A heads up vis a vis socialism

A heads up vis a vis socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Arpig -> A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 6:11:25 PM)
Lately a lot of posters (particularly those on the right) have been throwing around the terms socialist and socialism regarding Obama. Obama is not, I repeat NOT a socialist. In Canada he would fit comfortably within our Conservative party. In Canada we have actual socialist parties...parties that are proud to be socialist. So in the interests of accuracy I thought I would provide, as sort of a public service, a few examples of socialist political platforms. Here is an example of a mildly socialist platform. And here is what a truly socialist party's web page looks like.

TheHeretic -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 7:04:58 PM)
You have to understand, Arpig, "Socialist" is a word that gets used very casually in the United States in reference to those who default to a "government first" solution.

gift4mistress -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 7:43:51 PM)
Our so called conservative party is nothing more than a left . So, what would that make our so called Liberal party? Obama is a socialist. Now, there is not an exact definition of socialism. However, there are many types and definitions of socialism. Obama happens to be one of them. If you approve of LARGER GOVERNMENT than what are you? PER/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism 1. 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. Before you jump the gun and say "the definitions says productions and distribution of capital or land." It also says ETC which can imply almost anything. For instance, eduction provided for and by the PEOPLE is technically a form of socialism. You can't get more bipartisan than dictionary.com

Arpig -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 8:10:14 PM)
Well then, g4m, I guess by your reckoning GWB was a socialist as well...I seem to remember something about wanting to be remembered as the "education President". For that matter every administration since LBJ has technically been socialist,since they all supported government funding of primary education. Your interpretation of the definition is ridiculous, it is based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of "etc.". It means: "and so forth"or "and the rest of the similar things". It does not mean "and anything else you can think of". The definition you quote is clearly listing the various "means of production and distribution", and the "etc." in the definition therefore means "and other means of production and distribution". Just as when I say "I am going to buy gin, whiskey, vodka, etc." it is clear that the "etc." means "and other types of booze". It does not mean potatoes and bread. I stand by my earlier statement: There is no viable socialist option in the US.

rulemylife -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 8:21:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gift4mistress Our so called conservative party is nothing more than a left . So, what would that make our so called Liberal party? Obama is a socialist. Now, there is not an exact definition of socialism. However, there are many types and definitions of socialism. Obama happens to be one of them. If you approve of LARGER GOVERNMENT than what are you? PER/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism 1. 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. Before you jump the gun and say "the definitions says productions and distribution of capital or land." It also says ETC which can imply almost anything. For instance, eduction provided for and by the PEOPLE is technically a form of socialism. You can't get more bipartisan than dictionary.com And you can't get much less bi-partisan than someone who pulls one word out of a citation and bases his whole case on it.

gift4mistress -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 8:39:37 PM)
Who owns a Public school? The PEOPLE? Lets say in this scenario the American PEOPLE own a burger king. We are going to compare Public School to Public Burger King Here is the question: what is the difference between the two? (other than the products) It's a trick answer. There is none. They are both providing you a service by the PEOPLE. They are both owned by the PEOPLE. They are both going to run on a bureaucratic system by the PEOPLE. They are both not going to try and make any profit for the PEOPLE. Oh no another definition of socialism? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism 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 state Lets go back to the School vs Burger King Schools product is? Eduction and it is provided by GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE. Public schools are considered PUBLIC PROPERTY Burger King's product is? Food and in this scenario it is provided by the GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE. In this scenario, this Burger King would be also PUBLIC PROPERTY. What is the big difference rulemylife?

gift4mistress -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 9:06:24 PM)
What! Could it be? Another definition of socialism. This is just jaw dropping. This one is from a socialist website http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. Now all resources are owned by the global population. I can't believe it. There is another definition of Socialism. http://www.redletterpress.org/socialism101.html Socialism is an economic system characterized by public ownership and centralized planning of all major industries (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, and medical facilities. Under capitalism, these giant enterprises dominate the economy but are privately owned and operated for the purpose of generating wealth for their owners by extracting it from working people who are paid only a small fraction of what their labor produces. Socialism turns this around so that the class that produces the wealth can collectively decide how it will be used for the benefit of all. What I am trying to convince to you is that: your definition or your countries definition of socialism is not OBSOLETE. There are many definitions out there just like there are many different sects of socialism. Just incase you still don't get it. Here is an analogy: There is not one CRIP gang but there but there are many. They each have there own signs, culture, names, and etc (there is that funny word again).

