Obama and Socialism: a MUST read

[Yurt]

Fairfax, Va. – Since telling Joe the Plumber of his wish to "spread the wealth around," Barack Obama is being called a socialist. Is he one?

No. At least not in the classic sense of the term. "Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks.

...

Of course, socialism utterly failed. But it wasn't just a failure of organization or efficiency. By making the state the arbiter of economic value and social justice, as well as the source of rights, it deprived individuals of their liberty – and tragically, often their lives.

The late Robert Heilbroner – a socialist for most of his life – admitted after the collapse of the Iron Curtain that socialism "was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty
...

A happy difference separating today from the 1930s is that, unlike back then, no serious thinkers or groups in America now push for this kind of full-throttle socialism.

But what about a milder form of socialism? If reckoned as an attitude rather than a set of guidelines for running an economy, socialism might well describe Senator Obama's economics. Anyone who speaks glibly of "spreading the wealth around" sees wealth not as resulting chiefly from individual effort, initiative, and risk-taking, but from great social forces beyond any private producer's control.

Wealth, in this view, is produced principally by society. So society's claim on it is at least as strong as that of any of the individuals in whose bank accounts it appears. More important, because wealth is produced mostly by society (rather than by individuals), taxing high-income earners more heavily will do little to reduce total wealth production.

This notion of wealth certainly warrants the name "socialism," for it gives the abstraction "society" pride of place over flesh-and-blood individuals. If taxes are reduced on Joe the Plumber's income, the rationale must be that Joe deserves a larger share of society's collectively baked pie and not that Joe earned his income or that lower taxes will inspire Joe to work harder

This "socialism-lite," however, is as specious as is classic socialism. And its insidious nature makes it even more dangerous. Across Europe, this "mild" form of socialism acts as a parasitic ideology that has slowly drained entrepreneurial energy – and freedoms – from its free-market host.

Could it happen in America? Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas's words.

MORE at link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081030...HjZz.LH2wEtbAF

[retiredman]

from your cut and paste article:

"Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks.

That isn't just what "socialism originally meant"... it is what "socialism" MEANS!


a "milder form of socialism" isn't socialism at all, but something else. the folks on the right want to "redefine" the word so that they can use it to villify and demonize liberalism.

[MtnBiker]

Using only the original meaning of socialism doesn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed on the word by the founders of socialism.

[Yurt]

from your cut and paste article:

"Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks.

That isn't just what "socialism originally meant"... it is what "socialism" MEANS!


a "milder form of socialism" isn't socialism at all, but something else. the folks on the right want to "redefine" the word so that they can use it to villify and demonize liberalism.

right it is the new socialism as the article properly points out, no one today who is a serious thinker would even try to get classic socialism going again after its terrible failure... from the article:

A happy difference separating today from the 1930s is that, unlike back then, no serious thinkers or groups in America now push for this kind of full-throttle socialism.

But what about a milder form of socialism? If reckoned as an attitude rather than a set of guidelines for running an economy, socialism might well describe Senator Obama's economics. Anyone who speaks glibly of "spreading the wealth around" sees wealth not as resulting chiefly from individual effort, initiative, and risk-taking, but from great social forces beyond any private producer's control.

Wealth, in this view, is produced principally by society. So society's claim on it is at least as strong as that of any of the individuals in whose bank accounts it appears. More important, because wealth is produced mostly by society (rather than by individuals), taxing high-income earners more heavily will do little to reduce total wealth production.

This notion of wealth certainly warrants the name "socialism," for it gives the abstraction "society" pride of place over flesh-and-blood individuals. If taxes are reduced on Joe the Plumber's income, the rationale must be that Joe deserves a larger share of society's collectively baked pie and not that Joe earned his income or that lower taxes will inspire Joe to work harder

This "socialism-lite," however, is as specious as is classic socialism.

care to take a shot at why this is wrong because all you did was merely puppet that socialism must always mean socialism...which is absolutely not true as even republican and democrats mean something different now and further, the article flat out said it is not classic socialism, rather a new hybrid form of socialism....so your points really do nothing to dispel the powerful truth of the article and how obama is secretely trying to push america into a new hybrid form of socialism...

he likes to hide things, it is no surprise he would try to sneak a new form of socialism on us as well

[Yurt]

Using only the original meaning of socialism doesn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed on the word by the founders of socialism.

exactly, just like we have a republic today that is not the same as a republic 200 years ago

spreading the wealth, as the article rightly points out, is a strong part of the socialist creed, taking from others what is rightfully theirs and giving to others who have not earned it simply due to a belief that all wealth comes from society as a whole and not the individual.

