America is about to take a step toward socialism

[IndyVoter&Rockr]

This bailout is a redistribution of the wealth. They are taking money from the middle and lower class and giving it to the wealthy. Redistribution of wealth is the whole idea of Socialism; except in socialism it is supposed to come from the rich and go to the poor. President Bush presided over the most consolidation of power into the executive branch in the history of our country. He performs illegal wire taps and goes to war without consent of congress. Now he says we must give 700billion dollars to the wealthy elite or the countries economy will collapse; even though it's been almost two weeks since the crisis began, and the market is still fine. After taking all this into consideration it is hard to believe we live in a democracy anymore, and even if it is one it doesn't look like were going to have freedom for too much longer. We need a serious change in our two party political system and let some independent parties in the mix. They couldn't screw it up anymore than it already is.

 

[nia588]

this is exactly why we don't need anymore republicans in the white house. the keep on taking money from the middle class and poor and giving it to the rich. it's like robin in reverse

 

[eots]

This bailout is a redistribution of the wealth. They are taking money from the middle and lower class and giving it to the wealthy. Redistribution of wealth is the whole idea of Socialism; except in socialism it is supposed to come from the rich and go to the poor. President Bush presided over the most consolidation of power into the executive branch in the history of our country. He performs illegal wire taps and goes to war without consent of congress. Now he says we must give 700billion dollars to the wealthy elite or the countries economy will collapse; even though it's been almost two weeks since the crisis began, and the market is still fine. After taking all this into consideration it is hard to believe we live in a democracy anymore, and even if it is one it doesn't look like were going to have freedom for too much longer. We need a serious change in our two party political system and let some independent parties in the mix. They couldn't screw it up anymore than it already is.

about to step ?..they have been marching that road for awhile now and are about to jump in balls deep.....really

 

[Sunni Man]

this is exactly why we don't need anymore republicans in the white house. the keep on taking money from the middle class and poor and giving it to the rich. it's like robin in reverse

You are missing the point.

If we had Denocrats in power. They would be taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. That's just the classical defination of socialism.

In other words, both Democrats and Republicans are advocating socialism.

There is NO difference between either party. Just which class of people they are going to rob.

 

[Diuretic]

You are missing the point.

If we had Denocrats in power. They would be taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. That's just the classical defination of socialism.

In other words, both Democrats and Republicans are advocating socialism.

There is NO difference between either party. Just which class of people they are going to rob.

That's not the classical definition of socialism. That's redistribution of wealth. Socialism requires the societal, as opposed to private, ownership of the means of production. Neither the Democrats nor the GOP are socialist and are not likely to be. Both parties are capitalist. It's just the some in the GOP want govenment to go out of the governing business and let individuals and corporations run the show and the Democrats want government to function to ensure that at least something works and the carpetbaggers are kept under control.

 

[Sunni Man]

There isn't any difference between Democrats and Republicans.

In theory, Yes.

In reality, NO

 

[editec]

Socialism is when the government OWNS the means of production.

This move isn't socialism, this is just plain old theft by those in power.

they can do this in a way that does NOT screw the American people, but so far it looks like they'd rather bail out the banks and let the American people assume the crappy paper those banks have on their books.

 

[Diuretic]

I hate to be picky but I think when the government owns a means of production (eg a business that collapses and is then taken over by government) that it's called "nationalisation".

Socialism is a transitory condition where, gradually, private ownership is dismantled and the state takes over the means of production as the slow and, I think, evolutionary movement towards communal ownership of the means of production is achieved.

 

[editec]

I hate to be picky but I think when the government owns a means of production (eg a business that collapses and is then taken over by government) that it's called "nationalisation".

True...and when they have nationalized the mean of production, the government is socialist.

Socialism is a transitory condition where, gradually, private ownership is dismantled and the state takes over the means of production as the slow and, I think, evolutionary movement towards communal ownership of the means of production is achieved.

So the theory goes.

The Marxist fairy tale concludes:

And then government was no longer necessary at all, it is disbanded and the comrade prolitariate all live happily after after in the communist ideal.

And all it will take for that fairy tale to happen is for all the people to be replaced by saints who are never greedy or selfish, and who care more about the collective than they do about themselves, their families or their chums.

Communist theory is just about the only political theory that I think is even goofier than libertarian theory.

Both assume that people will change their basic human natures to accomodate their political theories

 

[IndyVoter&Rockr]

Socialism is when the government OWNS the means of production.

This move isn't socialism, this is just plain old theft by those in power.

they can do this in a way that does NOT screw the American people, but so far it looks like they'd rather bail out the banks and let the American people assume the crappy paper those banks have on their books.

When the government owns the means of production isn't any ideology it's what the russians did when they said they had communism. Communism is when everyone shares their property, but that is not actually possible in reality. So, Russia just took control of every business, and kept control of everything, which is why communism doesn't work. Socialism is less radical. It means to try and balance the wealth out evenly, but I guess this isn't regular socialism it's reverse socialism.

