraqi threat" before the 2003 invasion. Both delusions are phantom menaces (i.e, fairy tales), fabricated and circulated by the Conservative Disinformation Network*. Both delusions are "straw men" designed to demonize their targets. Both delusions were swallowed in good faith by angry Americans, eager for excuses to attack their targets, who then circulated these myths further. Both delusions exploited the confirmation bias and ignorance of some Americans.

    In a classic display of masterful propaganda, both were also swallowed by others, who now had a REASON to attack the same targets, and circulate these myths further!

    BACKGROUND: According to dictionary.com, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

    Please note that it is the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. Capitalism has many forms in a mixed economy, with public (collective) ownership of various enterprises based upon economic conditions. Limited public ownership does not comprise Marxist socialism, which requires COMPLETE public ownership. When controlled by a police state, however, limited public ownership may become fascism ("national socialism"), Marxist socialism, or even "perfect implementation of collectivist principles" (i.e., communism). Limited public ownership occurs at virtually every point on the mixed economy spectrum.

    MIXED ECONOMIES: Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are Marxist socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which means economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes works in the long run. Every successful economy is a mixed economy, existing somewhere on a spectrum between both extremes.

    Every successful economy is part capitalist and part socialist. They all contain a mix of private and public ownership, and they all have some government control of private enterprise. The only relevant question is "WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?" The rise of Asian economies, with their varying degrees of centralized planning, proves that economic planning helps economic development.

    ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS: Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial constructs, as impossible to sustain as cold fusion. Every successful society requires private enterprise regulated by public policy, regardless of Ayn Rand's fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional. In some ways regulation is a necessary evil like body fat: too much or too little are both lethal. The normal tendency is to add layers with age. The challenge is to find the level that will produce the optimum outcome, all things considered.

    Unless someone advocates the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism, they do not truly advocate socialism or communism. To accuse them of either, when they have not explicitly advocated as much themselves, suggests either unfamiliarity with mixed economies or intellectual dishonesty. Even George W. Bush and John McCain were accused of advocating socialism based upon their support of 2008 bailout legislation.

    ARE MIXED ECONOMIES "SOCIALIST"? The bottom line is simple. If you consider any variation of a mixed economy, including ANY public ownership or regulation of industry to be "socialism," then the United States and ALL other economies are "socialist." The debate is over, because by that definition we have been "socialist" since the 18th century. If you only consider complete collectivism to be "socialism," according to Marxist theory, then no successful economy is actually "socialist." The closest to a Marxist socialist economy is the economic basket case, North Korea. If you consider socialism to occur at some other point on the spectrum between unregulated capitalism and Marxist socialism, then any such point would be arbitrary.

    To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government ownership or regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any ownership/regulation beyond an indefinite "trigger point" qualifies as "socialism,", and that YOU get to set the trigger point. The "trigger point" explanation reminds me of the egocentric explorer who says that anyone who explores farther into dangerous territory is a fool, but anyone who doesn’t explore as far as he does is a coward. His arrogance presumes that his own boundaries are both appropriate and common standards.

    MARXIST SOCIALISM: Marxist "socialism," in contrast to European "democratic socialism," requires collective ownership of the means of production and distribution. That is the death of private enterprise. We may or may not be on a path to collectivism, just as a dating couple may or may not be on a path to pregnancy. Traveling on a path in any direction does not imply any specific goal. For example, traveling on Interstate 10 does not imply that either coast is the goal.

    "Direction" is one thing. "Goal" is another. All mixed economies exist at some point in the spectrum between the fatal terminuses of unregulated capitalism and true socialism. In most Marxist states, however, capitalism reappeared as people recognized the lethal consequences of such extremes. Russia, China and other communist nations now recognize the virtue of mixed economies. They learned the hard way.

