Creeping Socialism

[Diuretic]

It all began with public education and public roads, bridges, public buildings, etc.

Its to bad that so many communist repeat such narrow talking points such as what you posted above. It has everyone convinced that public expenditures of any kind is "socialism" but hitler also built public roads and so did the writers of the constitution. Are they both socialist? Of course not but there is difference between the two ideas about the role of government in society. Hitler, Stalin, Wilson, Mussilini, and Teddy Rosevelt all believed that government was a communal leader of society and this thinking created the fascist dictatorships there and over here.

So what I listed is not socialistic?

Remmeber it all begins small and grows.

Can you see, in the United States, any time soon, where the means of production will be in the hands of society and not corporations? No, it's not going to happen. No, Obama is not a socialist.

Government as leader of society is a fact wherever government exists. In a democracy government is representative and governs at the will of the electorate. In authoritarian and totalitarian states, government is the instrument of the party in maintaining power for itself against domestic opposition.

 

[Contumacious]

no one told me about the revolution, those bastards! So do you live in a bomb shelter in your mom's back yard?

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

Karl Marx

So , do you know if the Marxists are wresting by degree capital from the bourgeoisie?

Marx referred to the proletariat, not "Marxists".

True. But his followers are Marxists.

The proletariat in the US is definitely not anywhere near this path. Therefore the answer is no.

1. Federal Reserve Board - 1913

2- Graduated Income Tax - 1913

3- Creation of the Welfare/Warfare State 1935

4- Massive amount of regulations and confiscatory taxation

5- So we are inches away from becoming a socialist republic

.

 

[eots]

I really do believe that the left is trying to forment a communist revolution in this country but they are doing it in an almost invisible way because they have been able to obfuscate what has been happening in this country for over the past hundred years. Everytime we accuse them of this terrible crime they either alter the definition of the word socialism to something that sounds appealing to the public. This has been happening every generation until the point where we no longer realize what it is so we can't identify what it is. Its like trying to point out something to other people when that thing doesn't even have a name or definition.

A good example is the progressive income tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax. We are told by the left that this tax isn't communist but its origins come right out of the communist manifesto and every communist country has had at least one of these in place. Yet, we are not suppose to notice this and pretend that it isn't communism? I think we are living under a big lie that has been creeping into our thinking for a long time until now where we actually do have a communist in power and don't even realize it.

INDEED

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZYfeYhQ9eU]YouTube - JFK speech on secret societies + transcript/subtitles[/ame]




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv5cqh26CC0]YouTube - Gordon Brown New World Order Speech[/ame]

 

[Charles Stucker]

A good example is the progressive income tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax..

Taxes have been around since long before Marx or communism.
Inheritance tax is actually a rather egalitarian concept - that one generation cannot simply exist as leeches on the accomplishments of their ancestors. Recall that feudal nobles could do just that; their ancestor won a title and lands and all they need do was enjoy the fruits of those lands.
Progressive income tax is a different question, but it does not imply socialism. If the tax went only for those things which people cannot provide for themselves; military and police protection for example, then it is not socialist.
Capital gains taxes are a bad idea because they create a bizarre business model which does not work well, but again they are not inherently socialist (stupid - at least in their current execution yes, socialist no)

The socialism arises when the money is spent on something which people could provide themselves if they wished. Medical Care, retirement, what have you.

A couple of unusual cases exist. Public education might be called socialist, as it taxes everyone to pay to educate children. One could claim that couples with children are then supported by those without. However an equally valid claim might be that every adult is taxed to provide for every child. With the exception of immigrants, everyone had the chance to benefit from public education, and by making it available without regard to parental wealth we allow children a more equitable chance to succeed.

Still the socialism seems to be surging now rather than creeping.
cough, ObamaCare, cough

 

[ihopehefails]

It all began with public education and public roads, bridges, public buildings, etc.

Its to bad that so many communist repeat such narrow talking points such as what you posted above. It has everyone convinced that public expenditures of any kind is "socialism" but hitler also built public roads and so did the writers of the constitution. Are they both socialist? Of course not but there is difference between the two ideas about the role of government in society. Hitler, Stalin, Wilson, Mussilini, and Teddy Rosevelt all believed that government was a communal leader of society and this thinking created the fascist dictatorships there and over here.

So what I listed is not socialistic?

Remmeber it all begins small and grows.

At least things like the post office have a constitutional right to exist within our government. Can we at we at least uphold the conventions of only allowing "socialist" things that are permitted in the constitution because I'm a great believer in tradition.

 

[ihopehefails]

A good example is the progressive income tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax..

Taxes have been around since long before Marx or communism.
Inheritance tax is actually a rather egalitarian concept - that one generation cannot simply exist as leeches on the accomplishments of their ancestors. Recall that feudal nobles could do just that; their ancestor won a title and lands and all they need do was enjoy the fruits of those lands.
Progressive income tax is a different question, but it does not imply socialism. If the tax went only for those things which people cannot provide for themselves; military and police protection for example, then it is not socialist.
Capital gains taxes are a bad idea because they create a bizarre business model which does not work well, but again they are not inherently socialist (stupid - at least in their current execution yes, socialist no)

The socialism arises when the money is spent on something which people could provide themselves if they wished. Medical Care, retirement, what have you.

A couple of unusual cases exist. Public education might be called socialist, as it taxes everyone to pay to educate children. One could claim that couples with children are then supported by those without. However an equally valid claim might be that every adult is taxed to provide for every child. With the exception of immigrants, everyone had the chance to benefit from public education, and by making it available without regard to parental wealth we allow children a more equitable chance to succeed.

Still the socialism seems to be surging now rather than creeping.
cough, ObamaCare, cough

I didn't know that only communist come up with taxes because if that was true every government since the beginning of mankind would be "communist". However those particular taxes have a social agenda to them and that is to create an communist society. Its the reason why they exist in the first place.

 

[ihopehefails]

Its to bad that so many communist repeat such narrow talking points such as what you posted above. It has everyone convinced that public expenditures of any kind is "socialism" but hitler also built public roads and so did the writers of the constitution. Are they both socialist? Of course not but there is difference between the two ideas about the role of government in society. Hitler, Stalin, Wilson, Mussilini, and Teddy Rosevelt all believed that government was a communal leader of society and this thinking created the fascist dictatorships there and over here.

So what I listed is not socialistic?

Remmeber it all begins small and grows.

Can you see, in the United States, any time soon, where the means of production will be in the hands of society and not corporations? No, it's not going to happen. No, Obama is not a socialist.

Government as leader of society is a fact wherever government exists. In a democracy government is representative and governs at the will of the electorate. In authoritarian and totalitarian states, government is the instrument of the party in maintaining power for itself against domestic opposition.

When did corporations become illegal aliens in this country or not become members of society? I'm interested if you think that CEOs should be rounded up in an illegal alien campaign somewhere if they are not members of society. The way I see it the means of production are already in the hands of society because individuals that composes it actually make the stuff we want.

The only time government has been a leader is when there was a monarch or a shaman of a tribal society that tells the tribe when to dance for rain. In these societies people had no will because they were being "led" in directions that the leader felt they should go but in our society where the concept of self-governance exists government is an instrument to create the laws that people want and live by. Our politicians are not "leaders" but rather pegs that enact the legislation we want. Our leaders are private citizens that go out there and shape our ideas and thinking about what our nation is to do and our politicians simply do the shit we want after that.

 

[ihopehefails]

Be assured there will be no Communist revolution in the US.

There may be some policy and legislative changes but they'll go through the normal democratic channels. And if sufficient people don't like those changes they will vote accordingly and perhaps legislators will be returned who will reverse those changes.

Obama is not a socialist, you will not be a socialist country any time soon.



More at link - Obama a socialist? Not quite - The Boston Globe

LOL.

That is really pathatic when every other communist leader in the world praises his revolution and they sell Obama/mao shirts in China and just because the boston globe said it doesn't make it true. Try thinking on your own in the future instead of parathinking someone else's thoughts.

Just putting a view and then linking to someone else to extend the view.

I think you might not understand what a "revolution" is though if you think Obama has a "revolution".

I just said that everyone else in the world thinks that Obama is a communist and they could be correct.

 

[Meister]

does anyone still pay inheritance tax? Last I heard it was under 1% that paid any inheritance tax or somesuch low number.

You might also want to check out my other post about Wyoming Republicans wanting to tax the wind.

Wait until the sunset of the Bush tax cuts. You will see plenty of the inheritance taxes, along with a lot of other tax increases. I'm surprised that you didn't think about that.

 

[Meister]

Its to bad that so many communist repeat such narrow talking points such as what you posted above. It has everyone convinced that public expenditures of any kind is "socialism" but hitler also built public roads and so did the writers of the constitution. Are they both socialist? Of course not but there is difference between the two ideas about the role of government in society. Hitler, Stalin, Wilson, Mussilini, and Teddy Rosevelt all believed that government was a communal leader of society and this thinking created the fascist dictatorships there and over here.

So what I listed is not socialistic?

Remmeber it all begins small and grows.

Can you see, in the United States, any time soon, where the means of production will be in the hands of society and not corporations? No, it's not going to happen. No, Obama is not a socialist.

Government as leader of society is a fact wherever government exists. In a democracy government is representative and governs at the will of the electorate. In authoritarian and totalitarian states, government is the instrument of the party in maintaining power for itself against domestic opposition.

Who's the biggest share holder of GM? Who has big investments in the lending industry, and banks? Who's trying to get a startup business with the healthcare insurance? What person thinks that there should be redistribution of wealth?
No, it's not going to happen overnight, but if you keep chipping away, you will end up with socialism. just sayin...

 

[Diuretic]

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

Karl Marx

So , do you know if the Marxists are wresting by degree capital from the bourgeoisie?

Marx referred to the proletariat, not "Marxists".

True. But his followers are Marxists.

The proletariat in the US is definitely not anywhere near this path. Therefore the answer is no.

1. Federal Reserve Board - 1913

2- Graduated Income Tax - 1913

3- Creation of the Welfare/Warfare State 1935

4- Massive amount of regulations and confiscatory taxation

5- So we are inches away from becoming a socialist republic

.

His followers are Marxists? Okay then, but they're obviously followers because they're not having any influence over him.

The points you listed there seem to me to indicate the maturation of a society, not a shift to socialism.

 

[Diuretic]

So what I listed is not socialistic?

Remmeber it all begins small and grows.

Can you see, in the United States, any time soon, where the means of production will be in the hands of society and not corporations? No, it's not going to happen. No, Obama is not a socialist.

Government as leader of society is a fact wherever government exists. In a democracy government is representative and governs at the will of the electorate. In authoritarian and totalitarian states, government is the instrument of the party in maintaining power for itself against domestic opposition.

When did corporations become illegal aliens in this country or not become members of society? I'm interested if you think that CEOs should be rounded up in an illegal alien campaign somewhere if they are not members of society. The way I see it the means of production are already in the hands of society because individuals that composes it actually make the stuff we want.

The only time government has been a leader is when there was a monarch or a shaman of a tribal society that tells the tribe when to dance for rain. In these societies people had no will because they were being "led" in directions that the leader felt they should go but in our society where the concept of self-governance exists government is an instrument to create the laws that people want and live by. Our politicians are not "leaders" but rather pegs that enact the legislation we want. Our leaders are private citizens that go out there and shape our ideas and thinking about what our nation is to do and our politicians simply do the shit we want after that.

Corporations are just mechanisms for economic activity. Where does wealth originate from? Natural resources. Who “owns” those natural resources? The government of the political entity in which they are located (eg a state). Who is permitted to exploit those natural resources? If it's corporations then you have capitalism, where the means of production in the economy are held in private hands. If government organises the explotation of these natural resources through the creation of state-owned enteprises then it's not capitalism and roughly equates to socialism. I know that's a bit rough but that's my point.

 

[California Girl]

My honest opinion is that we are not moving towards communism. We are moving, yet further, towards what Americans view as socialism. We have quite a way to go before we are as socialist as many EU countries but we are moving that way.

Way? Because freedom is hard. It puts the emphasis on the individual to take responsibility for themselves. As a society, we have become fat and lazy - phyically and mentally. It is easier to allow someone else to take responsibility than for us each to take responsibility for ourselves.

Our country was founded on a document just 17 pages long. Now, we have 2000 pages for a Bill that will not actually achieve was it was set out to achieve. Do many people care? No. Why? Because it's too hard. We are, intellectually, fat and lazy. That is a huge benefit to the thiefs that we have handed our country to.

 

[Diuretic]

I've only ever visited, the longest visit was two months. I have never lived in the US. But every time I visited I built up just a little more knowledge, just a little I hasten to add, I know next to nothing about the US outside of superficial impressions. But the lingering impressions are diversity, complexity and a definite philosophy of life that is endemic to the population. Individualism is very powerful in your society I think.

What I liked first up was that since individualism was valued people seemed to be tolerant of difference. That might seem paradoxical now (my first visit was in 1984, yes Reagan was in the White House - I actually went through Dixon, Ill. and saw his boyhood home on my way to Iowa) but I got the very strong impression, especially when visiting friends that as long as the individual didn't break a law or do something really stupid that they could pretty much be left alone. That was, I have to tell you, refreshing.

But when individualism is elevated above its real value (as above) then it can become dysfunctional, a sort of unhelpful shibboleth. It's not a bad thing for government to be able to help those who can't help themselves. If you're lucky enough not to need help from government then bully for you, but not everyone is blessed like that.

Having government provide a safety net (recalling Mani's recent thread) isn't encouraging people to be dependent and lazy, it's sometimes a temporary necessity until they can get back on their feet.

It's in the nature of humanity for us to want to feel in control*, able to make our own decisions, able to plot our own way forward, to be independent, to work things out for ourselves, to gather material belongings for our family's benefit and to tell everyone else to piss off if we want to. A good society will promote that, a better society will extend a hand to those who need help to try and get them up to, or back to, that desirable state of living.


*This is the real reason men don't like to ask for directions. Hooray for GPS.

 

[Contumacious]

Marx referred to the proletariat, not "Marxists".

True. But his followers are Marxists.

The proletariat in the US is definitely not anywhere near this path. Therefore the answer is no.

1. Federal Reserve Board - 1913

2- Graduated Income Tax - 1913

3- Creation of the Welfare/Warfare State 1935

4- Massive amount of regulations and confiscatory taxation

5- So we are inches away from becoming a socialist republic

.

His followers are Marxists? Okay then, but they're obviously followers because they're not having any influence over him.

The points you listed there seem to me to indicate the maturation of a society, not a shift to socialism.

Only a Marxist would proclaim that greater government control and the centralization of power in DC indicates "maturation of society".

.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Only a Marxist would proclaim that greater government control and the centralization of power in DC indicates "maturation of society"

Actually, I'm moderately certain an imperialist would like more centralized power.
A totalitarian despot would love more government control to go with the power.

No need for Marxists, just greedy swine at the top.

 

[Diuretic]

True. But his followers are Marxists.




1. Federal Reserve Board - 1913

2- Graduated Income Tax - 1913

3- Creation of the Welfare/Warfare State 1935

4- Massive amount of regulations and confiscatory taxation

5- So we are inches away from becoming a socialist republic

.

His followers are Marxists? Okay then, but they're obviously followers because they're not having any influence over him.

The points you listed there seem to me to indicate the maturation of a society, not a shift to socialism.

Only a Marxist would proclaim that greater government control and the centralization of power in DC indicates "maturation of society".

.

Oh? I see. Okay, well I still think it indicates a maturation of society even though I'm not a Marxist.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I have a company that sells/constructs 2012 rated disaster shelters. If they do not protect you from the end of the world you get your money back.

The concept of insurance with group risks is socialistic as well. Ban all insurance and make each pay for their own illenss/accidents/loss.

You know that was a dumb statement right? You just hit send before you thought about it, right?

Socialism is government not private, there is a difference.

Insurance is private entities freely contracting with each other for defined benefits. Not the same thing. Not even close.

 

[Contumacious]

His followers are Marxists? Okay then, but they're obviously followers because they're not having any influence over him.

The points you listed there seem to me to indicate the maturation of a society, not a shift to socialism.

Only a Marxist would proclaim that greater government control and the centralization of power in DC indicates "maturation of society".

.

Oh? I see. Okay, well I still think it indicates a maturation of society even though I'm not a Marxist.

When you get a chance read world history.

You will find out that the reason the Founding Fathers adopted a Constitutional Republic was because when society "matures' people get fucked. There is NOTHING new under the sun.

Statism has been tried , under different names, through out the ages. The result has always been disastrous. So forget about re-inventing the wheel.

.

 

[Tech_Esq]

His followers are Marxists? Okay then, but they're obviously followers because they're not having any influence over him.

The points you listed there seem to me to indicate the maturation of a society, not a shift to socialism.

Only a Marxist would proclaim that greater government control and the centralization of power in DC indicates "maturation of society".

.

Oh? I see. Okay, well I still think it indicates a maturation of society even though I'm not a Marxist.

So you see Marx as a prophet?

He was correctly able to see how all modern states must evolve to become "mature" nation-states?

Me thinks Marx would disagree with your premise. I might suggest that all states do not, in fact need these things to be modern or mature. You may feel free to indicate one you think is indispensable.