 

[greenpartyaz]

This bailout is a redistribution of the wealth. They are taking money from the middle and lower class and giving it to the wealthy. Redistribution of wealth is the whole idea of Socialism; except in socialism it is supposed to come from the rich and go to the poor. President Bush presided over the most consolidation of power into the executive branch in the history of our country. He performs illegal wire taps and goes to war without consent of congress. Now he says we must give 700billion dollars to the wealthy elite or the countries economy will collapse; even though it's been almost two weeks since the crisis began, and the market is still fine. After taking all this into consideration it is hard to believe we live in a democracy anymore, and even if it is one it doesn't look like were going to have freedom for too much longer. We need a serious change in our two party political system and let some independent parties in the mix. They couldn't screw it up anymore than it already is.

It is corporate welfare at it's most disgusting form. These CEO's are going to be taken care of with the bailout, so they can support their lavish lifestyle with the approval of Congress. While millions of people are going to loose their jobs. Things have become so disgusting with the corporate orgy of the Democratic and Republican party that they are using this a hockey puck to score political points to try and put it in the bag. McCain's staff is made up of lobbyists who support these institutions and Obama is well connected to the quick cash. You can sit there and chirp that McCain is a Maverick, even though he has a pretty dismal record of being anything but an enabler of corporate welfare. Or you can get off your ass and throw these corrupt politicians out so they have to get a real job!

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and participatory planning.

.

 

[IndyVoter&Rockr]

Thanks for the data Epsilon. There are so many different types of Socialist socialism can mean anything. What we can all agree on is that this bailout is bullshit and greenpartyAZ is right and we need a serious change of politicians. I'm seriously considering voting for Nader.

 

[xsited1]

This bailout is a redistribution of the wealth. They are taking money from the middle and lower class and giving it to the wealthy. Redistribution of wealth is the whole idea of Socialism; except in socialism it is supposed to come from the rich and go to the poor. President Bush presided over the most consolidation of power into the executive branch in the history of our country. He performs illegal wire taps and goes to war without consent of congress. Now he says we must give 700billion dollars to the wealthy elite or the countries economy will collapse; even though it's been almost two weeks since the crisis began, and the market is still fine. After taking all this into consideration it is hard to believe we live in a democracy anymore, and even if it is one it doesn't look like were going to have freedom for too much longer. We need a serious change in our two party political system and let some independent parties in the mix. They couldn't screw it up anymore than it already is.

Don't you mean 'another step'? We've been taking steps toward Socialism for decades.

 

[xsited1]

That's not the classical definition of socialism. That's redistribution of wealth. Socialism requires the societal, as opposed to private, ownership of the means of production. Neither the Democrats nor the GOP are socialist and are not likely to be. Both parties are capitalist. It's just the some in the GOP want govenment to go out of the governing business and let individuals and corporations run the show and the Democrats want government to function to ensure that at least something works and the carpetbaggers are kept under control.

Are you really from Australia? Can private citizens in Australia own guns?

 

[editec]

When the government owns the means of production isn't any ideology..

I beg to differ. That is the classic definition of socialism.

it's what the russians did when they said they had communism.

Which they called socialism, FYI

Communism is when everyone shares their property, but that is not actually possible in reality.

I'd say that's definitely true. Not until people become something other than people.

So, Russia just took control of every business, and kept control of everything, which is why communism doesn't work.

Agreed. Soviet-style socialism was simply theft of private property and civil rights by a government. It was a horror of repression and terror. Likewise Mao's so-called socialist experiement.

Socialism is less radical. It means to try and balance the wealth out evenly,

Yes, that is what socialists usually claim and never deliver.


Only it never quite works out tht way, does it?

but I guess this isn't regular socialism it's reverse socialism.

It's theft under the guise of a socialist economy.

True socialism is as elusive as a unicorn or even something so fantastic as Libertopia.

It's a utopian political theory that doesn't work.

What we have is capitalism, mostly.

If the government steps in and buys up these failing banks, then the government is in the banking business.

Has it taken over "the means of production"?

Sort of.. if you consider the world of finance a means of production

But sooner or later, you can expect to see the next administration start divesting the banks assets it ends up with.

Either they'll sell those holdings right, and the nation will make a little cash, or they do what they usually do -- and give the property of the United States away for a song to their pals.

 

[Diuretic]

I hate to be picky but I think when the government owns a means of production (eg a business that collapses and is then taken over by government) that it's called "nationalisation".

True...and when they have nationalized the mean of production, the government is socialist.



So the theory goes.

The Marxist fairy tale concludes:

And then government was no longer necessary at all, it is disbanded and the comrade prolitariate all live happily after after in the communist ideal.

And all it will take for that fairy tale to happen is for all the people to be replaced by saints who are never greedy or selfish, and who care more about the collective than they do about themselves, their families or their chums.

Communist theory is just about the only political theory that I think is even goofier than libertarian theory.

Both assume that people will change their basic human natures to accomodate their political theories

Humans have a basic nature of cooperation. Without cooperation we're not viable as a species. That would seem to lend itself more to perfect communism than would the individualism of libertarians and the exploitative relations of capitalism. The problem for many of us - me included - is that we've been conned into thinking that competing with one another is human nature and therefore capitalism or a variant of it is natural. That's not so. Human nature is adaptive, yes, but at its basis is cooperation.

But I'm getting off point now I suppose.

 

[Diuretic]

Are you really from Australia? Can private citizens in Australia own guns?

Yes and yes