    SPECIOUS SPECULATION: I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.
    (more)
  • Todd~AF... Kaleoku... 2012/12/12 01:20:29 (edited)
    Todd~AFCL~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    Denying that 0bama is a socialist based upon this garbage is about as insane as claiming that a mass murderer is not, simply because there are still people left alive. You have posted this same garbage time and time,again in your attempts to convince people that obama is not a socialist. Anybody with common sense would know that the Liar-in-Chief can not tell the American people his true goals or they would never have supported his destructive agenda in the first place. He was a member of a socialist party and even sought their endorsement. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-...
    Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it. You can continue to believe whaever the heck you want, but the rest of the country deserves the TRUTH.
  • Kaleoku... Todd~AF... 2012/12/12 01:34:46
    Kaleokualoha
    Your fantasies, as those of others in Right Wing Fantasyland, are irrelevant. I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.
  • Todd~AF... Kaleoku... 2012/12/12 01:43:32
    Todd~AFCL~PWCM~JLA
    Your denial of his goals, based on his refusal to admit to them is more intellectually dishonest than anything I could ever post. It is obvious that your goal is to either distract people from what is happening until it is too late, or to convince them to place the chains around their own necks.
  • Kaleoku... Todd~AF... 2012/12/12 01:47:20 (edited)
    Kaleokualoha
    Which goals? His stated goals or your speculation?

    PolitiFact.com calls the "socialist" charge a PANTS ON FIRE LIE! See http://www.politifact.com/tex...

    [QUOTE]
    Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett told PolitiFact: "Socialism means public ownership of the means of production. Obama does not believe this. Therefore he is not a socialist. … Although it is true that the federal government did come to own some private businesses as a consequence of bailout policies initiated by the George W. Bush administration such as (the Troubled Asset Relief Program), the Obama administration sold many of them — such as its shares in GM — as quickly as feasible. A true socialist would have held on to them."
    [END QUOTE]

    Those fringe elements who consider Obama to be a "socialist" lack the perspective of socialism that ACTUAL socialists enjoy. It may therefore prove useful to examine Obama's policies from the perspective of avowed socialists:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/...

    http://www.laprogressive.com/...

    http://www.examiner.com/worce...

    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-...

    http://wspus.org/2008/09/is-o...

    http://www.peaceandfreedom.or...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com...

    http://socialistparty-usa.org... (refutes State of the Union speech)

    http://socialistparty-usa.org... (rejects "Obamacare")


    Authored by Wor...











    Which goals? His stated goals or your speculation?

    PolitiFact.com calls the "socialist" charge a PANTS ON FIRE LIE! See http://www.politifact.com/tex...

    [QUOTE]
    Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett told PolitiFact: "Socialism means public ownership of the means of production. Obama does not believe this. Therefore he is not a socialist. … Although it is true that the federal government did come to own some private businesses as a consequence of bailout policies initiated by the George W. Bush administration such as (the Troubled Asset Relief Program), the Obama administration sold many of them — such as its shares in GM — as quickly as feasible. A true socialist would have held on to them."
    [END QUOTE]

    Those fringe elements who consider Obama to be a "socialist" lack the perspective of socialism that ACTUAL socialists enjoy. It may therefore prove useful to examine Obama's policies from the perspective of avowed socialists:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/...

    http://www.laprogressive.com/...

    http://www.examiner.com/worce...

    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-...

    http://wspus.org/2008/09/is-o...

    http://www.peaceandfreedom.or...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com...

    http://socialistparty-usa.org... (refutes State of the Union speech)

    http://socialistparty-usa.org... (rejects "Obamacare")


    Authored by World Socialist Party US:
    [QUOTE]
    "Is Obama a socialist? He does not regard himself as one. Neither do we. This issue of World Socialist Review examines Obama's outlook and life story, his packaging as a politician, and his policy in such areas as healthcare, the economy, and the environment. It also places Obama in the context of world capitalism and the American political system.

    World Socialist Review is published by the World Socialist Party of the United States, which forms part of the World Socialist Movement together with companion parties and groups in other countries. For further information and literature on other topics, please go to our website at http://wspus.org"
    [END QUOTE https://www.createspace.com/3... World Socialist Review 22]

    Those on the fringe of any group often lack the perspective to accurately gauge the position of others near the center or on the other side of the group. To a dwarf, people of average height may seem tall.