[retiredman]

exactly, just like we have a republic today that is not the same as a republic 200 years ago

spreading the wealth, as the article rightly points out, is a strong part of the socialist creed, taking from others what is rightfully theirs and giving to others who have not earned it simply due to a belief that all wealth comes from society as a whole and not the individual.

if that is what defines "socialism" to you, then, with our progressive income tax system, we have been a socialist nation for nearly a century.

[retiredman]

care to take a shot at why this is wrong because all you did was merely puppet that socialism must always mean socialism...which is absolutely not true as even republican and democrats mean something different now and further, the article flat out said it is not classic socialism, rather a new hybrid form of socialism....so your points really do nothing to dispel the powerful truth of the article and how obama is secretely trying to push america into a new hybrid form of socialism...

I believe that you try to villify liberalism by claiming it is some NEW form of socialism. Socialism is a word. It has a meaning. It's meaning is clear. It consists of government ownership and control of the means of production. The word "socialism" is a boogeyman...much like "communism" or "fascism". Both sides are guilty of casting the policy's of the other side as one of those "bad" words because it works... it scares people. Republicans have been calling democrats "socialists" since at LEAST as far back as Barry Goldwater. Democrats have been calling republicans fascists since... Reagan, I guess or mayber earlier. That is just part of American politics. namecalling.

From my perspective, there are simply some things that government can do better than the private sector. National defense... law enforcement... environmental protection... to name a few. Believing that does not make me a socialist. Believing in a progressive income tax system does not make me a socialist.

[Yurt]

if that is what defines "socialism" to you, then, with our progressive income tax system, we have been a socialist nation for nearly a century.

a form of it, absolutely...however, let us be clear about one thing, obama said he directly wants to take money from X person and give it to Y person

i believe the progressive tax is more about giving the money to the government in order to have the government supposedly run more efficient, not directly to another person, to "you know, spread the wealth around", so IMO, progressive tax is less about direct redistrubution of wealth, rather, more about those with higher income paying more of the tax burden the government demands of us. i believe in practice, it is an indirect form of wealth distribution, but it is not nearly as dangerous as obama's form of socialism lite.

[retiredman]

a form of it, absolutely...however, let us be clear about one thing, obama said he directly wants to take money from X person and give it to Y person

i believe the progressive tax is more about giving the money to the government in order to have the government supposedly run more efficient, not directly to another person, to "you know, spread the wealth around", so IMO, progressive tax is less about direct redistrubution of wealth, rather, more about those with higher income paying more of the tax burden the government demands of us. i believe in practice, it is an indirect form of wealth distribution, but it is not nearly as dangerous as obama's form of socialism lite.

If you don't think that a progressive tax system "spreads the wealth around" you are delusional...and that IS the type of "spreading" that Obama was referring to.

[red states rule]

If you don't think that a progressive tax system "spreads the wealth around" you are delusional...and that IS the type of "spreading" that Obama was referring to.

Taxes are to fund the Constitutional duties of government. Liberals turned the tax code into their personal piggy bank to keep people dependent on government - which is where they want to keep them

The more people hooked on a government check the happier liberals are

[Silver]

from your cut and paste article:

"Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks.

That isn't just what "socialism originally meant"... it is what "socialism" MEANS!


a "milder form of socialism" isn't socialism at all, but something else. the folks on the right want to "redefine" the word so that they can use it to villify and demonize liberalism.

You have no problem re-defining 'marriage' to suit your perverted idea of male ass-fucking.....

Socialism can and does have a variety of definitions that depend on the context the word is used in....but its not my job to explain the complexities of words commonly used in the english language...

[retiredman]

Taxes are to fund the Constitutional duties of government.

"Promote the general welfare"

[retiredman]

Socialism can and does have a variety of definitions that depend on the context the word is used in....but its not my job to explain the complexities of words commonly used in the english language...

Bullshit. The "context" that "socialism" is used in here refers to government. In that "context", "socialism" means government ownership and control of the means of production.

[red states rule]

"Promote the general welfare"

Libs like you not only promote it but advertise and encourage it

You and your ilk are like drung dealers. You lure the victim in by promising to make them feel better, and telling them you are the answer to all their problems. You get them hooked and dependent on you for their next fix. In this case their next government check

Like the drug dealer, the last thing you want is for them to be free of you and make it in life without your "fix"

[retiredman]

Libs like you not only promote it but advertise and encourage it

You and your ilk are like drung dealers. You lure the victim in by promising to make them feel better, and telling them you are the answer to all their problems. You get them hooked and dependent on you for their next fix. In this case their next government check

Like the drug dealer, the last thing you want is for them to be free of you and make it in life without your "fix"

blah blah blah.

you're like a fucking broken record.