PDA

View Full Version : Obama is not a socialist.




brandon
03-22-2010, 12:56 PM
He is a corporatist in the same vein as George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Reagan and most of the others. The word "fascist" is a much more accurate description of his political ideology and the way he executes it.

When one calls him a socialist, they are making the same mistake as those who believe America has a capitalist economy. It makes us sound uneducated, and does not build any bridges. You're attacking someone for something they aren't.


/rant

Dunedain
03-22-2010, 12:58 PM
Obama is a communist. He believes in socialism and public ownership of other people's capital, but he still believes in keep the free market functioning for himself and his paymasters. Also, he believes in Egalitarianism, which is a hallmark of communist thought.

Facists do not believe that diversity is a strength. They believe unity is a strength. Obama pushes divisiveness.

A corporation is simply an extension of the government. Corporations owe their existence to the government; like unions. The government gives them Obama hates small businesses....look at what healthcare will do to companies with less than 50 people (2,000 fine unless they offer health care).

Anti Federalist
03-22-2010, 01:00 PM
He is a corporatist in the same vein as George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Reagan and most of the others. The word "fascist" is a much more accurate description of his political ideology and the way he executes it.

When one calls him a socialist, they are making the same mistake as those who believe America has a capitalist economy. It makes us sound uneducated, and does not build any bridges. You're attacking someone for something they aren't.


/rant

I approve of and endorse this post.

AuH20
03-22-2010, 01:00 PM
Mussolini + George Bernard Shaw = Obama

Indy Vidual
03-22-2010, 01:03 PM
So he is a drunken fascist? Those White House parties are huge...

erowe1
03-22-2010, 01:05 PM
A corporation is simply an extension of the government.
No it isn't.


Corporations owe their existence to the government; like unions.
No they don't.


Also, he believes in Egalitarianism, which is a hallmark of communist thought.

Facists do not believe that diversity is a strength.

I agree with your assessment on that part.

pcosmar
03-22-2010, 01:08 PM
Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4425.html

erowe1
03-22-2010, 01:09 PM
He is a corporatist in the same vein as George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Reagan and most of the others. The word "fascist" is a much more accurate description of his political ideology and the way he executes it.

When one calls him a socialist, they are making the same mistake as those who believe America has a capitalist economy. It makes us sound uneducated, and does not build any bridges. You're attacking someone for something they aren't.


/rant

I basically agree with you. I think Obama very well may be a socialist. But he'll take corporatism as the next best thing.

There's a real danger in Republicans using the label "socialist" as the all-purpose objection to everything the other party comes up with, and that's that it leaves them an out when it's their turn and they propose similar things that are just as interventionist as anything the Dems want but only a tad bit more corporatist and a tad bit less socialist, and then defend those things as not being socialist because of some superficial difference, like integrating some aspect of consumer choice in something like Medicare Part D.

AuH20
03-22-2010, 01:10 PM
Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4425.html

In the recent Brett Baier interview, Obama grew agitated when Baier kept bringing up the takeover of 1/6th of the American economy. Obama clairified himself that it would be a GRADUAL process. So Fabian in his response.

Vessol
03-22-2010, 01:11 PM
As much as Obama may be a socialist, I am not going to call him that as it makes me sound like one of the parroting Fox idiots. Not to mention Corporatist is a better term for debates, people tend to just ignore and roll their eyes when socialism is even brought up.

AuH20
03-22-2010, 01:14 PM
I basically agree with you. I think Obama very well may be a socialist. But he'll take corporatism as the next best thing.

There's a real danger in Republicans using the label "socialist" as the all-purpose objection to everything the other party comes up with, and that's that it leaves them an out when it's their turn and they propose similar things that are just as interventionist as anything the Dems want but only a tad bit more corporatist and a tad bit less socialist, and then defend those things as not being socialist because of some superficial difference, like integrating some aspect of consumer choice in something like Medicare Part D.

The fixation with the socialist charge gives him an almost subconscious bump with the segment of the public who have a soft spot for the Robin Hood types. A true socialist like Bernie Sanders would never expand the regulatory powers of the Fed nor subsidize the insurance industry.

RedStripe
03-22-2010, 01:15 PM
Obama is a communist. He believes in socialism and public ownership of other people's capital, but he still believes in keep the free market functioning for himself and his paymasters. Also, he believes in Egalitarianism, which is a hallmark of communist thought.

lmao

no.

RedStripe
03-22-2010, 01:23 PM
Look at the people who actually call themselves socialists - they are very different from Obama.