Arpig -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 9:09:32 PM)
So tell me, g4m, is there a non-socialist country on the face of the earth. And you can keep trotting out as many definitions of socialism as you want,they are only proving my point for me, no matter how badly you misunderstand them. Thanks[:)]

gift4mistress -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 9:17:23 PM)
I'm not saying that America is communist. I am saying however that America has some socialistic policies in it. I mean, is there a 100 percent communist state out there? No. Is there a 100% Libertarian state out there? No. Is there a 100 % fascist state out there? No. How am I proving your point? Your point is that there is no political party in America that has any socialistic agendas in it? What is: UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE (Obama wants), Cap and trade (Obama wants) Public transportation, Food stamps, Social Welfare, Social Security, Medicaid? These are all socialistic programs. What says you? Oh snap! I almost forgot. Did you know that America now own GM? That is a car MANUFACTURING company that builds and makes cars that is owned BY THE PEOPLE now thanks to Obama. Did you also know that Obama fired GM's old CEO. Oh wait, we the people also own some of the banks in America as well?

Arpig -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 9:33:36 PM)
quote: Your point is that there is no political party in America that has any socialistic agendas in it? Wrong.my point was that there was no real socialist option in the US. Yes, there are many individual programs that are socialist in nature, but those programs have been instituted and supported by Democrats and Republicans both. However there is no party or administration that can truly be called socialist. In the US socialist has come to mean pretty much the same thing as liberal. And before this goes on to far, my aim in starting this thread was to poke fun at those who claim that Obama is a socialist hellbent on destroying the US, and to be honest,you have helped to prove my point...he isn't much more socialist than many who have gone before.

Brain -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 10:07:15 PM)
Ralph Nader might be a Socialist option. Vote Nader and Build a Socialist Alternative! Who is Ralph Nader? What does he stand for? Why should I vote for him? ... A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. As the American socialist Eugene Debs put ... Nader stands for: universal health care a $10 living wage the abolition of the death penalty equal rights for gays and lesbians for a woman's right to choose an end to corporate hegemony in politics the repeal of Taft Hartley (anti-union law) getting rid of the WTO, the World Bank and the Imperialist Monetary Front (IMF) making it easier to organize unions http://www.geocities.com/anita_job/nader.html

Arpig -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 10:12:45 PM)
quote: Ralph Nader might be a Socialist option. I did say a viable option[:D]

Ialdabaoth -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 10:35:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig So tell me, g4m, is there a non-socialist country on the face of the earth. You forgot Somalia.

Arpig -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 10:36:44 PM)
quote: You forgot Somalia. True enough.....however, I am not sure if Somalia even counts as a country [:D]

Ialdabaoth -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 10:42:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: You forgot Somalia. True enough.....however, I am not sure if Somalia even counts as a country [:D] DING! Now, think about that a step further. Logical, by any definition you could reasonably construct, anything that qualifies as a "country" is a socialist institution; the only question is "how much". When people rant about "socialism", at essence what they're arguing for is anarchy.

Brain -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/9/2009 10:56:35 PM)
I am sure Ralph and the many people who work for him consider him viable. I think Obama should appoint Nader to run General Motors. And I also think Obama should let him do election reform to make sure the votes are counted accurately. quote: viable

mefisto69 -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/10/2009 3:36:29 AM)
the difference between a public school and a burger king is this: at the burger king you are not required to pass a worthless Bushwacker right wing driven 'test' that prepares you for nothing in life before you get your goods..... you simply lay the cash on the counter.

DomImus -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/10/2009 5:55:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Obama is not, I repeat NOT a socialist. In Canada he would fit comfortably within our Conservative party. We would love nothing more than for him to find a comfortable spot within the Canadian Conservative party. Will you please take him?

Apocalypso -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/10/2009 8:06:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth When people rant about "socialism", at essence what they're arguing for is anarchy. Anarchism is socialism without a state.

Arpig -> RE: A heads up vis a vis socialism (8/10/2009 9:41:17 AM)
quote: We would love nothing more than for him to find a comfortable spot within the Canadian Conservative party. Will you please take him? No, he`s too right wing for me, I am a Liberal most of the time [:D]

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125