He's not Capitalist. He IS a socialist. The unemployment is rising, he's racist, he's making the recession worse, he covers up all of his "mistakes", he apologizes to countries for doing something good, and worst of all, he hates the U.S.
[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:
[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:
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)
Back to school, Grasshoppa! 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 Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.
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 ...
Back to school, Grasshoppa! 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 Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.
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." Limited public ownership occurs at virtually every point on the mixed economy spectrum.
Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which requires the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is 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.
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.
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 regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any 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 common standards.
Marxist "socialism," in contrast to European "democratic socialism," requires collective ownership of the means of production in lieu of capitalism. 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.
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.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." - Proverbs 1:7
Obama's a socialist. The unemployment is the same, the economy is worse, he raised the debt the same amount as Bush(5 trillion) in only 3 years, and he lies about every single mistake he makes.
No doubt he raised the debt. That is not a point of contention.
If you consider any government regulation to be "socialism," then ALL economies are socialist. The replacement of capitalism with collectivization, however, is the litmus test for Marxist socialism.
As previously noted, 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.
"The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth." - Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)
The United States has government regulation, which places it on the mixed economy spectrum. NO economy has laissez-faire (unregulated) capitalism. NO economy has absolutely "free" enterprise, including the United States. EVERY economy, including the United States, may be considered socialist.
Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which requires the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is 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.
Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial ...
The United States has government regulation, which places it on the mixed economy spectrum. NO economy has laissez-faire (unregulated) capitalism. NO economy has absolutely "free" enterprise, including the United States. EVERY economy, including the United States, may be considered socialist.
Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which requires the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is 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.
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.
Oh , He's MUCH WORSE THAN THAT ! Born To Communists , Raised By Communists , Mentored By A Marxist , Joined Socialist Party Group ........................
Obama's army against America are the OWS losers, spoiled brats who hate achievers and believe they are entitled to the fruit of other folk's labor.
Talk about the wild bunch ,Obama's OWS battalion includes Marxists, Communists, anti-Semitics, racists, rapists, the lazy, and the trifling, along with assorted other nuts. Mr. President, I would not put much stock in this mob getting out of bed on election day and finding their way to the polls
Maybe he's way more socialist than other American politicians, but compared to some people in my country he's totally a capitalist. Hopefully he can become more socialist, gradually, but not take complete control like some people did.
Sucks to be a in second rate country, doesn't it? That's why I won't travel to places like Russia. The standard of living there is depressing . . . and I don't go on vacation to be depressed.
Chances are, the only reason you have a computer is because of capitalism. You certainly wouldn't be allowed to have one and access to the Internet under Communism.
A certain amount of Socialism is needed for the public as far as schools, police, fire departments, etc. But those services are paid for by capitalistic endeavors. Socialism needs capitalism . . . not the other way around.
The goal of socialism is communism. - Vladimir Lenin
I was addressing and comparing ideologies. Where did xenophobia come in? . . . unless you're projecting your fears into the discussion. In which case, I would be happy to help you with that if I can. And isolationism? Capatilism can't be applied globally? Pray tell me why not? It has been for over two centuries. The bigger the market, the better.
http://online.wsj.com/article...
[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...
[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)
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 ...
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." Limited public ownership occurs at virtually every point on the mixed economy spectrum.
Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which requires the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is 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.
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.
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 regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any 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 common standards.
Marxist "socialism," in contrast to European "democratic socialism," requires collective ownership of the means of production in lieu of capitalism. 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.
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.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." - Proverbs 1:7
These are the qualities of a socialist.
If you consider any government regulation to be "socialism," then ALL economies are socialist. The replacement of capitalism with collectivization, however, is the litmus test for Marxist socialism.
As previously noted, 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.
"The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth." - Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)
Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which requires the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is 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.
Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial ...
Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which requires the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is 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.
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.
Talk about the wild bunch ,Obama's OWS battalion includes Marxists, Communists, anti-Semitics, racists, rapists, the lazy, and the trifling, along with assorted other nuts. Mr. President, I would not put much stock in this mob getting out of bed on election day and finding their way to the polls
That's why I won't travel to places like Russia.
The standard of living there is depressing . . .
and I don't go on vacation to be depressed.
Chances are, the only reason you have a computer is because of capitalism.
You certainly wouldn't be allowed to have one and access to the Internet under Communism.
A certain amount of Socialism is needed for the public as far as schools, police, fire departments, etc. But those services are paid for by capitalistic endeavors.
Socialism needs capitalism . . . not the other way around.
The goal of socialism is communism.
- Vladimir Lenin
Where did xenophobia come in?
. . . unless you're projecting your fears into the discussion.
In which case, I would be happy to help you with that if I can.
And isolationism? Capatilism can't be applied globally?
Pray tell me why not? It has been for over two centuries.
The bigger the market, the better.