Those "true socialists" certainly advocate things that many here, myself included, disagree with. But at the very least, their desire for the state to nationalize industry is motivated by a desire to make capital work for the benefit of the working class instead of the industrialists. Corporate liberals, on the other hand, want to keep the ownership and profits of capitalism (which always has been, as practiced, a system in which the government rigs the game/subsidizes the capitalists despite the guise of being a free market - disagree with my definition but why else do you think it's called capitalism) in 'private' hands while maintaining a welfare state to pacify the masses and keep the machine working.

"a liberal is someone who thinks the system is broken and needs to be fixed, whereas a radical understands it’s working the way it’s supposed to."

catdd
03-22-2010, 01:27 PM
Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4425.html

Yeah, and it's just a matter of time now before every means of self sufficiency, such as hunting, fishing, private farming and herbal/holistic healthcare are outlawed.

silentshout
03-22-2010, 01:51 PM
He is a corporatist in the same vein as George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Reagan and most of the others. The word "fascist" is a much more accurate description of his political ideology and the way he executes it.

When one calls him a socialist, they are making the same mistake as those who believe America has a capitalist economy. It makes us sound uneducated, and does not build any bridges. You're attacking someone for something they aren't.


/rant


Yes, 100% agree.

JeNNiF00F00
03-22-2010, 02:00 PM
"a liberal is someone who thinks the system is broken and needs to be fixed, whereas a radical understands it’s working the way it’s supposed to."

Where is this quote from?

MN Patriot
03-22-2010, 02:00 PM
Trying to argue what is socialism and what isn't socialism is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Democrats resent being called socialists, but then idolize socialists like Hugo Chavez, Castro, etc. The left side of the political spectrum includes socialism and communism, AND Democrats, but they say they are different. How?

I say this is all part of the effort to confuse and fool people. Many of the rank and file Democrats are truly deluded and don't think of themselves as socialists, but they support socialist ideals.

If Obama is not a socialist, then explain this:
While attending Columbia, Obama regularly attends Marxist-socialist conferences at Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in Manhattan.
source: http://www.colony14.net/id41.html

low preference guy
03-22-2010, 02:13 PM
to finish all controversy:

Obama is a STATIST

Natalie
03-22-2010, 02:16 PM
Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4425.html

I'm a Fabian.

Golding
03-22-2010, 02:16 PM
Trying to argue what is socialism and what isn't socialism is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Democrats resent being called socialists, but then idolize socialists like Hugo Chavez, Castro, etc. The left side of the political spectrum includes socialism and communism, AND Democrats, but they say they are different. How?Funny enough, this has always been a tenet in societies rooted in socialism. That is where Orwell came up with the concept of not calling things as they are. If the government can control what something is called (nowadays in the name of "political correctness"), it can control criticisms against it.

awake
03-22-2010, 02:19 PM
Socialist? Is it not him and his band of looters that worked to bring about socialized healthcare? He took over GM, and the whole mortgage market. At what point do you say hey he might be socialist or at least socialist minded? Will it be when environmental policies drop a new blanket of paralysis on whats left of the free market, will we admit it then? What if he did all these things in one day instead of over the course of a year?

I think at this point people looking for confirmation that he is a socialist can't see the forest for the trees.

We should really start a thread with the following idea: You might be a socialist if...

pcosmar
03-22-2010, 02:22 PM
I'm a Fabian.

So is this,

http://www.hollywoodteenmovies.com/RideTheWildSurfFabianPic.jpg

Different Fabian. ;)

JeNNiF00F00
03-22-2010, 02:29 PM
The left side of the political spectrum includes socialism and communism, AND Democrats, but they say they are different. How?



You forgot Republicans too. They're all statists. Which is the basis for all of the isms. They're all left wing. No one realizes that they are socialist, when in fact they are.

ChaosControl
03-22-2010, 02:33 PM
He is a corporatist in the same vein as George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Reagan and most of the others. The word "fascist" is a much more accurate description of his political ideology and the way he executes it.

When one calls him a socialist, they are making the same mistake as those who believe America has a capitalist economy. It makes us sound uneducated, and does not build any bridges. You're attacking someone for something they aren't.


/rant

Correct, fascism is just authoritarian corporatism which defines him and his preds perfectly well, so yeah I call him a fascist rather than a socialist. Same idea with this insurance bill, it is a fascist not a socialist bill.

awake
03-22-2010, 02:34 PM
You know what. Forget trying to stick the label of socialist on the guy... Socialism this time will not be going by that name, it will be called some other term (communitarian or some BS term). What ever it is called this time around you can be assured when you try to label anyone with it you will be doing them a favor.

Vessol
03-22-2010, 02:36 PM
Like I said before, I stay away from calling him a socialist because the right idiots seem to be parroting it over and over again as of late. No one takes you seriously if you use that term today.

roho76
03-22-2010, 02:46 PM
No it isn't.


No they don't.



I agree with your assessment on that part.

Who do you file paperwork with to start a corporation? Can you have a corporation without going through the government? Who allows you to operate a business? If you don't pay your taxes who takes your business?

DapperDan
03-22-2010, 03:04 PM
Fascist with Fabian leaning?

No matter WHAT he is, him and his ideology suck and so do the people that surround him.

moostraks
03-22-2010, 03:07 PM
He is a corporatist in the same vein as George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Reagan and most of the others. The word "fascist" is a much more accurate description of his political ideology and the way he executes it.

When one calls him a socialist, they are making the same mistake as those who believe America has a capitalist economy. It makes us sound uneducated, and does not build any bridges. You're attacking someone for something they aren't.


/rant

This needs to be drilled into people because the emphasis is getting lost as to who is reaping the rewards of his policies.

pcosmar
03-22-2010, 03:12 PM
Right,
I think I got it now
Don't call communists, socialists, fascists, or collectivists of any type, communists, socialists, fascists, or collectivists, because people won't understand.

Got it. :rolleyes:

catdd
03-22-2010, 03:28 PM
Right,
I think I got it now
Don't call communists, socialists, fascists, or collectivists of any type, communists, socialists, fascists, or collectivists, because people won't understand.

Got it. :rolleyes:

Plus, you know, everyone that calls Obama a socialists is a closet racists. :rolleyes:

erowe1
03-22-2010, 03:29 PM
Who do you file paperwork with to start a corporation?
Because the state has injected itself into the process and requires you to do that. But if the state didn't do that, corporations would still exist.


Can you have a corporation without going through the government?
Not legally right now. But theoretically, of course you can. It's not like corporations only came into existence when the state got involved. Same thing with marriage. The state requires you to get marriage licenses. But if the state didn't do that, there would still be just as many marriages.



Who allows you to operate a business?
I don't operate a business. But if I did, then I suppose the answer would have to be that everyone who exists allows me to operate it.



If you don't pay your taxes who takes your business?
I don't know? The government? So what? Does that somehow mean that the very existence of all businesses is owed to the government somehow?

hugolp
03-22-2010, 04:06 PM
He is a corporatist in the same vein as George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Reagan and most of the others. The word "fascist" is a much more accurate description of his political ideology and the way he executes it.

When one calls him a socialist, they are making the same mistake as those who believe America has a capitalist economy. It makes us sound uneducated, and does not build any bridges. You're attacking someone for something they aren't.


/rant

What is the difference between fascism and socialism? Mussolini, the one who defined fascism, was part of the socialist party when he was young. I mean, the promises in socialism are not the same promises that facist make, but is there any real world difference when they are aplied?

tmosley
03-22-2010, 04:15 PM
Because the state has injected itself into the process and requires you to do that. But if the state didn't do that, corporations would still exist.


Define corporation.

A corporation is a company with an ownership structure which, by government decree, limits the liability of shareholders to the money they have invested. It is illegal to sue a shareholder of a corporation for the actions of that corporation. This state-imposed blanket immunity creates the imbalances and perverse incentives that typify corporations today.

You could have something similar to a corporation in a free market if you replaced the blanket immunity with insurance that assumes any shareholder liability above and beyond the value of the liquidated corporation and the value of the shares. Of course, if the crimes of said corporation were so heinous that the resultant lawsuits toppled the insurance company backing the offending corporation, then the shareholders could still be sued for restitution.

You CAN NOT have profit without risk. It's impossible. To deny this is to deny logic itself. The corporate form was created by the state (the first corporations were state corporations), and is perpetuated by the state. I'd suggest you read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

pcosmar
03-22-2010, 04:24 PM
What is the difference between fascism and socialism? Mussolini, the one who defined fascism, was part of the socialist party when he was young. I mean, the promises in socialism are not the same promises that facist make, but is there any real world difference when they are aplied?

Fascism IS socialism. Just one of the many forms (or brands).
I find very little difference between communism and socialism. Mostly just implementation.
They are all varying forms of collectivism with very little substantial difference.

John Taylor
03-22-2010, 04:29 PM
I'm a Fabian.

Disgusting.

michaelwise
03-22-2010, 04:48 PM
Our soldiers are corporate mercenaries. The get maimed and die for the corporations, not our country.

John Taylor
03-22-2010, 04:50 PM
Our soldiers are corporate mercenaries. The get maimed and die for the corporations, not our country.

Bullshit, You might be more comfortable at the Daily Kos?

Corporations are nothing but voluntary associations of individuals joining together by contract for limited liability investments. There's absolutely nothing sinister about them at all.

AuH20
03-22-2010, 04:51 PM
What is the difference between fascism and socialism? Mussolini, the one who defined fascism, was part of the socialist party when he was young. I mean, the promises in socialism are not the same promises that facist make, but is there any real world difference when they are aplied?

I see fascism as an almost pragmatic evolution of socialism. You're essentially cutting in the corporate raiders as your partners so to speak, knowing full well that it's more advantageous to keep them as allies instead of enemies.

brandon
03-22-2010, 05:27 PM
What is the difference between fascism and socialism? Mussolini, the one who defined fascism, was part of the socialist party when he was young. I mean, the promises in socialism are not the same promises that facist make, but is there any real world difference when they are aplied?

Facists seek to unite government entities with private entities. Socialists want to destroy private entities completely.

Socialists generally have good motives. They want to help everyone and they think they know the way to do it. Facists have more nefarious motives, and often seek to benefit themselves and other politically connected fatcats at the expense of the working class.

Socialists want "the public" to own the means of production. Fascists want private entities to own most of the means of prodution, but want to set strict rules about how they run their businesses.

Socialists want a public run non-profit healthcare system that will benefit everyone (in their eyes)

Fascists support private for-profit medical insurance, but they want to set the rules for these companies (no denying people with pre-existing conditions) and mandate that people do business with them (fined if you don't purchase service).

tmosley
03-22-2010, 05:34 PM
Bullshit, You might be more comfortable at the Daily Kos?

Corporations are nothing but voluntary associations of individuals joining together by contract for limited liability investments. There's absolutely nothing sinister about them at all.

I don't know how I would live without being able to incorporate, violate as many laws as I felt I could get away with, distribute the profits (to myself, of course), go bankrupt before the cops caught on, and go on my merry, risk-free profit way.

Read up on the origins of corporations. They were created by governments. They didn't exist prior to governments (though every other form of business did--it's just that with those, the owners were liable for their actions).

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

RedStripe
03-22-2010, 06:16 PM
Bullshit, You might be more comfortable at the Daily Kos?

Corporations are nothing but voluntary associations of individuals joining together by contract for limited liability investments. There's absolutely nothing sinister about them at all.

Corporations are granted entity status for political policy reasons. They are granted limited liability for political policy reasons.

While limited liability is possible to achieve in a purely contractual setting, it is only possible to achieve it through the drafting and acceptance of new contracts between borrowers and lenders, which involves transactions costs which the state has essentially removed and thus provided a subsidy to that particular business arrangement.

Further, under the common law there would be no way for a property owner to somehow make himself completely free of liability, even if he hands his property over to be used by known murders/thieves/reckless assholes (like stockholders can), in the case of a tort.

The corporate entity also deforms many traditional common law concepts of agency. The property owners have basically no say over how the corporation is run and the board of directors don't owe fiduciary duties to anyone but the mystical invented entity of the corporation itself.

Point is, you CANNOT get all the privileges of corporate person-hood without going through the state - especially not limited liability with respect to torts. It is a perversion of the common law.

Pete_00
03-22-2010, 07:22 PM
Communism v2.0 is different in the sense that instead of the "Ministry of [insert name of industrial/economic activity here]" (like it was in the USSR) we have the "[insert name of the government controlled corporation(s) here]"

But its possible that what many people warned us about is true...that this is all a transition fase designed to bring the final collapse, then we will have the "Ministry of [insert nome of industrial/economic activity here]" like it was in the USSR...and a totalitarian hellhole and a bunch of mass graves and gulags.

Sometimes this KGB defector warnings are downright scary:

YouTube - Yuri Bezmenov: Sleepers Emerge and Messiah Appears (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZHRgTskEhE)

http://www.cosmolearning.com/documentaries/yuri-bezmenov-lecture-on-subversion-1983/

http://www.cosmolearning.com/documentaries/yuri-bezmenov-interview-soviet-subversion-of-the-free-world-press-1984/

rprprs
03-22-2010, 07:33 PM
While I concur with previous posts suggesting that the unbridled parroting of the term "socialist" often diminishes our arguments, I still maintain that Obama IS a socialist.

While the impetus of his administration (so far) appears to have more in common with a fascist/corporatist ideology, it must be remembered that that administration and its congressional component is comprised of a diverse group of statists. We can't always judge what is in Obama's heart simply by what comes out of his administration.

Additionally, and probably more importantly, I believe the fascist/corporatist ideology is a much easier 'sell' in a society used to (some level of) free-market capitalism. Because it leaves elements of the former system in place, it is easier swallowed by the populace. In essence, it's what they think they can 'get away with' under current conditions.

Were these factors not in play, I think we would see Obama more clearly as the socialist he is.

paulitics
03-22-2010, 08:24 PM
The roots of fascism is socialism. Both Germany and Italy had a robust progressive movement (heavily financed of course) before they became fascistic. The social democrats were practically communists, and there was quite alot of turmoil in their legislative bodies. If you mix socialism with propaganda, and bailout the big monopoly guys at the same time, you have the ingredients for fascism.

heavenlyboy34
03-22-2010, 08:28 PM
Obama, like Bush and all the others before him, is more aptly called "fascialist", IMHO.

virgil47
03-22-2010, 10:19 PM
Obama is a Marxist through and through.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-22-2010, 11:23 PM
Obama is a communist. He believes in socialism and public ownership of other people's capital, but he still believes in keep the free market functioning for himself and his paymasters. Also, he believes in Egalitarianism, which is a hallmark of communist thought.

Facists do not believe that diversity is a strength. They believe unity is a strength. Obama pushes divisiveness.

A corporation is simply an extension of the government. Corporations owe their existence to the government; like unions. The government gives them Obama hates small businesses....look at what healthcare will do to companies with less than 50 people (2,000 fine unless they offer health care).


Obama is a Marxist through and through.


Obama, like Bush and all the others before him, is more aptly called "fascialist", IMHO.


The roots of fascism is socialism. Both Germany and Italy had a robust progressive movement (heavily financed of course) before they became fascistic. The social democrats were practically communists, and there was quite alot of turmoil in their legislative bodies. If you mix socialism with propaganda, and bailout the big monopoly guys at the same time, you have the ingredients for fascism.


While I concur with previous posts suggesting that the unbridled parroting of the term "socialist" often diminishes our arguments, I still maintain that Obama IS a socialist.

While the impetus of his administration (so far) appears to have more in common with a fascist/corporatist ideology, it must be remembered that that administration and its congressional component is comprised of a diverse group of statists. We can't always judge what is in Obama's heart simply by what comes out of his administration.

Additionally, and probably more importantly, I believe the fascist/corporatist ideology is a much easier 'sell' in a society used to (some level of) free-market capitalism. Because it leaves elements of the former system in place, it is easier swallowed by the populace. In essence, it's what they think they can 'get away with' under current conditions.

Were these factors not in play, I think we would see Obama more clearly as the socialist he is.


Communism v2.0 is different in the sense that instead of the "Ministry of [insert name of industrial/economic activity here]" (like it was in the USSR) we have the "[insert name of the government controlled corporation(s) here]"

But its possible that what many people warned us about is true...that this is all a transition fase designed to bring the final collapse, then we will have the "Ministry of [insert nome of industrial/economic activity here]" like it was in the USSR...and a totalitarian hellhole and a bunch of mass graves and gulags.

Sometimes this KGB defector warnings are downright scary:

YouTube - Yuri Bezmenov: Sleepers Emerge and Messiah Appears

http://www.cosmolearning.com/documen...bversion-1983/

http://www.cosmolearning.com/documen...ld-press-1984/

Considering that we live in a nation founded on the Truth, why are we still using the same old outdated political terms from Europe? This is the same old golden political mean developed by Aristotle even. While Americans need no further political manipulation, it is self evident and unalienable afterall, the Europeans are still lost looking for solutions to the same old problem. We may as well be talking about Voodoo from Africa, about rice and beans from Mexico, or about the popularity of the Tellytubbies in Canada.
Just go fishing for cripes sake and just talk about fishing.

heavenlyboy34
03-22-2010, 11:29 PM
Considering that we live in a nation founded on the Truth, why are we still using the same old outdated political terms from Europe. While Americans need no further political manipulation, the Europeans are still lost looking for solutions to the same old problem. We may as well be talking about Voodoo from Africa, talking about rice and beans from Mexico, or talking about the popularity of the Tellytubbies in Canada.
Just go fishing for cripes sake and talking about fishing.

Because those archaic ideas you speak of are being shoved down "our" throats by the elites of politics, academia, etc. I myself don't care about them except for the sake of preventing such nonsense from passing on to the next generation. Besides, not all of us can afford to take such a lackadaisical approach as you. SOMEONE has to produce and educate, or else poverty (in every sense) will prevail.

I can somewhat relate to your position(being an anarchist myself), UEW, as government is such a fool's game. I would just rather have a future to look forward to than to pretend nothing is wrong. JMHO. :cool: