Obama as a Marxist

[Agnapostate]

You must be from the East Coast if that's what your pronunciation is.

 

[Sinatra]

You must be from the East Coast if that's what your pronunciation is.

Hey!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I've increasingly heard Barack Obama depicted as a Marxist, so I'd be curious to know what Marxist theories he advocates.

Moreover, I'd be curious to know of his accusers' knowledge of Marxism. Let's take an example of Marxian political economy: crisis theory. When it comes to two specific forms of crisis, underconsumption crisis and profit squeeze crisis, which occurs when the capitalist class is too strong and which occurs when they are too weak?

Well... (ya know...) I've heard the same doggone thing!

And there's some nutbag runnin' around here declaring herself an 'Anarcho-communist...' which tends to really give the up-front impression that she's a poli-sci frosh with a brand new text book; she's pissed away a TON of time and effort on this board advancing various screeds... and as a result, let's just say that I've grown cautious...

BUT! I love this kinda discussion... so I'd really like to engage here.

Why don't we do this... why don't YOU tell us what you 'feel' Marxism represents...

I mean is a Marxist a person who walks around in wool apparel calling everyone 'comrade'; sporting an oversized moustache and has a tendency to have a oversized cuban-cigar stokin' between his cracked lips? Are they portrayed in black and white? Do they perhaps carry around a 'Little Red Book' Or do ya feel a Marxist is somethin' else entirely? Perhaps they advocate FOR... or maybe even AGAINST somethin'... what would that or those 'somethin's BE?

That way, we can begin our discussion from a starting place where we both already know what revisionist clap-trap upon which your basing your erroneous position, that President Hussein is NOT a Marxist...

Inquiring minds want to know...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

A despot is a despot, regardless of his alleged "politics".

Nazism gave Hitler the opportunity to exploit and murder people.
Communism gave that opportunity to Stalin, Pol Pot, Chavez, et al.

Fortunately, a democratic republic is a little harder to just take over...so long as we protect our consistution and our rights via the constitution.

But Obama will take that on next.

Fallacious nonsense. I have already instructed you as to the state capitalism of individuals such as Stalin, and the fact that their "communism" is inappropriately referred to by misinformed anti-socialists. But really, reference to Chavez as a "despot"? The man was democratically elected by the Venezuelan citizenry, survived a recall effort (incidentally, no recall mechanism exists in the United States, the alleged leader of the free and democratic world, despite the fact that most observers believe that George Bush would not have survived a recall in his last days), and you have the audacity to call him a "despot"?

Fallacious? REALLY? Are you sure? What specific form of fallacy are you calling here?

Now I ask this, because Allie's position is not fallacious and I want you to prove that you'r an ignorant tool when you ignore the challenge or when you try to invent a fallacy...

Can you explain to us, what you feel a capitalist is?

I've endured your misuse of the term across any number of threads and all I ever see you do is declare the Soviets and their grand pu-bah Uncle Joe a "State Capitalist"... what's the basis on which these tiresome declarations rest?

Do you believe that because the State operates an export market, where it seeks trade, that this necessary exhange of goods and services at the state level somehow translates to the advocacy of 'the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties?'

Do you not believe that Stalin and the Soviets controlled the means of production? WHAT ARE THE BASIS FOR THIS CLAIMS, sis?

Chavez is a despot... if one believes that a despot is a powerful ruler... with tyrannical tendencies... particularly given the tendency of those who would opposse Chavez to turn up dead, shortly after their opposition is solidified.

As for his being elected... President Hussein (Former Democratically elected leader of Iraq, NOT THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE US) was treated to routine unanimous elections by 'the people'... and few would suggest he was anything less than a despot.

Let me ask you directly comrade... was President Hussein, leader of the Baath Socialist Party of Iraq and head of the Iraqi State; was HE a despot? If so, why? If not... WHY?

 

[Munin]

Well Obama does like to socialize...

I wonder when he is going to "meet" that guy.

But again you got things mixed up (if that was part of the joke). You confuse Nazi socialism (noting to do with marxism, it is more nationalism with its own ideology) with communism (based upon marxism).

Nazis hated marxism, they jailed/killed/tortured socialists (people who are believers of the light version of marxism: for example they did not want a complete government controlled society) & communists (extreme believers in marxism). That Nazi socialism is an anti-marxist ideology.

It would appear you fail to see the forest for the trees.

Be careful, lest you fall into the category of Robert the misinformed - a poor chap who has now been relegated to the deepest depths of irrelevancy.

Your need for heightened posting skills does bring out the teacher in me though...

I couldn't say I wasn't expecting you to bring that up, I was actually informed but I was thinking it was you who was uninformed by bringing up the wrong picture .

"Socialize" with a extreme socialist (or otherwise known as a communist = marxist), now the joke makes more sense (in the context of the discussion).

 

[editec]

Nice try educating people, Agna.

Wasted effort, mostly, because the people who post blather in response to your posts are not merely ignorant, they're happy being ignorant.

Tools like them are happy being tools, dude.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Nice try educating people, Agna.

Wasted effort, mostly, because the people who post blather in response to your posts are not merely ignorant, they're happy being ignorant.

Tools like them are happy being tools, dude.

Isn't it cool how far the socialist will go to obfuscate their failures?

ROFL... there is absolutely NO END to the rationalizations that these idiots will bring to disown their ideological failures.

Now this particular idiot likes the project herself as a 'moderate,' yet here we find her celebrating the diversity of the innumerable strains of the leftist virus... the volume of which is a function of the axiom that 'leftism is the political vehicle in which the STUPID ride...' But don't take her defense of leftism or the comrades within it to mean she's a leftists.... NO NO! Nothing could be further from the 'truth'...

ROFL... Leftist.

Hey Ag.. how about informing us of what you 'feel' indicates a Marxist... Ya see when you get around to that, I'll go to work proving you a fool for denying President Hussein's Marxism.

 

[Sinatra]

Appropriate article regarding the stimulus bill...

SPECIAL PREVIEW Stimulus: A History of Folly

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But my purpose here isn't to defend Marxism, or even other forms of socialism. It's to challenge the assertion that Obama is a Marxist or any type of socialist.

You certainly seem to be doing your best to defend Marxism and other forms of socialism. If you don’t think Obama is any type of socialist, then please explain how government control of the private sector is not a form of socialism….or how socialized health care is not a form of socialism…I don’t understand why you cannot see the obvious…

Class conflict? Merely commenting on the issues of class and race divisions is wholly insufficient for adopting a Marxist position regarding class conflict, especially considering the extreme radicalism of the majority of Marxists regarding class conflict compared to Obama.

Merely commenting? Are you for real?….one of the pillars of Marxism is the class conflict and this is (surprise, surprise) also one of the pillars of Obama’s party….multiculturalism is alive and well and kicking racist butt…not to mention the vociferous hatred of the “rich capitalists” propaganda they spew constantly….wake up dude…

Socialized health care is a public good provision that is neither Marxist nor socialist, inasmuch as it does not satisfy the condition of collective ownership and control of the means of production.

You say socialized health care is not socialist? Again, are you for real? Socialized health care definitely puts health care under the auspices of governmental control, i.e., collective ownership and control.

Me? You think I support or "adore" Obama? No, I condemned him long ago as a useless Svengali who has more time for talk than action. Nor would I support him if he were a Marxist, inasmuch as I am not a Marxist, nor will I lend much support to any candidate running for hierarchical state positions inasmuch as I oppose the existence of the state.

As to your other quotes, Sam Webb is indeed the head of the CPUSA, but is an aberration among the Marxist-Leninist movement in his support of Obama and other Democratic candidates, which he views as a "lesser of two evils" approach. Noam Chomsky is much the same except for the fact that he is an anarchist, not a Marxist.

OK, if you don’t support Obama, then why are you spouting such ignorant defense of him? Just because you think he is not a “textbook perfect” form of a Marxist? What schoolbook are you reading?

I can hardly wait to read your reply to PI's questions about defining marxism...

 

[rayboyusmc]

I read that he was once a thesbian.

 

[rayboyusmc]

.or how socialized health care is not a form of socialism

Universal healthcare is not socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine: A system of health care in which all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals, work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the US Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. And the Veterans and US military hospitals are also supported this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain.

We already have socialized medicine for Veterans.

Universal health care is health care coverage that is extended to all eligible residents of a governmental region and often covers medical, dental, and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via single-payer health care system or national health insurance. Universal health care is implemented in all wealthy, industrialized countries, except for the United States.[1][2] It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide.

This wouldn't be a lot different from our current managed care system except for the scope of who is covered. Notice under this system the medical personnel DO NOT work for the government.

There is a difference. I pay now for my healthcare and would also pay under a universal system. The biggest difference is another 41 million Americans would now have medical coverage. I have no problem with that.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

.or how socialized health care is not a form of socialism

Universal healthcare is not socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine: A system of health care in which all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals, work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the US Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. And the Veterans and US military hospitals are also supported this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain.

We already have socialized medicine for Veterans.

Universal health care is health care coverage that is extended to all eligible residents of a governmental region and often covers medical, dental, and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via single-payer health care system or national health insurance. Universal health care is implemented in all wealthy, industrialized countries, except for the United States.[1][2] It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide.

This wouldn't be a lot different from our current managed care system except for the scope of who is covered. Notice under this system the medical personnel DO NOT work for the government.

There is a difference. I pay now for my healthcare and would also pay under a universal system. The biggest difference is another 41 million Americans would now have medical coverage. I have no problem with that.

ROFLMNAO...

Well sure... 'Universal Healthcare will not pay doctors and nurses through a government salary...' No? That's fascinatin'... Universal healthcare; OKA: Single payer healthcare, takes the market for Doctor and Nurse EMPLOYERS down to ONE CUSTOMER...

So the net effect is that they would be working FOR that customer and THAT CUSTOMER WOULD BE THE US GOVERNMENT.

But the Pogue is correct, the US Veterans administration is socialised medicine...

One of my oldest friends passed away a few weeks back... the results of the Veterans Administration botching his heart surgery.

Of course it didn't cost him a cent... and I'm sure that the satisfaction of knowing that he had Free-healthcare when it killed him, meant just everything to him.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well... (ya know...) I've heard the same doggone thing!

And there's some nutbag runnin' around here declaring herself an 'Anarcho-communist...' which tends to really give the up-front impression that she's a poli-sci frosh with a brand new text book; she's pissed away a TON of time and effort on this board advancing various screeds... and as a result, let's just say that I've grown cautious...

BUT! I love this kinda discussion... so I'd really like to engage here.

Why don't we do this... why don't YOU tell us what you 'feel' Marxism represents...

I mean is a Marxist a person who walks around in wool apparel calling everyone 'comrade'; sporting an oversized moustache and has a tendency to have a oversized cuban-cigar stokin' between his cracked lips? Are they portrayed in black and white? Do they perhaps carry around a 'Little Red Book' Or do ya feel a Marxist is somethin' else entirely? Perhaps they advocate FOR... or maybe even AGAINST somethin'... what would that or those 'somethin's BE?

That way, we can begin our discussion from a starting place where we both already know what revisionist clap-trap upon which your basing your erroneous position, that President Hussein is NOT a Marxist...

Inquiring minds want to know...

A Marxist is a socialist who adopts a sufficient number of views related to the political theory of Marxism (historical materialism, class conflict, dialectical materialism, Marxian economic approaches to crisis theory, efficiency wages, etc.) to accurately be described as a follower. Obama does not qualify. Nor do I, for that matter, though I have been misidentified as a Marxist in this thread.

Fallacious? REALLY? Are you sure? What specific form of fallacy are you calling here?

Now I ask this, because Allie's position is not fallacious and I want you to prove that you'r an ignorant tool when you ignore the challenge or when you try to invent a fallacy...

Can you explain to us, what you feel a capitalist is?

"Capitalism is an economic system in which surplus value is extracted in the production process by using wage labor and utilized in the circulation process to sustain capital accumulation."

I've endured your misuse of the term across any number of threads and all I ever see you do is declare the Soviets and their grand pu-bah Uncle Joe a "State Capitalist"... what's the basis on which these tiresome declarations rest?

On the contrary, the ignorant misuse of terms is the most accurate description that exists of your behavior. "State capitalism" is the descriptive term used because the means of production in the Soviet Union were controlled by a statist ruling class comparable to the corporate and political ruling class in Western capitalist nations such as this one. Since socialism necessitates the collective ownership and control of the means of production, and since no statist dictatorship can honestly be called a form of "collective" control, the Soviet Union was thus not a socialist country, and was quickly rejected as state capitalist by anarchists and other libertarian socialists when the Bolsheviks first assumed power.

Do you believe that because the State operates an export market, where it seeks trade, that this necessary exhange of goods and services at the state level somehow translates to the advocacy of 'the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties?'

This is the way in which capitalism functions. I'm aware of the fact that it's not identical to naive utopian conceptions of capitalism and market exchange that free marketers hold. But this is the reality of its application, since the state functions as a necessary stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy.

Do you not believe that Stalin and the Soviets controlled the means of production? WHAT ARE THE BASIS FOR THIS CLAIMS, sis?

Stalin controlled the means of production. The "soviets" did not control the means of production in any meaningful capacity. Herein lies your most critical error; your failure to comprehend the nature of collective ownership.

Chavez is a despot... if one believes that a despot is a powerful ruler... with tyrannical tendencies... particularly given the tendency of those who would opposse Chavez to turn up dead, shortly after their opposition is solidified.

Which specific political assassinations are you referring to, Pubertus? When fallacious claims regarding the "dictatorship" of Hugo Chavez arise, I find it best to refer back to American University economist Robin Hahnel.

Robin Hahnel, "Venezuela: Not What You Think"

In the case of Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan Bolivarian Revolution, the mainstream media and politicians in the United States have elevated their game of demonizing all who oppose US foreign policy and business interests to a higher level of absurdity than usual. According to the mainstream media, the only newsworthy stories in Venezuela are one sided diatribes lifted from the discredited, opposition-owned media in Venezuela. For example, we read about Chavez shutting down opposition TV stations. We hear that Chavez is rewriting the Venezuelan Constitution so he can be President for life. Chavez is a dictator, QED.

All the badly outgunned, alternative media in the US can do is try its best to rebut the bias in the storylines defined by the mainstream media. The tiny fraction of Americans who visit the alternative media discover that Chavez has submitted a proposal to change the Venezuelan Constitution in a number of ways, one of which is to eliminate term limits on the office of President. All changes will first have to be approved by the democratically elected Venezuelan National Assembly, and then also approved in a popular referendum before they become law. Only Americans who search out the alternative media discover that Hugo Chavez was elected President by a comfortable margin in 1998, survived an opposition-sponsored recall in 2004, and most recently was re-elected in December 2006 with more than 60% of the vote. International observers certified all three elections as fair and square. George Bush, on the other hand, was selected President by a partisan Supreme Court after losing the popular vote in 2000, and won re-election only because enough black voters in Ohio were disenfranchised by a partisan Republican official to keep the Buckeye State in the Republican column in 2004. Few observers believe Bush could survive a recall election today, but of course this basic element of democratic rule is not permitted by the US Constitution. Nonetheless, the only storyline ninety-nine percent of Americans hear remains: Hugo Chavez is a dictator and George Bush is the democratically elected leader of the free world.

But please, enlighten us, Pubertus.

As for his being elected... President Hussein (Former Democratically elected leader of Iraq, NOT THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE US) was treated to routine unanimous elections by 'the people'... and few would suggest he was anything less than a despot.

Let me ask you directly comrade... was President Hussein, leader of the Baath Socialist Party of Iraq and head of the Iraqi State; was HE a despot? If so, why? If not... WHY?

Saddam Hussein and the Baath party were on good terms with the U.S. ruling class so long as they were following orders; it's only when they became contentious that Saddam morphed into a "dictator." Neither democracy nor dictatorship has been a relevant factor in previous ruling administration alliances with foreign powers. Obedience was the critical factor, which is why the "dictatorship" of Fidel Castro is cited as reason to let Cubans enter Florida, yet the "dictatorship" of Duvalier was curiously ignored when Haitians attempted the same during his rule.

I couldn't say I wasn't expecting you to bring that up, I was actually informed but I was thinking it was you who was uninformed by bringing up the wrong picture .

"Socialize" with a extreme socialist (or otherwise known as a communist = marxist), now the joke makes more sense (in the context of the discussion).

If socialism, communism, and Marxism are used as interchangeable terms, then that serves as an illustrative indication of anti-socialists' ignorance of political economy, and points to the basis for misidentifying Obama as a "Marxist."

You certainly seem to be doing your best to defend Marxism and other forms of socialism.

That's not the case. I've never had any sympathy for Marxism, particularly its more centralized variants, and if you understood the Marxist/anarchist conflict that's existed ever since the Prague Congress of the First International, when Marx and his followers expelled Bakunin and his allies from the organization, you'd be familiar with that long history of feuding between Marxists and anarchists.

If you don’t think Obama is any type of socialist, then please explain how government control of the private sector is not a form of socialism….or how socialized health care is not a form of socialism…I don’t understand why you cannot see the obvious…

The "obvious"? Your definitions rely on inaccurate references to public good provisions, which are commonly fallaciously misidentified as "socialism" by the anti-socialist with a lack of familiarity with political economy.

Merely commenting? Are you for real?….one of the pillars of Marxism is the class conflict and this is (surprise, surprise) also one of the pillars of Obama’s party….multiculturalism is alive and well and kicking racist butt…not to mention the vociferous hatred of the “rich capitalists” propaganda they spew constantly….wake up dude…

Very well. If you believe that Obama adopts a Marxist approach to class conflict, then crisis theory would be an appropriate topic to reference. Which Marxian economic approach to crisis theory does Obama take?

You say socialized health care is not socialist? Again, are you for real? Socialized health care definitely puts health care under the auspices of governmental control, i.e., collective ownership and control.

No, that relies on a similarly inaccurate definition of a public good provision as socialism, which can be rejected as false inasmuch as socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. Firstly, governmental ownership is a far cry from collective ownership in many cases, and secondly, health care does not constitute a component of the traditionally understood means of production.

OK, if you don’t support Obama, then why are you spouting such ignorant defense of him? Just because you think he is not a “textbook perfect” form of a Marxist? What schoolbook are you reading?

I don't appreciate the inaccurate description of a mixed-market capitalist as a socialist (or more atrociously, a "Marxist") inasmuch as it relies on a distortion of my own socialist beliefs. This is no "ignorant defense" so much as an accurate definition of Marxian political economy and Obama's critical differences from that view.

I can hardly wait to read your reply to PI's questions about defining marxism...

I think it likely that I can deliver a far more cogent definition of Marxism than you and he can. Moreover, I notice that my question regarding a critical component of Marxian economics has still not been sufficiently answered. Apparently, our self-styled economics experts aren't quite as all-knowing as they believe.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well... (ya know...) I've heard the same doggone thing!

And there's some nutbag runnin' around here declaring herself an 'Anarcho-communist...' which tends to really give the up-front impression that she's a poli-sci frosh with a brand new text book; she's pissed away a TON of time and effort on this board advancing various screeds... and as a result, let's just say that I've grown cautious...

BUT! I love this kinda discussion... so I'd really like to engage here.

Why don't we do this... why don't YOU tell us what you 'feel' Marxism represents...

I mean is a Marxist a person who walks around in wool apparel calling everyone 'comrade'; sporting an oversized moustache and has a tendency to have a oversized cuban-cigar stokin' between his cracked lips? Are they portrayed in black and white? Do they perhaps carry around a 'Little Red Book' Or do ya feel a Marxist is somethin' else entirely? Perhaps they advocate FOR... or maybe even AGAINST somethin'... what would that or those 'somethin's BE?

That way, we can begin our discussion from a starting place where we both already know what revisionist clap-trap upon which your basing your erroneous position, that President Hussein is NOT a Marxist...

Inquiring minds want to know...

A Marxist is a socialist who adopts a sufficient number of views related to the political theory of Marxism (historical materialism, class conflict, dialectical materialism, Marxian economic approaches to crisis theory, efficiency wages, etc.)

Well there ya go... Your definition of Marxism conclusively establishes that President Hussein is a Marxist...

What ya just layed out right there is the Hussein Obama Resume...

Now how hard was that? It should be noted that the 'Nuh huh' defense will not be accepted...

I'd submit the numerous speeches where Candidate Hussein has denigrated "the Rich" which FYI: represents "a class;" a class which he set at odds with 'the people;' another class, which he implies rests with 'the working poor'... Then there's the speeches where he has lamented materialism of the Middle Class which is a class he and his wife, who he sends out to speak for HIM, have encouraged 'the people' to avoid... (That's class conflict with a healthy dose of dialectic and historic materialism to boot...) and even you can't deny that his entire campaign and the whole of his administration has been consumed with crisis economics... in which he just initiated a policy wherein he determined what was and was NOT FAIR regarding the product of the labor for those whose labor is subsidized by 'The People,' which is the basis upon which 'control of the means of production' is established.

Now it's entirely probable that you'll run to note that revolutionary Marxism would not take such subtle steps... but then we’d have to wade through Trotsky and all that 'half step your way to Socialism' crap... where we'd probably need to mire the discussion down in the works of a Hussein mentor; the mentor who President Hussein's entire campaign and now his Presidency was/is patterened: Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals... And yes, Trotsky and Alinsky were both... COMMUNISTS. Sure... both may have failed to meet the high standards you require before you deem one to be a true Communist... but that is the POINT... There are no true communists AS YOU DEFINE THEM... the principles of left-think are antithetical to the certainties of human nature; and given that all of the left-'isms' are only applicable TO HUMANS, it's a certainty that human nature will always trump anything which ignores it's certainties; just as nature will always trump any attempt by humans to ignore the certainties inherent in Nature.

So we can put the "Hussein is not a Marxist" farce to bed.

Fallacious? REALLY? Are you sure? What specific form of fallacy are you calling here?

Now I ask this, because Allie's position is not fallacious and I want you to prove that you'r an ignorant tool when you ignore the challenge or when you try to invent a fallacy...

Can you explain to us, what you feel a capitalist is?

"Capitalism is an economic system in which surplus value is extracted in the production process by using wage labor and utilized in the circulation process to sustain capital accumulation."

So you can't state the form of fallacy you were calling on Allie?

ROFL... Color me SHOCKED!!

FYI: Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... That such an exchange includes the accumulation of capital, is irrelevant. Capital is the means by which all goods and services are exchanged, or sufficiently so, that the whole is well represented. Your bitch is that you feel that Capitalism requires effort and lacks perfection... But this is a function of your suffering a delusion that socialism, communism, anarchism, etc do not require effort and have the potential for perfection.

Bad news here... They require vastly MORE EFFORT than capitalism, just to get at the level of chaos which Capitalism has acquired... A level which is wholly unobtainable, because the inherent economic design STRIPS THE INDIVIDUAL OF THE INCENTIVE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE... let alone prosper. You set these theories in a scenario which is so lacking in it's potential relevance to the only species which will set them in practice that they are the working definition of DELUSION.

Socialism is alive and well Ag... Anarchism is alive and well... in small collectives where the interpersonal relationships compliment the individuals comprising the respective collectives. We call those collectives: Families, Businesses, clubs, cliques, etc... But the potential for such is intrinsically tied to the PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.

I know Comrade John or Jane... so I am willing to help them, to share with them; they're a lot like me and because of this I trust them. Conversely, I KNOW Comrade Dick and Darla... and I am decidedly NOT WILLING to help and share with them FOR THE SAME REASONS; I know THEM, I neither like nor trust them... because they're not at all like me... and THAT is where social-ism and all the subtly distinct-isms of left-think break down; when and where the expansion from the close inter-personal collective to the larger collective is attempted... People see that Dick and Darla are realizing the same or similar lifestyle that they are realizing and they know that those two are a couple of worthless specimens, who are NOT kicking in the same level of effort as they are; and inevitably animosity begins to cripple the system... See: Seven Deadly Sins. And please don't trot out you knee-jerk rejection of religious principle wrapped in the ignorance of the distinction of: principle -v- tenet... and yes, religion is designed to control the masses and it works... BECAUSE IT SPEAKS TO THE INDIVIDUAL; and serves to instill a sense of responsibility in EACH; responsibility FOR THEIR PERSONAL ACTIONS, FOR THEIR PERSONAL THOUGHTS and for their interactions with their fellow man; an accountability which is NOT to another human being, but to the divine authority for whom they owe their very lives and the authority on which their RIGHTS to pursue the fulfillment of that life depends.


But setting that aside for the moment, the viability of socialist collectives, which are sufficiently large to strain or sever inter-personal relationships is exponentially lowered... where direct observation is impossible, because it amplifies the distrust inherent in distance and unfamiliarity... the same traits and circumstances which lead to racism... it's the mistrust from that which is not familiar.

And THAT is not even taking into consideration the litany of other just as real human frailties which are better suited towards and which are better compensated through the system which respects the RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND RESTS RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS, PRODUCTION AND BENEVOLENCE UPON THE INDIVIDUAL; a responsibility which is vested in their RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR MAKER; who is inherent IN THEM; inalienable FROM THEM...

Socialism rejects that relationship, by rejecting the potential for even the existence of their Maker... The Creator. Thus it is certain to fail.

On the contrary, the ignorant misuse of terms is the most accurate description that exists of your behavior. "State capitalism" is the descriptive term used because the means of production in the Soviet Union were controlled by a statist ruling class comparable to the corporate and political ruling class in Western capitalist nations such as this one. Since socialism necessitates the collective ownership and control of the means of production, and since no tatist dictatorship can honestly be called a form of "collective" control, the Soviet Union was thus not a socialist country, and was quickly rejected as state capitalist by anarchists and other libertarian socialists when the Bolsheviks first assumed power.

Well I realize that you're very impressed with theory of socialism... but your intellectual limitations prevent you from understanding that ruling classes are an unavoidable function of human nature.

"The State" or "The Government" BOTH are inevitably sold to represent "The People" and where one gives THE POWER, one establishes RULERS and where one establishes RULERS one establishes a RULING CLASS...

Now Americans believe that the RULES should LIMIT the scope of power that is extended BY the people TO that ruling class... YOU on the other hand believe that THE PEOPLE should have all the power and to do that YOU would give ALL THE POWER TO THE STATE...

Now you will of course advance a knee jerk "Nuh-HUH" reaction... but the lie inherent in this reaction rests in your soundly defeated position wherein you set aside ANY AUTHORITY BEYOND HUMAN AUTHORITY... you know... the position where you declared the divine endowments of human rights; endowed rights which the US Constitution protects from the power of the ruling class... TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So spare us...

Which specific political assassinations are you referring to, Pubertus? When fallacious claims regarding the "dictatorship" of Hugo Chavez arise, I find it best to refer back to American University economist Robin Hahnel.

I'll be happy to do just that: THE INSTANT YOU STATE FOR THE RECORD, PLACING YOUR OWN FRAGILE REPUTATION ON THE LINE DECLARING THAT YOU KNOW TO A CERTAINTY THAT NO POLITICAL OPPONENT OF CHAVEZ HAS MET 'an untimely demise"...

So, since you've already implied such, that shouldn't be a problem; just go ahead and cite the specific and unambiguous declaration and we'll get on with it...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Do you intend to respond or is your absence yet another concession by default?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

President Hussein is a Marxist...

Super...

 

[Sinatra]

Well... (ya know...) I've heard the same doggone thing!

And there's some nutbag runnin' around here declaring herself an 'Anarcho-communist...' which tends to really give the up-front impression that she's a poli-sci frosh with a brand new text book; she's pissed away a TON of time and effort on this board advancing various screeds... and as a result, let's just say that I've grown cautious...

BUT! I love this kinda discussion... so I'd really like to engage here.

Why don't we do this... why don't YOU tell us what you 'feel' Marxism represents...

I mean is a Marxist a person who walks around in wool apparel calling everyone 'comrade'; sporting an oversized moustache and has a tendency to have a oversized cuban-cigar stokin' between his cracked lips? Are they portrayed in black and white? Do they perhaps carry around a 'Little Red Book' Or do ya feel a Marxist is somethin' else entirely? Perhaps they advocate FOR... or maybe even AGAINST somethin'... what would that or those 'somethin's BE?

That way, we can begin our discussion from a starting place where we both already know what revisionist clap-trap upon which your basing your erroneous position, that President Hussein is NOT a Marxist...

Inquiring minds want to know...

A Marxist is a socialist who adopts a sufficient number of views related to the political theory of Marxism (historical materialism, class conflict, dialectical materialism, Marxian economic approaches to crisis theory, efficiency wages, etc.)

Well there ya go... Your definition of Marxism conclusively establishes that President Hussein is a Marxist...

What ya just layed out right there is the Hussein Obama Resume...

Now how hard was that? It should be noted that the 'Nuh huh' defense will not be accepted...

I'd submit the numerous speeches where Candidate Hussein has denigrated "the Rich" which FYI: represents "a class;" a class which he set at odds with 'the people;' another class, which he implies rests with 'the working poor'... Then there's the speeches where he has lamented materialism of the Middle Class which is a class he and his wife, who he sends out to speak for HIM, have encouraged 'the people' to avoid... (That's class conflict with a healthy dose of dialectic and historic materialism to boot...) and even you can't deny that his entire campaign and the whole of his administration has been consumed with crisis economics... in which he just initiated a policy wherein he determined what was and was NOT FAIR regarding the product of the labor for those whose labor is subsidized by 'The People,' which is the basis upon which 'control of the means of production' is established.

Now it's entirely probable that you'll run to note that revolutionary Marxism would not take such subtle steps... but then we’d have to wade through Trotsky and all that 'half step your way to Socialism' crap... where we'd probably need to mire the discussion down in the works of a Hussein mentor; the mentor who President Hussein's entire campaign and now his Presidency was/is patterened: Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals... And yes, Trotsky and Alinsky were both... COMMUNISTS. Sure... both may have failed to meet the high standards you require before you deem one to be a true Communist... but that is the POINT... There are no true communists AS YOU DEFINE THEM... the principles of left-think are antithetical to the certainties of human nature; and given that all of the left-'isms' are only applicable TO HUMANS, it's a certainty that human nature will always trump anything which ignores it's certainties; just as nature will always trump any attempt by humans to ignore the certainties inherent in Nature.

So we can put the "Hussein is not a Marxist" farce to bed.






So you can't state the form of fallacy you were calling on Allie?

ROFL... Color me SHOCKED!!

FYI: Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... That such an exchange includes the accumulation of capital, is irrelevant. Capital is the means by which all goods and services are exchanged, or sufficiently so, that the whole is well represented. Your bitch is that you feel that Capitalism requires effort and lacks perfection... But this is a function of your suffering a delusion that socialism, communism, anarchism, etc do not require effort and have the potential for perfection.

Bad news here... They require vastly MORE EFFORT than capitalism, just to get at the level of chaos which Capitalism has acquired... A level which is wholly unobtainable, because the inherent economic design STRIPS THE INDIVIDUAL OF THE INCENTIVE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE... let alone prosper. You set these theories in a scenario which is so lacking in it's potential relevance to the only species which will set them in practice that they are the working definition of DELUSION.

Socialism is alive and well Ag... Anarchism is alive and well... in small collectives where the interpersonal relationships compliment the individuals comprising the respective collectives. We call those collectives: Families, Businesses, clubs, cliques, etc... But the potential for such is intrinsically tied to the PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.

I know Comrade John or Jane... so I am willing to help them, to share with them; they're a lot like me and because of this I trust them. Conversely, I KNOW Comrade Dick and Darla... and I am decidedly NOT WILLING to help and share with them FOR THE SAME REASONS; I know THEM, I neither like nor trust them... because they're not at all like me... and THAT is where social-ism and all the subtly distinct-isms of left-think break down; when and where the expansion from the close inter-personal collective to the larger collective is attempted... People see that Dick and Darla are realizing the same or similar lifestyle that they are realizing and they know that those two are a couple of worthless specimens, who are NOT kicking in the same level of effort as they are; and inevitably animosity begins to cripple the system... See: Seven Deadly Sins. And please don't trot out you knee-jerk rejection of religious principle wrapped in the ignorance of the distinction of: principle -v- tenet... and yes, religion is designed to control the masses and it works... BECAUSE IT SPEAKS TO THE INDIVIDUAL; and serves to instill a sense of responsibility in EACH; responsibility FOR THEIR PERSONAL ACTIONS, FOR THEIR PERSONAL THOUGHTS and for their interactions with their fellow man; an accountability which is NOT to another human being, but to the divine authority for whom they owe their very lives and the authority on which their RIGHTS to pursue the fulfillment of that life depends.


But setting that aside for the moment, the viability of socialist collectives, which are sufficiently large to strain or sever inter-personal relationships is exponentially lowered... where direct observation is impossible, because it amplifies the distrust inherent in distance and unfamiliarity... the same traits and circumstances which lead to racism... it's the mistrust from that which is not familiar.

And THAT is not even taking into consideration the litany of other just as real other human frailties which are better suited towards and which are better compensated through the system which respects the RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND RESTS RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS, PRODUCTION AND BENEVOLENCE UPON THE INDIVIDUAL; a responsibility which is vested in their RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR MAKER; who is inherent IN THEM; inalienable FROM THEM...

Socialism rejects that relationship, by rejecting the potential for even the existence of their Maker... The Creator. Thus it is certain to fail.

On the contrary, the ignorant misuse of terms is the most accurate description that exists of your behavior. "State capitalism" is the descriptive term used because the means of production in the Soviet Union were controlled by a statist ruling class comparable to the corporate and political ruling class in Western capitalist nations such as this one. Since socialism necessitates the collective ownership and control of the means of production, and since no tatist dictatorship can honestly be called a form of "collective" control, the Soviet Union was thus not a socialist country, and was quickly rejected as state capitalist by anarchists and other libertarian socialists when the Bolsheviks first assumed power.

Well I realize that you're very impressed with theory of socialism... but your intellectual limitations prevent you from understanding that ruling classes are an unavoidable function of human nature.

"The State" or "The Government" BOTH are inevitably sold to represent "The People" and where one gives THE POWER, one establishes RULERS and where one establishes RULERS one establishes a RULING CLASS...

Now Americans believe that the RULES should LIMIT the scope of power that is extended BY the people TO that ruling class... YOU on the other hand believe that THE PEOPLE should have all the power and to do that YOU would give ALL THE POWER TO THE STATE...

Now you will of course advance a knee jerk "Nuh-HUH" reaction... but the lie inherent in this reaction rests in your soundly defeated position wherein you set aside ANY AUTHORITY BEYOND HUMAN AUTHORITY... you know... the position where you declared the divine endowments of human rights; endowed rights which the US Constitution protects from the power of the ruling class... TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So spare us...

Which specific political assassinations are you referring to, Pubertus? When fallacious claims regarding the "dictatorship" of Hugo Chavez arise, I find it best to refer back to American University economist Robin Hahnel.

I'll be happy to do just that: THE INSTANT YOU STATE FOR THE RECORD, PLACING YOUR OWN FRAGILE REPUTATION ON THE LINE DECLARING THAT YOU KNOW TO A CERTAINTY THAT NO POLITICAL OPPONENT OF CHAVEZ HAS MET 'and untimely demise"...

So, since you've already implied such, that shouldn't be a problem; just go ahead and get cite the specific and unambiguous declaration and we'll get on with it...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Let's GO AG! You've just proven President Hussein IS a MARXIST!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you intend to respond or is your absence yet another concession by default?

Eventually they always scuttle away....

If socialism, communism, and Marxism are used as interchangeable terms, then that serves as an illustrative indication of anti-socialists' ignorance of political economy, and points to the basis for misidentifying Obama as a "Marxist."

If you want a more definitive term….Obama is what one could call a neo-marxist.

"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." ~Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

No, that relies on a similarly inaccurate definition of a public good provision as socialism, which can be rejected as false inasmuch as socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. Firstly, governmental ownership is a far cry from collective ownership in many cases, and secondly, health care does not constitute a component of the traditionally understood means of production.

Lenin once said “medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism”.

You ask why he said that? Because if the state can control a man's medicine, they control his physicality, his body and life.

 

[Sinatra]

Let's GO AG! You've just proven President Hussein IS a MARXIST!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you intend to respond or is your absence yet another concession by default?

Eventually they always scuttle away....

If socialism, communism, and Marxism are used as interchangeable terms, then that serves as an illustrative indication of anti-socialists' ignorance of political economy, and points to the basis for misidentifying Obama as a "Marxist."

If you want a more definitive term….Obama is what one could call a neo-marxist.

"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." ~Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

No, that relies on a similarly inaccurate definition of a public good provision as socialism, which can be rejected as false inasmuch as socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. Firstly, governmental ownership is a far cry from collective ownership in many cases, and secondly, health care does not constitute a component of the traditionally understood means of production.

Lenin once said “medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism”.

You ask why he said that? Because if the state can control a man's medicine, they control his physicality, his body and life.[/QUOTE]

Impressive response!

Well done.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

of the ideological left and their shadow deep feelings...

Total annihilation...