    "The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth."
    - Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)
    (more)
  • gfreema... The Lib... 2012/12/11 18:22:18
    gfreeman BN-0
    +3
    I love how you set out your 10 conditions yet don't provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of how that applies to the United States today.
  • Todd~AF... gfreema... 2012/12/12 01:07:02
    Todd~AFCL~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    If you would open your eyes to what is going on in this country, you would know that no examples actually needed posted, but as you are apparently too lazy to do any of your own looking...
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-...
    http://www.nationalreview.com...
    http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/78...
    This one contains actual examples..
    http://www.theblaze.com/stori...
  • gfreema... Todd~AF... 2012/12/12 15:30:30
    gfreeman BN-0
    Breitbart, WND? Are you kidding me?!?!?
  • The Lib... gfreema... 2012/12/12 01:20:42
    The Lib Hater
    +2
    Like I said, Liberals are getting dumber everyday, thanks for proving my point comrade.
  • gfreema... The Lib... 2012/12/12 15:30:56
    gfreeman BN-0
    Go goosestep off a cliff, fascist.
  • hiram 2012/12/11 15:57:49
  • Todd~AFCL~PWCM~JLA 2012/12/11 15:57:47
    Todd~AFCL~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    I have a few problems accepting the claims in this BS article, because they are obviously meant to confuse, not explain. Democracy, by definition is Majority Rules, so if you have 300 million people voting to limit all couples to having only one child, enforceable by mandated abortions, and 150,000,001 vote yes, while 149, 999,999 vote no, then forced abortions will follow. True democracy is mob rule.
    Socialism, by definition, requires all to pay the same and all to receive the same, based upon their "needs", so if you don't need it, it WILL be taken from you and given to somebody else who needs it; YOU don't get to decide if you need it. Of course, citing the police as an example of socialism within our country is false claim. The police are the enforcement arm of the executive branch of the government, whether it be local, county, state, or even national (think FBI for national.)
    If this is the kind of government you want to live under, go somewhere that already has this type of oppressive regime and leave this constitutional republic alone.
  • whitewulf--the unruly mobster 2012/12/11 15:21:51
  • Todd~AF... whitewu... 2012/12/11 16:23:40
    Todd~AFCL~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    Their claims are also quite odious and meant to convince that up is down and left is right.
  • Osama M... whitewu... 2012/12/12 02:49:04
    Osama McDonalds
    'Right Wing' originated in France during revolutionary times and referred to where people sat, on the left or 'right' side, of French parliament. The people on the right supported the monarchy (the rich) and its institutions...those who sat on the 'left' side supported forming a republic and taking the king and the church out of the governmental equation.

    Seems like things haven't changed much.
  • mich52 2012/12/11 13:56:18
  • macbeth 2012/12/11 13:46:44
    macbeth
    +2
    The conservatives on SH do not understand that we live in a mixed economy: the private and public sectors both have their part to play.
    It's not that difficult, really.
  • hiram macbeth 2012/12/11 15:59:01
  • macbeth hiram 2012/12/11 16:00:52
    macbeth
    +1
    Who's being taxed 100%?
  • hiram macbeth 2012/12/11 16:08:56
  • macbeth hiram 2012/12/11 16:15:50
    macbeth
    +1
    Never suggested it did.
  • hiram macbeth 2012/12/11 19:02:54
  • macbeth hiram 2012/12/11 19:07:34
    macbeth
    +1
    Erm...without taxes you wouldn't have any public sector.
  • hiram macbeth 2012/12/11 19:13:53
  • macbeth hiram 2012/12/11 19:18:29 (edited)
    macbeth
    +1
    Yes, that's one point of view.
    You can have a private army, police forces, trash disposal, education...everything as you suggest.
    Then your laissez faire capitalism was rejected as a viable political system some hundreds of years ago.
  • hiram macbeth 2012/12/11 19:21:34
  • macbeth hiram 2012/12/11 19:26:43 (edited)
  • hiram macbeth 2012/12/11 19:29:59
  • Idiot r... macbeth 2012/12/11 23:46:59
    Idiot repubs
    +2


    No government?
  • Osama M... Idiot r... 2012/12/12 02:20:58
    Osama McDonalds
    +1
    Nice! Funny, I just watched Lord of the Flies the other day.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/21 12:13:47

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals