jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (184 posts)

Americana Socialism

  1. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 4 years ago

    Rarely do I get involved with Politics -especially American. However, recently, I came across several photos depicted the US President with the likeness of one A. Hitler. I really do not see the comparison. Good and close friends of mine fled völkisch nationalism and can tell you first hand, socialism is not communism and it is definitely not an autocratic dictatorship. Truth be told, the nationalist party greatly attacked and literally killed many Social Democrats, among others, who held power of the TOV and also attacked communism at great length. Likewise many former communist ruled friends will tell you the stories of their forced labor, meager conditions, corruption that would make Cosa Nostra look like Mother Theresa.

    Still, what is this connection between nationalism and socialism? These depictions of Mr Obama as a Autocratic Dictator? Really? I mean, as a leader, he is very much green and too soft in areas. But an autocrat, really?! I really do not think he is even a socialist or even a democratic socialist. My feeling is he is an Ivy League Capitalist, who got lucky, and is in over his head.

    Socialism is based on society of the people, who share commonality, where extreme equality is allowed and assisted, if necessary, by the governing laws of the country. In the US, those Laws would be the Constitution, BOR, represented and upheld by constituents on a state-by-state basis, via election.

    While, personally, do not prefer Social Democracy, it seems to be a cornerstone in the socialism direction for America. Possibly the only move that will save her from implosion -based on 80+ years of debt, resulting in the collapse of the entire system, from housing to infrastructure, save the few short years of Dot Com.

    Socialism was designed as a system that focuses on the health, welfare, prosperity, education and protection of its citizens, with a governing body, to insure equality is provided/distributed evenly to every citizen, regardless of position -not driven by singular agenda/dictation, as is communism and nationalism, to a large degree.

    Social Education not a good thing? Social Medicine not a good thing?
    Social Commerce {actual fair market trade system} not a good thing? Can anyone tell me then, why most have a Facebook Account? It is a social system based on these same ideologies. The sharing among people, be it ideas, possessions, information, overseen by an unbiased governing authority.

    Granted, communism would strip you of all rights to any possession, etc and work you to death, while telling you to be thankful for it. Equally, nationalism would make the country swell with wealth for a small majority of supporters of that regime within a racial stereotype, while the remainder used as slaves -or worse- exterminated {think Egypt circa 3000 BCE} and more recently Iraq.

    Why are Americans so hellbent against their own foundation? What do I reference? History. Most importantly, the Constitution. The entire system was based on a social ideology. A collection of country-states / self-governing provinces watched over by three sets of legal variances, to promote, defend and protect the right of every citizen to: "life, freedom and pursuit of happiness". This is precisely what socialism is designed to do. Certainly, the powers that be fudged it, for capital greed for starters and war for another. Just look at the stock markets, overcrowded prisons, internal hostility among citizens, etc. The modified social idea, coined Democracy, is crumbling at a rapid pace. But, it does not mean these errs cannot be corrected and the burden of governing reduced, on both the federal and state levels, further empowering the people to be their best. Even providing them the tools to achieve and/or removing the obstacles that hinder those possibilities.

    As you look at these Occupy Wall Street & Occupy Main Streets power struggles, do we see what is happening? America is tired of failed ideas and half-hearted, money-driven authority under the guise of Democracy. The people want their freedom back. The same freedom they demanded from George III...

    James.

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
      Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      James. those thought is utopia. Without God no nation survives.

    2. Paul Wingert profile image81
      Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah right.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image81
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        James- Great observation!

    3. Moshka profile image60
      Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There should be no doubt that the American constitution supports the tenants of a free market society. Socialism is a pathway to societal destruction, because it causes the standard of living to decrease for everybody. When there is no incentive to excel in anything there is no longer a desire to output anything to advance in technology, science, medicine, etc. It is an undeniable fact that all the innovations that socialist countries enjoy and share with one another come from societies that support the free market.

      This is because the only thing that truly motivates people to produce, or to better the environment of those around them is their own self interests. When you take self interest out of the equation you will get very few instances of forward movement because you are relying solely on the benevolence of others to throw their talents into the pot without any benefits or monetary compensation.

      This is precisely why America puts out 24% of the worlds GDP with only 5% of the worlds population. We are uniquely economically nimble because we embrace the free market, which is diametrically opposed to Socialism. And thus economic planning in all of its forms is in diametrical opposition to true freedom.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And yet another person who does not know what socialism is or how it works.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's because we have something better than Socialism and don't want it.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How would you even know tongue

        2. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And misses the fact that "socialist" Europe has a higher GDP than the US!

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Fantastic. This is the Untied States. keep your Socialism to yourself. Thank you.

            1. startupninja profile image61
              startupninjaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              This is the Internet... wink

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes it is...I have already had a personal example of how freedom of speech does not exist here.

          2. startupninja profile image61
            startupninjaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ... and more companies on the Fortune 500 list than the US.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks to onerous regulation......

              1. startupninja profile image61
                startupninjaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If individual citizens can be "regulated" for things such as drunk driving, theft, arson, etc. I fail to see the reasoning as to why should corporation be spared such common sense restrictions which are there to regulate market failures. It is basic economic theory which ever 1st year business student knows, that social transfers and regulations are merely a method of dealing with market failures.
                In my opinion, the political narrative applied in the States, manages to convince the poorest, and most vulnerable segments of society to fight for the rights of the wealthy under the guise of conservative values.

        3. Moshka profile image60
          Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I absolutely do know how socialism works.
          The Government intends to plan the economy based on its historic output of goods and services, implements policies to distribute the earned income based on the "needs" of the individual according to their dictates and policies. As the output of goods and services declines, (as it always has and always will), the totalitarian regimes which were built up under the guise of defending the poor and the average working class citizen exterminate the members of society who can not justify their existence by proving that they have put into the system as much as they have taken out of it.
          And that's how it works. Hundreds of millions of people are murdered.
          Hence socialism never has and never will be given a real chance to be implemented in a society that is based on individual freedom, and it will always lead to totalitarianism.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you knew the first thing about socialism you would never have said something as horribly incorrect as:

            his is because the only thing that truly motivates people to produce, or to better the environment of those around them is their own self interests. When you take self interest out of the equation you will get very few instances of forward movement because you are relying solely on the benevolence of others to throw their talents into the pot without any benefits or monetary compensation.

            The fact that you believe that socialism somehow operates on the basis benevolence or charity shows with no doubt whatsoever that you have no knowledge at all on the subject. What you know is sound bites that you have heard.

            1. Moshka profile image60
              Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well it seems to be a striking coincidence that you, being a proponent of socialism have stated; "Loves: the selfless and those who strive to make a better world for others. Hates: those who base their views on self interest"
              This is very typically the leftist mentality and is completely antithetical to free market capitalism when applied economically. I agree however that socialism is not charitable in the least, although it is under that guise that socialist causes, (social security, welfare, socialized medicine, etc.), are furthered.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                46.2 million people in the US live in poverty. I bet they love living in a free market.

                1. Moshka profile image60
                  Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That may be true but poverty in America still beats being poor in every other country.
                  http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/household-amenities-poverty-7-2011.jpg

                  1. Jane Bovary profile image88
                    Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Not true. I'd rather be poor in Denmark or Australia or several  other industrialised nations, than in the US.  Statistically, if you're poor in America, you have a much higher chance of ending up in jail than you do in many other countries.

                  2. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    But that graph only shows "households" The homeless are not households.

                2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                  Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Poverty is too to control.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, another tool of capitalism.

              2. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Personal choices and state regulation are unrelated, socialism does not function on charity nor does it endorse the idea of charity "he who does not work neither shall he eat" socialism is about properly rewarding those who work rather than those who do nothing.
                As I said you don't know what you are talking about.

                1. Moshka profile image60
                  Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sure, on paper. But it's a completely different story when applied to the real world. You see in a socialist country everyone has to comply with the economic standards which the government applies to them in order for it to work, and if anyone wants to choose to do it differently they will be put into jail for profiteering. In a free society people can choose to live the way they so desire. They can even set up their own little socialist communes if they wish, and be happy throwing all their money into a big pot.
                  That is until the doctor gets tired of living the stress induced life that he earned through a decade of medical school just so he could share it with the lazy dude who works half time at the local car wash and spends his afternoons on the couch smoking pot.
                  I personally think it's enough of a challenge to get your own kids motivated enough to move out after the school system is done telling them what precious little snowflakes they are. Now I've got to worry about everyone else in the neighborhood getting off their butts so they can add to the collective in order to raise my standard of living? Screw that!
                  But hey it sure sounds like a lot of fun to be stuck sharing your paycheck with 43 million people who are just like all those bad roommates you had in college. That's worth going the extra mile for.

                  1. Jane Bovary profile image88
                    Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You don't have to go the Eastern European whole hog. The kind of socialism I would like to see is one where government provides a good infrastructure, offering a reasonable standard of health, education and housing to all it's people. You can still have capitalism and initiative keep plenty of money for yourself. You can also still have private health, private schools etc but people should have to pay for these themselves and not have funds leeched out of the public system. As mentioned earlier, a healthy, housed, educated population is conducive to economic growth and benefits the whole of society. The way things are at the moment is incredibly inequitable, with the vast bulk of the pie in the hands of a very few and the gap is growing. The so-called trickle-down effect is a myth.How many millions or billions do the uber-wealthy really need? Why are there so many working poor?

                    Let's look at an example of where socialism can work. Finland,  which has been the repeat winner of top results in a global ranking of national school systems, has an approach which works on the premise that every school is a good one and not just  good schools for those who can afford it. Teachers are well paid, have high status and you need excellent marks to become one. It's valued as an occupation and schools co-operate with each other, rather than being encouraged to operate competitively. There are no tuition fees and  meals are also provided free. It's an equitable system which provides all children with  a good standard of education.

                    Australia on the other had which used to have an egalitarian system but has gradually changed to a US style system and which subsidises private schools at the expense of public ones, has been slipping significantly in the ranks over the years. Australians have been encouraged to remove their children from government schools and as a result they have become degraded and inferior. We are now way down the list.

                    (edited to add) Yes, the Finnish system is payed for via taxation but then, with that high standard of education, there is no need for people to fork out money for expensive private schools and the whole of the society benefitis from a well-educated populace.

                  2. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You not only don't understand socialism, you blatantly refuse to and continue to misrepresent it.
                    People slobbing around smoking pot is a product of capitalism, not socialism.
                    Remember, socialism says that if you do not work, you do not eat!
                    Capitalism says we have no work for you to do so we'll leave you for taxpayers to support because we don't see why we should waste our profits.

                  3. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You really don't get it at all. Where did you get this idea that everyone is paid the same and more importantly what you are saying is completely of track. In some socialist countries for example people are paid on the basis of how desirable their job is, so if everyone wants to be an engineer for example engineers will be paid less than something no one wants to be like a sewer worker. In socialist systems college education is not only free but one is paid to study (as long as they get decent grades) through college/university so often enough a sugar cane cutter is paid more than a doctor because more people want to work as doctors than be outside in the hot sun all day working manually.

  2. Cagsil profile image78
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    Interesting post James. smile

    1. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Your silence has me curious, Ray. lol

      1. Cagsil profile image78
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I thought it was an interesting post. After reading it, I really didn't have anything to say about it either way. Meaning, I wasn't willing to agree or disagree. That's all. smile

        1. jacharless profile image81
          jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          cool. smile

  3. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

    HA!  Those who compare the POTUS with Hitler thought Palin would be a good second choice for president.  Nuff said!  lol

                                      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6812619.jpg

    1. Paul Wingert profile image81
      Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Palin? lol She got famous for being a loser!

  4. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    Excellent post... well argued. My answer as to why Obama is branded as a socialist by his fellow citizens is the following: I have yet to meet an American who actually knows the meaning of the word socialism (NOT the McCarthy era Red-scare propaganda). Europe has embraced the idea of shared social responsibility a long time ago, and even nationalist parties in any European country would not dare mess with things such as health care and public education since it would provoke mass unrest.
    In the States on the other hand, the narrative in the media has managed to convince the population that European style socialism is EVIL, without giving them the truth on what it represents.

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
      Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      European patients would like to be treated in US if they could.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What on Earth gives you that idea?
        Why would anybody want to travel 3000 miles or more to be bankrupted?

        1. kirstenblog profile image77
          kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not to mention the fact that the quality of care is not that much better state side. I don't find the NHS here in the UK to be horrid in comparison to medical care I received growing up in the states. There was as much incompetence to be found in the states as here, but at least here you don't have to pay as much for it.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Human fallibility is everywhere and isn't eliminated by money.
            I'm sure that doctors and nurses in the US have bad days,just like their British counterparts.
            We haven't gone quite as far down the road of suing for every little blip as the US has either.
            I remember talking to an old boy once. His wife had had a bad time in hospital, something had gone wrong,I don't remember what.
            As he was apparently one of the "everybody must pay" school, I asked him tentatively if he was going to sue.
            "Good lord no" he said "If I were to do that it would cost the NHS money which they then wouldn't have to treat other people and they would be more reluctant to carry out procedures"

          2. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            According to the World health organization the quality of care in the US is much worse.

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Because medicine, beds, doctors are in shortage. I worked in medicine in Europe since I finished medical school.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You realize the US also has bed shortages right?

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Last hospital stay nearly two years ago now, not a sight of a bed shortage, doctor shortage, or medicine shortage.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Looking at the stats it seems your bed shortages are about the same as ours, of course factually you guys get a lot more beds for the same money and provide better care and have a higher survival rate and have a better years of life lost index.

              The UK system is infinitely better even though it's quite flawed. Of course in your evil "socialist" system you also don't let 45 000 innocent people die every year because they don't have insurance 50 000+ people die because their insurance limit ran out or refuse people urgently needed care because your aim is to save the insurance company a buck so... Oh those evil socialist programs how dare they save tens of thousands of lives!


              Comparison: The UK spends 2815 international dollars per person on healthcare yearly, the US (before Obamacare) spends 6719 per person and yet the UK gets all of the above and the US does not.

            2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am talking about your dreaming socialism. This is what you want?

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Many also don't know that there is an American socialist party which usually gets about 0.1% of the vote, they should just briefly compare the stated aims of the two to see that Obama is no kind of socialist (I wish he was).

    3. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Am inclined to agree. The fundamentals of Americana are, without a doubt, socialistic based. Much propaganda has kept the two parties on top; one being very much Social Democratic, the other a Capitalist Republic.

      Mr. Obama's rise to power is certainly indicative of the population. Primarily, his connection to the people. Even now he is continuing to capitalize on that social core. An area his opponent is deeply lacking. The society of Mr. Romney, etc is a very old one -as you put it the McCarthy era, circa 1947. Post WW2/Cold War. Even HRH is apart of that generation.

      American society, today, is much different and more open about its wants/needs. A society not seen since, perhaps, its revolutionary foundry less than 300 years ago. If fact, the common people are leaning heavily toward that original base of socialism -hopefully without the Puritan "prude-ness". They have seen how both a Republic and Social Democracy have left them divided, stranded and straining at golden gnats.

      After reading his books and doing some research, I came to the assumption this fellow sees the inevitable. He saw the social shift from the inter-city view, straight through West Virginian racism right across to the still very much Wild West -now mining for data, instead of gold. Even more interesting is the advice received, midstream, via Europe where he amassed a cool half-million socially idealistic people. Top that off by a hearty welcome by some of Americas largest enemies, spoilers, who, even though gruff to the idea, will not dismiss it entirely, if it means keeping their people happy.

      But, regardless of that, I think he is too uncertain which direction is best for the country, as a whole. Perhaps he is too philosophical for his own good; too optimistic? And no doubt, the old powers are on him, like wet on water, as the Cronkite Generation slowly dies out, like other monarchies do. His vision of Social Aristocracy seems more in tune to a Recovery Effort, while his opposition tries desperately to hold on to their Elite Plutocracy.

      Europe, certainly -and even Russia to a vast degree- has long embraced true socialism. It is not altruistic by any means, but it is not off the table either. It does appear the Americana core has come full circle -reluctantly or not. I wonder if the world will be supportive of this or capitalize on it, as many seem to think.

      Either way, the idea of him being an autocrat, radical nationalist is absurd, to say the least...

      James.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        One unable to learn from the past mistakes lives in blind spot of future.

  5. Bob Zermop profile image88
    Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago

    Obama is not a socialist, and (disagreeing with Josak) I believe that's a good thing. I think capitalism works, and socialism doesn't. America is not and shouldn't be far right, but it is and should remain a capitalist country.

    However, things like healthcare and education are good socialized. Obamacare is the conservative option here, and it was the right option. It's obvious that US healthcare needs reform, and the two best options are the ACA and single-payer. Let's make the right choice, and choose the ACA.

    1. Jane Bovary profile image88
      Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree that capitalism seems to be the best system but because it's profit driven and therefore will only provide for human need when there's money to be made, it needs to be mitigated both by regulation and by a good government infrastructure which takes the human equation into account.

      There's nothing to fear from the word *socialism* - many countries in the world successfully meld aspects of socialism with capitalism - Australia and Scandinavia, for example. Societies are more than just economies and people are more than economic units.

      From a non-US,  outsider's point of view, many Americans seem to have built up a mythology around the individual, which includes a deep-rooted fear of government and an unwillingness to view any sort of collective social benefit as being anything other than an infringement of individual rights. They often cite *choice and liberty* as bulwarks against any move toward anything faintly socialist, yet there are few choices and not much liberty for poor people in the US, many of which are in jail. it's a strange irony that  a country which places such a high value on individual liberty should have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

      1. Bob Zermop profile image88
        Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree; there is a fear of socialism in the US, which I admit I am not always immune to. I believe in many of the ideas in socialism, but I can see the potential for abuse very clearly. i don't feel this is necessarily a bad thing, because implementing policies carefully, being sure to preserve liberty, is the best way to improve society.

      2. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Very well stated.

        many Americans seem to have built up a mythology around the individual, which includes a deep-rooted fear of government and an unwillingness to view any sort of collective social benefit as being anything other than an infringement of individual rights. They often cite *choice and liberty* as bulwarks against any move toward anything faintly socialist,

        This is very evident simply by reading through these forums on any given day. Sometimes when I read through a thread, I wonder why people no longer care about those in need. As you said so well, societies are more than economies and we are much more than an economic unit.
        When we become so far removed from humanity itself, we bring the same destruction we fear.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          God is God of plenty. Why we should be orientated of lacking anything? Is is not system which created needy?

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes Vlad it is the system which created this.

        2. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Let me be clear...

          There is this thing whereby if you disagree with ACA you don't care for others. That's drivel.

          Now...that having been said..we just came under a law that puts 300 million under liability to 30 million. This was done through the executive and legislative branches and upheld by the judicial. No voting citizens got to vote on it and no the election of Barack Obama did not mandate health care reform.
          Anything this sweeping and onerous should have been a national referendum. Plain and simple. Just because someone gets elected to Congress does not make him an expert on anything, certainly not healthcare unless they also happen to have been a doctor previously.

          Plenty of people want to help and the great lie of the uncaring Conservative is just exactly that, a great lie.

          I don't mind helping others but when it is shoved down the throats of the nation,and oh yes indeed because we couldn't know what's in it till we pass it MS Pelosi, it was most assuredly shoved down our throats.

          That's why we call it tyranny and that is exactly what it is.

          1. Moshka profile image60
            Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Very well said.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am in the process of looking into a national referendum about this tyrannical law. Interested?

              1. Moshka profile image60
                Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes.

        3. Kangaroo_Jase profile image79
          Kangaroo_Jaseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Rebekah,

          Your bold type makes me think this is why there is such strong feelings about the US second Ammendment prevail even today. With the US founding fathers I can understand protecting citizens of an emerging nation from State and Federal harm especially if the British back then had won against America. But today?

          It seems improbable to impossible for another civil war to happen in these times.

          1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Kangaroo_Jase. Regarding gun control. German Nazi, later Communists confiscated  all weapons to avoid revolt against brutal systems.  Now in USA the same? Why? It is in Constitution on purpose.  Cars accident occurs are we going to band the car? People kill people. It is moral issue.

          2. rebekahELLE profile image91
            rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I believe that strong opinions are formed often from ignorance of how and why the Constitution was framed as it was. There are Americans who seemingly want to take our country backwards rather than forward. It is not 1791 when the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights has deep roots in Anglo-American history influenced by the Magna Carta and the Parliament's Bill of Rights.

            The framers knew the Constitution was not a perfect document but felt it was necessary at that time in history.

            1. 0
              Chris Hughposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So there can't be any genuine disagreement? So difference of ideas? There is one correct opinion and anything else is just ignorance?

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sure that's why there is only supposed to be one voice and one opinion.

        4. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes scaring of government. Government (socialistic one) which do not know anything but papers, money and power, having not expertise to anything.

      3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Profit driven mind was created by contaminant of  socialistic-materialistic hunger for money. It is sick capitalism seen in recent time.
        *** If one will eliminate capitalists, eliminates investors. All will become equally poor, dependable and controllable. Communistic politicians have no moral values since they are godless materialists. They are not concern about people but about themselves. They are initially concern about people only in their mouth. Can anyone expect from materialists and not loving money? I lived with communists in my prime time life.
        We completely forgot role of Christianity which their principles builded our country. Noticed how many Christian’s hospitals, universities were built, how many voluntairs worked.
        I seen many commentators are not very well read. Have you read: What's So Great about America and What's So Great about Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza?

        1. Will Apse profile image90
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Weirdly enough I am reading Crime and Punishment right now. It seemed logical after all the American Noir stuff I had been devouring.

          And in Crime and Punishment it is the 'immorality' of materialism and self-aggrandizing individualism of Western thought that corrupts Raskolnikov and drives him to murder.

          In other words, deeply conservative, Russian Orthodox, devout Dostoevsky blames everything most people here believe in for the evil engulfing his country.

          Perhaps you are a descendant of this tradition, Vladimir.

          1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Will, not sure what you mean: "Perhaps you are a descendant of this tradition, Vladimir".

        2. 0
          Chris Hughposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm gonna check those books out, thank you. If you have an Amazon capsule with them, please let me know and I'll use it. Thanks!

  6. 0
    Chris Hughposted 4 years ago

    Comparing someone to Hitler is what people do when they run out of things to say. People on the left do it to people on the right. People on the right do it to people on the left. It's a shorthand way of saying, "Hi! I can't think. Don't bother listening to me!"

    1. Paul Wingert profile image81
      Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good point.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yup, that is what Godwin's Law is all about smile

    2. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol good thing my shorthand is err short.

  7. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 4 years ago

    I also am not convinced Capitalism, or even a hybrid Socio-Capitalism {which many friends support}, is the solution. Society in general, in the States, is very -what's the word- agitated. You can feel it. In the last 85 years, under Capitalism, the country has seen less than a sporadic decade of surplus, for starters. The division into now two social classes, has placed them in quite a spot. It is now a strange unica of Warren Buffet~Tony Robbins versus whatever the new class is titled {poor, motivationally inept, etc}. The central majority, once middle class, is now dissolved/defunct. The Social Democracy and no doubt Socio-Capitalist idea has no where to float. Hence, the implosion.

    I agree during its time Capitalism worked for what can be called necessity. The shift to Social Democracy and now Social Capitalism seems relative. They too are now giving way to the foundry, which is socialism, refined. Given twenty even thirty years, at the present rate of industry {pro capitalization} Americana debt will go from 2 Trillion {which was less than 200 million before dot com bubble in 2000} to nearly 350 Trillion. No one can carry that much paper. Even now, China and Japan, the largest carriers of US debt, are struggling.

    And yes, the word sends shivers down the backs of many, because they do not understand what socialism really is. They think Perestroika {which is actually a revolutionary restructuring term and not a death sentence} or Ugandan genocide. Visions of their children in tin roof houses {as happened in New York not so long ago}, flies dancing on their faces as a missionary camera crew from an elite country films them for a web cast fundraiser. But, socialism is much different. And I do not think it causes people to lose their drive to be better. Just the opposite socialism increases the individuals drive to be better because the "typical" burdens of living -the basic necessities- are no longer a restriction. Whereas the aforementioned systems rely on the manipulation, control, limiting of those basic necessities to springboard their gains -financial or otherwise- and seemingly motivate the population to produce more, better, faster. Fair trade goes out the window for the sake of production and profit, while the governing body is forced to impose more taxation to keep up the pace.

    James

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
      Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Capitalism with God-moral values is the answer. Otherwise there is not hope for us.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Capitalism with God moral values is an oxymoron.

        1. Moshka profile image60
          Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think he hit the nail on the head. As John Adams said; "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
          The constitution supports individual freedom which is antithetical to systems of economic planning. Hence the only way to let true freedom prevail is to give it to a moral and religious people.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Morality and religiosity have nothing to do with each other, indeed as the rate of religiosity falls so does the crime rate. Individual freedom is far from opposed to economic planning, there is no need for it to be whatsoever.

            There have been several syndicalist/socialist governments and alliances that have given their populations far more individual liberties than the constitution does while still practicing economic planing.

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The most restrictive of true freedom are moral and religious people!

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Supposedly moral anyway.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, too often it is a case of do as I say and not as I do.

          3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Moshka and John Holder. Thanks Mr. Moshka for correct direction. I lived in Soviet occupation. One time they were looking for true Christians to manage money. They hated Christians but they did not have choice. They were looking for people who do not steal.
            John Holder, here is lack of knowledge on your side. I do apology for this statement.
            I see can many people here do not understand, what socialism is.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I sure wish you would write a hub to educate some of these folks on what reality is. They want us to believe we are supposed to want what you escaped.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I am aware of only one communist on Hub Pages and he rarely ever comes on the forums. Really nice guy, but not a socialist.

            2. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Socialism is not communism which in turn is not Stalinism. It is you who does not know what socialism is.

            3. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "They hated Christians but they did not have choice. They were looking for people who do not steal."

              HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              no seriously stop it's too funny.

  8. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    In the words of Mr. Tony Benn: "... Choice depends on the freedom to choose and if you are shackled with debt you don't have the freedom to choose... See I think there are two ways in which people are controlled, first of all frighten people and secondly demoralize them. An educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to govern..."
    I am relatively new on Hubpages, so I humbly apologize if this would infringe on some Forum rule. however in this discussion I believe that the following youtube link of a Newsnight debate on UK TV would give our American friends an overview of where are differences in opinion lie:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZNXfXtH … re=related

    1. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well Said. And, in my opinion, is what a truly social system creates. A society of people who are well educated, healthy and confident in themselves, one another -whereby removing excessive controls of governing and increasing prosperity, without feeling indebted to another, but rather intuitive to another.

    2. Jane Bovary profile image88
      Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for that. Tony Benn made an interesting point there, when he said that the real power and decision-making is more and more out of the hands of elected governments and in the lap of non-elected bodies like the Central Bank. I also listened to his "People before Profit" video...it's amazing to think that, in historical terms, not that long ago only 2% of the people could vote and they were the wealthy landowners. People really were under the screws of the ruling classes.

  9. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6832312_f248.jpg

    It's called control. It's called using the poor. It's called slavery.

    1. mikelong profile image84
      mikelongposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Some people like to live in an imaginary world where they can control the imagery to fit their perspectives.

      In reality, however, one has to look at the on the ground situation and then respond.

      I work with youth living in poverty.

      The assistance that you now criticize gives hungry children access to food.

      One past student of mine, his father is a boxer. He (the father) had a criminal record, and it was incredibly difficult for him to find work(an aspect of created poverty that we fail to address). His alternative was boxing. He doesn't have an education, and with a wife to support and four children to feed, his focus is on earning money.

      He's not a very good boxer, though. He doesn't like doing it, but he carries on.

      I remember one appointment in particular. I was working with this young student, he's in the third grade at the time, and he was having difficulty focusing on his work. (Instead of pushing him to work harder, I could tell that there were issues needing "airing"...so we did just that)

      He told me about a fight his father had since I last had seen them. He shared how his dad had been hurt bad, and how he couldn't remember his name when he saw his son after the fight. I saw the father a couple days later. He has brain damage. There is no denying it. He was sitting at a table waiting for me to finish my appointment with his son. He looked up at me, and his eyes were very different...his ability to speak has been impaired, and his hands would tremble noticeably. 

      With no ability to fight for quite awhile, there is also no income. In the future, he will have no future as a fighter, and his family will suffer. He has made mistakes, we all do. He hasn't made the best decisions...none of us do all the time. They utilize the same resources that you now criticize.

      His family needs support, and so does he.

      They already have a huge burden, but now you obviously seek to undermine the key support that will help these children have, at least, nutritional security.

      To take specific cases and turn them into b.s. analogies about animals in a park is ludicrous, insulting, and showing of your own "out of touch" condition.

      1. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I do not agree in such government programs, like social security, food stamps, welfare, etc. Why? They should not have been instituted in the first place. These programs were created because the Capitalist driven ideology of the New Deal. A  failure resulting in serious troubles for the "blue collar", middle class, pushing nearly half the population into poverty. Then taxed that poverty to cover the losses and fund these programs. Then of course came charities and church to balance the equation. A gentleman by the name HC Hoover opposed these concepts, resulting in him becoming a scapegoat for the Depression, and the creation of Hooverville USA {just over 75 years ago - not long at all really}, even though -using a socialism concept- assisted Belgium, China -even Russia from starvation. Today's society is still very much at or barely above that level.

        These programs gave power to Statism, and what some might call Liberty in Economic Slavery, which was all powerful, up until a few decades ago, when the collapse began. In short, people became reliant on assistance, not because they wanted to but because they were forced into assistance, else die in the streets. Under true Socialism said programs would not exist -save maybe FEMA. Even that is a stretch. Maybe SEM [state emergency management] programs would be best -as are many volunteer programs like firemen.

        The only reason poverty, in the States, exists is because of said system. A system where its citizens are forced into a cattle run, working to death, just to exist, nevermind affordable luxuries. The concept of Americana under the present system is "Ethical Slavery". Withholding excellent education, living conditions, health {via food, water & medicine} and fair market wages. Because if these items are provided/enabled for self provision, no one would remain a slave. But, as said, they are now hypnotizing folks with a mentality of Tony Robbins-Warren Buffet: "Learn to master {The Secret of} your slavery and become a millionaire, maybe a billionaire -a citizen above another."

        James.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They exist for the exact reasons I mentioned. Control. Putting people in a position where they are beholden. Just like in that article which is real by the way, people have been given without having to produce for so long they no longer see the need to.
          Also they will have transportation to the polls when it is time to vote. They will see to that.

      2. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That article didn't deal with that boxer because he hasn't given up...and you know that.
        That article deals with the folks that have given up and won't do anything now unless the government hands it to them and you damn well know they exist.

        1. mikelong profile image84
          mikelongposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I guess this depends on what you mean by "give up".

          What if the situation is "give out"....as in his body?

          Do you perpetuate poverty into the next generation?  His kids need lots of help, and there are few free/low-cost options that don't in some way get their money from the government, local, state, or federal.

        2. Hollie Thomas profile image59
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not all of the people living in poverty are able to box. Any economy which is export driven will never provide full employment, resulting in a vast number of people, who, at some stage in their lives, will 'have to, Need to' collect benefits in order to survive. Blaming the poor for their poverty and suggesting that they don't want to work, is a nasty right wing media ploy which deflects from the real issues.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The poor, at least a good portion of them have been given to to the point they don't know why they should have to do anything.
            That's the problem.

            1. mikelong profile image84
              mikelongposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nonsense.

              Keep living in your world of vague generalities.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You know, you cannot possibly be that naive Mike.
                You tell me you work among the poor and you will tell me that does not exist?
                I don't personally work with them but know enough who do who will repudiate that it does not occur.

              2. 0
                Chris Hughposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, that settled it. Thanks for the insights.

          2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Poverty is artificially created. All it is about money and control.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              On that I would agree with you. A fine product of capitalism!

            2. jacharless profile image81
              jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Indeed.
              Today's society believes/is hypnotic in self-[inset term here] that will remove the artifice. Sadly, the only ones getting rich are the ones selling the snake oil of zen-capitalism.

  10. Cagsil profile image78
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    Okay James,

    I've given your post a little thought and I'm not for socialism on any count. That even includes releasing the Social Security program, the Medicare program, the Medicaid program.

    Release= means do away with.

    However, this isn't an easy task to do.

    I will have to say that I don't see a future problem if America stuck to a Capitalistic Republic society structure. By all accounts, equality and equal rights are to be the foundation. It means that access to education and affordable health care can be obtained for each person who chooses to use those services.

    Equality- The ability to have a level playing field in America's economic structured economy. Equal enforced regulations/laws/rules which are applied to all, not just some.

    Public education should be rid of the religious and political views. People need to have specific critical knowledge to live within a Capitalistic Republic and if they don't have it, then it won't work.

    Eventually, programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid(as well as all other forms of government assistance) wouldn't be needed and government can focus more on what it should be and less on the citizens within it's borders.

    1. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think a larger part of the New Deal was Socio-Capitalism, because they found out the hard way -or maybe intentionally- that raw a Capitalist Republic does not work; more expressly in today's technological world.

      By Socio-Cap, I mean the programs mentioned and forced division of society into {now} two classes. I read up on Hooverville and the global effect. To say the least, was shocked. I learned some of it, from a European perspective years ago, but never saw the full picture.

      Since then, Capitalism, to survive, has spawned 2 major global wars and many, many smaller publicly centered and not-so-publicly centered --and it is only war, violence, that has managed to keep Capitalism afloat. That makes me a tad leery...

      1. Cagsil profile image78
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I can understand why it would make one a tad leery about it. Presently the playing field on the Economic front is so skewed it's not even funny.

    2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
      Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hello, Education and Healthcare availability and who will pay for it are two different matters.

      1. Cagsil profile image78
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And with your limited ability, I don't expect you to understand. hmm

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Cagsil, thanks for insult.

          1. Cagsil profile image78
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You feel insulted? Then get over yourself dude. It wasn't an insult, but was an observation of your past posting on HubPages. So get real would you.

  11. Cody Hodge profile image84
    Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago

    The Constitution is an amazing document. It spells out what the Federal government is allowed to do. Everything else is given to the states. Anything not listed in the document is left to the states to decide.

    Great premise for a lasting government.

    Unfortunately, governments are loathe to change. The Constitution is even harder to change when very few of our elected leaders want to follow it.

    Instead of complaining that Obamacare is somehow trampling on our liberties, what we need to do is update the Constitution to reflect the world we actually live in.

    What we need is an amendment to the Constitution saying that church and state are officially separate. We don't need laws like the one in Texas where kids are no longer being taught to think.

    We also need to update the bill of rights to include two things:

    1) Healthcare is a basic human right, it should be provided to all citizens at a reasonable cost.

    2) Education is a basic human right. It will be taught in a fact-based manner to all students. This will eliminate students being taught that evolution is false because of the Loch Ness Monster. Increase pay to teachers. Stop teaching to tests. Allow the educational system to be a process that engages students instead of teaching mindless facts. At this rate, we might as well just let kids Google all the facts they supposedly need to know for tests.

  12. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    @Vladimir Uhri... If you lived under the Soviet Union, what u experienced has nothing to do with Socialism... in fact the correct term used currently in academia is Stalinism.
    The best examples of true Socialism, historically, both in theory and in practice, are the Scandinavian countries of today (i.e. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland)... Oddly enough, they are also the happiest nations of the world.

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
      Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      startupninja. OK believe what you want. Every system starting with socialism has initial euphoria. Scandinavian countries are only temporary set up. But see how much they pay taxes. Then morality, highest suicide rate. Is is happiness?  *** Because of failed Soviet system now socialistic teaches telling us "boloney" to explain bad socialism. "Stalinism" In my classes Marxism-Leninism they say we know about mistakes, but we will not repeat them. Aha. Jame Atkins said rightly "Socialism is not good idea with mistakes, it is bad idea, period". It utopia system.If materialism dominates, it is not "wrong" to steal kill and destroy.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Materialism = capitalism

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No materialsm = socialistic capitalism. You do not even know what you have.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You are just wrong, it means no such thing.

            I was born into an oppressive dictatorship too and I am a socialist, indeed in my country the socialists were the only ones who fought the dictatorship so just because you aren't born free does not mean you won't be a socialist.

            1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is matter of mind.
              I have Jewish friend who was in concentration camp. He escaped from socialistic country. Still he is socialist/leftist. People were brainwashed and some "communists" had fair life. I had offer to joint communist party. When I was in army I got good work reward, recommendation to joint communist party. They told me my world will be open to anything I want. However, that socialistic devil steal, kill and destroy. When you like to be socialist it is OK with me. But do not take my freedom.
              Today monopoly, hungry money is promoted by socialistic capitalism. It will be easier to take over by that devil.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Do you have any idea how many brutal dictatorships have been capitalist? my entire family in my country and most of my friends were kidnapped, tortured and in the case of the women raped for months then killed by a capitalist country, economics has nothing to do with oppression, authoritarianism and dictatorship is the problem.

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Socialistic capitalism!!!!

            That is a new one on me!

            I'm well aware of what we have, capitalism with a few vestiges of social programmes but never socialistic capitalism, the two just don't meet.

            Perhaps you mean state capitalism?

            1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
              Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I know they do not mix. But even healthy can be infected, right?

  13. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    I am truly enjoying the spectacle of a few here trying to tell a refugee of the former Soviet Union that he didn't experience what he experienced and does not know what he is talking about!

    Perhaps you should send him to a re-education camp? Ya think?

    1. Jane Bovary profile image88
      Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You've got the wrong end of the stick. The point people are trying to make, which Vladimir (and apparently you also) seems to keep missing, is that no-one here is advocating  Soviet-style communism. He...and you, are railing against a strawman.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        He..and me...are stating that's the eventual end.

        1. Jane Bovary profile image88
          Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I see. So Scandinavians are headed for the gulags?

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well we are stating that you are wrong by the evidence. Of the dozens of socialist countries that exist most of them are becoming more free and respectful of liberty.

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What some of us would call state capitalism and others would call Stalinism is not what any of us would call either socialism or communism!

  14. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Here...argue with her:

    actually listen now:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8rT76vN … plpp_video

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Look until you learn the difference between communism and socialism you are making no point at all, there are no communists in this discussion, you saying socialism does not work because communism failed is like me saying conservatism doesn't work because fascism failed, it's a lot further to the extremes and no one here is debating it. if you want to have that discussion there is a hubber called Comrade Joe, he is a really nice guy and will be happy to have that conversation with you, he is also a professor so you might find yourself outclassed but regardless it's irrelevant to this discussion.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yep, You paid no attention past her opening remarks.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I watched until she said there was no incentive to work which was more than 3 quarters of the way in, but she kept talking about communism so I shut it down.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And what sorts of things did she describe in her environment where she lived?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              She talked about rationing, her parent's divorce, relatives crossing with goods, guns being taken away, i watched it I have relatives from the union, some who liked it some who did not, it's nothing I have not heard before.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nationalized health care.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes nationalized healthcare is a part of Communist, progressive, socialist, liberal, third way and in many place centrist doctrine trying to suggest that because they also have nationalized healthcare we are going to become communist or whatever illogical insinuation you are trying to make is foolish it so happens that almost all the first world nations in the world have nationalized healthcare, it's as dumb as me saying: you believe in patriotism right? You know who else believed in patriotism, Nazis, obviously you are a Nazi, don't use that kind of argument it's sad and insulting to everyone involved.

        2. Jane Bovary profile image88
          Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I watched too and I'm sure it was horrible for many people in East Germany but again her experience was Soviet communism, which no-one here is supporting.

          It's false to claim that all forms of socialism lead to such horrors as brutal dictatorships, oppression and forced labour camps. Scandinavia is not like East Germany is it?  Australia has socialised healthcare and we have not collapsed into rabid communism. At one point she mentioned that rhetoric about  "helping the poor " was the first step toward the kind of communism she had escaped, implying people who discuss such things aren't to be trusted. I didn't find that very rational.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Let me be clear:

            I don't intend that socialized medicine itself will turn everything Socialist.
            However the administration and it's leadership now have more ideas than just that. We get accused of obstructionism by a Senate majority leader who will not allow the opposing parties bills to even hit the floor for a vote.

            There is a bigger picture here that the statists in power want enacted.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Let me be further clear then, nothing that Obama is suggesting would be considered new in a country like Australia which has individual liberties and also an economy that is much much healthier than the US, possibly the best in the world.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So I am wrong and just plain stupid then in not being happy that our Senate majority leader is being an obstructionist while accusing others of it?
                And calling them murderers? And terrorists?

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Nope, both houses are being terrible it's kind of irrelevant to the discussion though

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Not really. He represents what is being reputed as the good guys and the media backs that up to the death. He represents the ideals you tell me I am supposed to want. So is that the path to what we need to be.
                    I mean it would be just as easy to eliminate the opposing party as you won't allow their ideas to be voted on anyway.

      2. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You also said you knew of no racist liberals and I sent you at least two videos of them which I doubt you watched either.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No i said I knew no racist liberals and I knew no public figures who were racist and liberal, you never provided either of those, and even if you had it would not have weakened my statistical argument at all.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I knew it wouldn't Josak. You are never wrong.

  15. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Kruschev:

        I have personally witnessed the heart-rending results of the loss of freedom. I have talked face-to-face with the godless Communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Khrushchev for a half-day when he visited the United States. Not that I'm proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor.

        As we talked face-to-face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under Communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his, and all other grandchildren, will live under freedom, he arrogantly declared, in substance:

        "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright. But we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      HAHAHAHA as usual the ignorance... What Marx called socialism is not what we call socialism, Marx had a process by which capitalism would become communism and he named the interim period socialism but Marxist socialism is not economic socialism. Again it's like me suggesting we will make you fascist by letting you slowly become conservative, conservatism is a right wing ideology just because you embrace it does not mean it will led to the inevitable creation of Fascism and it would be stupid to suggest it, it's the poorest form of argument possible.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Josak:


        He calls socialism and communism two different things.
        Here's Nikita Khrushchev himself and of course you know better than he.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Communists always twisting according to their needs. This is why they had special propagandist schools. No I do not know everything. I share only my experience. Read this please:
          Many like now socialism. It is natural euphoria until socialism become irreversible. Then people had to be adjusted to live in socialistic jail.
          First we became poor. The government change money overnight, gave us only $50 live on to the end of the month. My dad was the capenter. He was worker’s class. He lost all savings saved in case…
          We went throught the same process. Nobody could do anything with that. Since we did vote for it, being totaly fool. We did not make any homework then we paid for it dearly.

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Socialism is prelude of communism. Each Marxian textbook say so. I already described difference I do not want to repeat myself. I have university level of Marxism - Leninism Dialectic Materialism and Political Economy and have state board  of it. I studied in University of Brno.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes. But try and tell them that. They don't want that known so there gets to be a large argument.

          2. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
            Noun:   

               1 A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
              2  (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism

            As it says in the dictionary in Marxist theory socialism has a different definition.

        3. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am not saying I am more intelligent or better informed he is just using a different definition of the same word.

          so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
          Noun:   

             1 A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
            2  (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism

          See I am using the first and he is using the second, even the dictionary acknowledges it.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Josak:
            When you read his words he states that one will lead to the other. Not that they are the same thing.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Look at the definition, when he says socialism ti means something else, that's why it has a different meaning according to the dictionary, socialism in Marxist theory is not what I believe in nor is it what we call socialism, if you want to know what it is read Marx.

              This is not a complex thing to understand, the dictionary makes it very clear that socialism can mean two different things, he is using the Marxist definition because lo and behold he was a Marxist!

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes lot's of them do.

  16. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6841045_f248.jpg

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do you know what the tagline of socialism is "he who does not work neither shall he eat" can you now see how dumb it is to post something like "when half the population gets the idea they don't have to work because the other half will support them" as a critique of socialism? It's laughable

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I also wanted to add that most of that becomes untrue in a socialist system for example "the governemnt cannot give to anyone anything they did not take from someone else" (paraphrased) which in a socialist system is simply not true since the public owns industry and business.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is there a free lunch Josak?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Of course not but that does not change the above statement.

            The problem is you don't know what socialism is "he who does not work neither shall he eat" and "from each according to his ability to each according to his work" you are assigning the liberal reward for not working ideology to socialism and as I explained recently liberalism and socialism are very different I have much less patience for rewarding people who don't work than you do.

            Socialism is a workers movement born from the fact that workers are not fairly compensated for their labor and from economic inefficiency the founders of this ideology were people who worked 14 to 16 hours a day in brutal conditions, not people looking for a handout.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              See what I can't get across to you is that regardless of what YOU feel Socialism is....it's not the same thing they are attempting to bring about here.
              If you agree to Harry Reid's tactics that is not the path I want to travel and it's hardly the "bi-partisanship"they call for.
              Before someone chimes in I could give a good rip what George Bush did. I didn't agree with it then either.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I know they are not trying to bring about socialism here as I have told you as far as I am concerned Obama is a right wing politician, as I have made clear i am not a liberal and I don't like Obama. Having said that having grown up under the heel of a patrician class I know the alternative is worse.

                I don't support giving to those who don't work... in all it's forms, see Romney is a good example born into money and privilege (not that Obama is much better) he made his wealth by using that money to play with companies and stocks, in my eyes that is not work either, so I support giving to the welfare leech as much as I support giving to the owner who spends his days playing golf and giving his stock agent instructions.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Josak the moon is not made of green cheese and Barack Obama is not right wing. Maybe he's right wing in your views but ideologically he is a statist.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Being a statist is not left wing, statism can be left or right wing, fascism like under Mussolini is a perfect example of right wing statism.

                2. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  When he starts bypassing Congress and the people on a regular basis as he is now he is not looking out for his citizens. He is supposed to be our employee.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Let me put it to you differently for me voting in the US is like if you were given two choices Stalin and Chavez, you would not like either but at least one is closer right?

 
working