The Republicans really wonder about capitalism.

[Brutus]

Why doesn't everyone agree with Milton Friedman that the battle between capitalism and liberal socialism is over. How did the USA ever get a socialist president in the face of all the evidence?

Look at

1)Cuba/ Florida
2)USA/USSR
3)East Germany/West Germany
4)Red China/Modern China
5)Red China/Hong Kong
6) North Korea/South Korea
7) Israel before and after 1999
8) Ivory Coast/Ghana
9) Modern India/ Socialist India
10)Chile pre and post Friedman
11) Ireland pre and post tax cuts

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why doesn't everyone agree that anybody who refers to Obama as a socialist doesn't understand the term?

 

[Bern80]

Why doesn't everyone agree that anybody who refers to Obama as a socialist doesn't understand the term?

Government ownership of the means of production you mean? Who was it again that took over controlling ownership of GM? Who was it who bailed out the financial sector with a million strings attached? I think we understand the term.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why doesn't everyone agree that anybody who refers to Obama as a socialist doesn't understand the term?

Government ownership of the means of production you mean? Who was it again that took over controlling ownership of GM? Who was it who bailed out the financial sector with a million strings attached? I think we understand the term.

I don't think the socialists mean public ownership of the means of production of a handful of companies. I'm almost positive they mean every company. If Obama is anything it's a fascist or a corporatist, not a socialist. They're certainly related ideologies, but not the same thing.

 

[editec]

Socialism?

Here in American the brand of socialism we have is really CLASSISM.

The WEALTHY enjoy the benefits of socialism, the rest of us struggle with their version of CLASS DRIVEN, cronny-capitalism.

 

[JBeukema]

'Socialism'? You mean more unions? Like in the 50s? Higher marginal tax rates? Like the 50s? Higher real income? Like the 50s?

 

[doctor100]

I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread is an idiot.

i mean, socialism? control of wages, production, and distribution by the government? (which is VERY VERY different from communism mind you)

Yeah, Obama did each of those things; controlled wages never before controlled, controlled production, controlled distribution(like medical insurance).

But unions are not socialism, never were, never will be. Those are corporatist.

As for the "wealthy enjoying the benefits of socialism"? nooo, that would capitalism, socialism normally helps the lower class, that's redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor-involuntarily. Let's not forget corporate taxes shall we?
[I wanted to put an image here, but I couldn't]

Socailism was an attempt to control banks and financial institutions, control company policies (through ownership by the government) to benefit the "people", reduce the gains that the very wealthy had, use the government to buy what was needed by communities and employ people as well . . .all of that does too fit Obama.

which isn't to say that "socialist Obama" is a bad thing. I mean, compare median lifestyle during "absolute capitalism/robber baron" to those in "absolute socialism/communist russia" and you will see marked similarities. Our system did not become the best until it started controlling markets; whether that be late 1800 tarriffs, which interfere in the free market, or if that be post WWII, and the new society and the new deal etc.

Sacrificing either sector of society for the exclusive benefit of the other will always lead to poor median living conditions. Whether it be caused by lack of incentive, or if it be caused by oppression.

And poor median living conditions (lots of poor workers) leads to less innovation, which means less dishwashers and microwaves and TV's which means a worse standard of living for everyone.

but striking the balance is an art.

IMO

 

[Brutus]

Why doesn't everyone agree that anybody who refers to Obama as a socialist doesn't understand the term?

this is true, BO voted to the left of Bernie Sanders( an open socialist) so you might more accurately call him a communist. I guess that's why the CPUSA loves BO?? What do you think?

 

[Brutus]

Why doesn't everyone agree that anybody who refers to Obama as a socialist doesn't understand the term?

Government ownership of the means of production you mean? Who was it again that took over controlling ownership of GM? Who was it who bailed out the financial sector with a million strings attached? I think we understand the term.

yes Kevin thought he was smart when he's really a lightweight:

Norman Thomas quotes:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

 

[Brutus]

Socialism?

Here in American the brand of socialism we have is really CLASSISM.

The WEALTHY enjoy the benefits of socialism, the rest of us struggle with their version of CLASS DRIVEN, cronny-capitalism.

so then why be so liberal and afraid to give us your best example of socialism for the wealthy??? What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

 

[Brutus]

'Socialism'? You mean more unions? Like in the 50s? Higher marginal tax rates? Like the 50s? Higher real income? Like the 50s?

dear, try to get one thing straight. There was a huge world war in the 40's called World War 2. When it was over the USA had the only functioning economy in the world, like in the 50's!

See why we are positive liberals will be slow? What other conclusion is possible??

 

[Brutus]

I mean, compare median lifestyle during "absolute capitalism/robber baron" to those in "absolute socialism/communist russia" and you will see marked similarities.

OMG that is too stupid but perfectly liberal. Communism in USSR and Red China slowly starved to death about 120 million.

the 1880's saw the fastest economic growth in American History. Those that liberals call Robber Barrons got rich by gifting 10000 times the riches to Americans in the form of steel, autos, oil, and railroads, etc. For example Henry Ford made most Americans wealthy enough to afford cars but only got $1.49 himself for each car. Rockefeller actually turned night into day for most Americans by making kerosene affordable!!! Its was a capitalist miracle of miracles which, sadly, the liberal will lack the IQ to understand.

 

[JBeukema]

I mean, compare median lifestyle during "absolute capitalism/robber baron" to those in "absolute socialism/communist russia" and you will see marked similarities.

OMG that is too stupid but perfectly liberal. Communism in USSR and Red China slowly starved to death about 120 million.

bureaucratic collectivism is communism?

And yellow is red, right?

 

[rdean]

Socialism?

Here in American the brand of socialism we have is really CLASSISM.

The WEALTHY enjoy the benefits of socialism, the rest of us struggle with their version of CLASS DRIVEN, cronny-capitalism.

so then why be so liberal and afraid to give us your best example of socialism for the wealthy??? What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

John McCain's grandfather and great grandfather were admirals. They pulled strings and through "rich people with connections" Affirmative Action, McCain was jumped over thousands, where he graduated from the Naval Academy 5th from the Bottom out of 899. That means he was like the most stupid person in every single class he was ever in and Republicans tried to make him president. So when Right wingers, who don't even believe in "science", make these "judgement calls", it makes you wonder if anyone is actually at home. Socialist indeed.

 

[Norman]

'Socialism'? You mean more unions? Like in the 50s? Higher marginal tax rates? Like the 50s? Higher real income? Like the 50s?

Higher taxes but less spending by almost 50%? Impossible equation.

It's the 50s that were capitalist, now it's socialism for the wealthy + interest groups.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why doesn't everyone agree that anybody who refers to Obama as a socialist doesn't understand the term?

Government ownership of the means of production you mean? Who was it again that took over controlling ownership of GM? Who was it who bailed out the financial sector with a million strings attached? I think we understand the term.

I don't think the socialists mean public ownership of the means of production of a handful of companies. I'm almost positive they mean every company. If Obama is anything it's a fascist or a corporatist, not a socialist. They're certainly related ideologies, but not the same thing.

Socialism does not mean public ownership of the means of production. That is communism. Socialism does mean government control over the economy. And that is where we are heading. The GM takeover. Chrysler takeover. Shredding rule of law in those two bankruptcy proceedings. Pay czar setting compensation in private companies. Obama approving CEOs of private companies. Unaccountable financial company overseers. Elimiating private lenders for student loans. High taxes. Cradle to grave care.
Yup, we're about there. And ironically at the same time Europe has figured out this doesn't work.

 

[expat_panama]

Government ownership of the means of production you mean?...

I don't think the socialists mean public ownership of the means of production of a handful of companies....

Socialism does not mean public ownership of the means of production. That is communism. Socialism does mean government control over the econom....

We're all free do define the terms as it suits us, but communicating works better with shared definitions. Maybe for the purposes of discussion we can use this dictionary:

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.​

​

Starting there I can explain why I consider Obama a Marxist and a socialist.

 

[The Rabbi]

I would consider Sweden in the 1970s a socialist country. The gov't had a heavy hand in dictating terms to business. But companies were still privately owned for the msot part.

 

[whitehall]

I wonder why Obama is so coy about his agenda? He appointed a communist to his "green jobs" board and he referred to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinister political tool of the GOP. Barney Frank said he had "ideological blinders" on when he allowed Fannie Mae to crash while he was house banking chairman. What does it take to get people to understand that the democrat party has been at war with capitalism for decades? How are we doing under this current dose of socialism? Let me know when we reach 3rd world status.

 

[expat_panama]

I would consider Sweden in the 1970s a socialist country. The gov't had a heavy hand in dictating terms to business. But companies were still privately owned for the msot part.

Right. How about the individuals own controlling stock in a company, the dictator declares the stocks worthless with union members collectively holding the company's debt obligations, and then he puts one of his henchmen in charge. We'd have to say the dictator with the workers collectively own 'the means of production' and individual stock holders don't. Obama with GM.

What's happening with health care (a fifth of the economy) is clearer with out and out market takeover by a government agency.