Yah, and a textbook definition of Capitalism is I'm looking out for number one, no matter how many people I shit on while I'm on my way to the top, right?
I'm an anarchist honey, but in a country where 99% of the wealth resides in 1% of the population, maybe it would be a little better if we 'spread the wealth around' just a little bit.
"In this cause I too am prepared to die. There is no cause for which I am prepared to kill" -Gandhi
It is so significant that it may turn the election, although socialism is so deeply entrenched into our institutions already that it may not matter much. We'll see.
Or perhaps people may, somehow, someway, though thought and consideration decide that maybe socialism isn't so bad after all.
Let me repeat that, a textbook definition of Socialism is "spread the wealth around."
.
Actually, i'm pretty sure a "textbook" definition would be a little more detailed and a lot more accurate than that.
An honest definition would probably include something about a socio-economic system that recognizes that those that collect garbage, or those that dig ditches, have as much societal value as those that provide other services to said society and should be awarded as such.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
LOL. Yea except he's not a plumber, his name isn't Joe, and he's not intent on buying said business. The only one "exposed" was him. Ok but we know that. I do anyway. Are you aware that we are already in early stages of socialism? We've essentially nationalized the banking industry with the buyouts of Washington Mutual, Wachovia and others. Don't forget the bailout that's costing every taxpayer thousands of dollars. These are forms of socialism.
EXACTLY! Republicans just freak the fuck out when you mention it in their taxes. Until I see this as the left AND RIGHT are turning this country into socialism then you have 0% room to bash obama for these remarks...face it...calling just obama a socialist makes no sense when both parties have taken socialist actions...to save rich people's asses. So like i said, until i see the label thrown onto your own candidate i think you're just avoiding a bigger picture.
"Tonight we're just gonna play you some good old American Rock and Roll." tom petty-7-15-05
Are you aware that we are already in early stages of socialism? We've essentially nationalized the banking industry with the buyouts of Washington Mutual, Wachovia and others. Don't forget the bailout that's costing every taxpayer thousands of dollars. These are forms of socialism. The difference between us and other socialist countries is we've socialized debt, they socialize good things like healthcare, education, etc.
Socialism carries a negative connotation because many people incorrectly associate it with communism. That's actually wrong. There are many non-communist countries in Europe who institute forms of socialism. Canada is the same way. Heaven forbid we have positive socialism in this country. We wouldn't want people having free health care and free education would we? That would just be awful.
fugawzi has adequately expressed the situation here.
The US is a mixed economy, a capitalist system with a socialist hybrid element. There are no economies which are purely capitalist. This is correct.
The amount of socialism in our mixed-economy has been increasing over time.
The question really is, do we have too much socialism, the right amount, or not enough?
It's funny how the rebuttal's were framed:
Obama's tax plan is not socialist!
and now the rebuttal is:
Okay, it's socialist...what's wrong with that?
Not too many conservatives are happy with the bailiout, I will not vote any rep who voted in favor of the bailout. I opt for less socialism.
would you change the level of socialism that is available at this point? i mean i realize that it should be up to an individual to provide for him/herself and family...we should carry our own weight.
but i also look at how many people do prosper from some level of socialized supplements. i look beyond the monies given to say, afdc or ssi, and think about healthy families, preschool, and other programs that will cultivate benefits for global enhancement.
joe the plumber and joe six-pak are male oriented terms...
what about helena the housekeeper, or suelyn the waitress in your favorite tai restaruant? or beatrice the babysitter? does either of these archtypes (joes) have anything in common for their benefit...perhaps these people are completely dismissed???
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
would you change the level of socialism that is available at this point? i mean i realize that it should be up to an individual to provide for him/herself and family...we should carry our own weight.
but i also look at how many people do prosper from some level of socialized supplements. i look beyond the monies given to say, afdc or ssi, and think about healthy families, preschool, and other programs that will cultivate benefits for global enhancement.
joe the plumber and joe six-pak are male oriented terms...
what about helena the housekeeper, or suelyn the waitress in your favorite tai restaruant? or beatrice the babysitter? does either of these archtypes (joes) have anything in common for their benefit...perhaps these people are completely dismissed???
Not being a woman, I can't speak to charges of sexism. Only to say that my wife pretty much does whatever the hell she wants. Hairstylist, housewife...she does what makes her happy.
The thing is is you can't even define a spectrum of socialism-capitalism, becuase socialism has its own spectum. from left-wing fascism to right-wing utpoian "soft" socialism (look it up).
This is probably the biggest reason why socialism is so problematic. The fact is, socialism historically INCUBATES, grows the fascist elements within it, and becasue government(authority) readily lends itself to fascism anyway, government socialism VALIDATES socialism in its full spectrum.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume fascist-socialism didn't exist. What the supporters of socialism are talking about is the ideological "soft-socialism" So lets isolate that.
We now have our spectrum of socialism-capitalism. We're somewhere right of center right now. The strict capitalist would argue that socialist programs actually do little to foster indivudual freedom, but rather the opposite. Socialist programs have no need to succeed, becasue they are paid for by the government. They provide no real world value because they are not subject to real world success/fail scenarios. Their only motivation is to remain entrenched in government. Without the government, socialist programs have no legitimacy. The the bigger the socialism, the bigger the government, the more validated the establishment becomes.
this is the essential argument against socialism, but it's so much bigger than that it would take a long time to go through.
It's funny how the rebuttal's were framed:
Obama's tax plan is not socialist!
and now the rebuttal is:
Okay, it's socialist...what's wrong with that?
Not too many conservatives are happy with the bailiout, I will not vote any rep who voted in favor of the bailout. I opt for less socialism.
I just think it's funny when you say left wing elite globalists are turning this country socialist. With anything I'd have to say it's the right that's doing this since bush is the one passing all of these socialistic ideas.
"Tonight we're just gonna play you some good old American Rock and Roll." tom petty-7-15-05
I just think it's funny when you say left wing elite globalists are turning this country socialist. With anything I'd have to say it's the right that's doing this since bush is the one passing all of these socialistic ideas.
bush is a neocon, not a conservative. I guess you could call that right-wing elite. neocons pursue American imperialism. They think all people should live in American-style democracy.
in keeping on topic, one could argue that globalist socialism, in part, gives him enough equity (big government validation) to exercise and expand presidential power, which he has done more than any president since maybe Andrew Jackson. In a smaller government he would have never been able to get as far as he has, the checks upon him would be much more equal and stronger. How much so if at all is probably for another debate.
I'm inclined to believe the guy is just a crappy president, more than anything having to do with the topic.
True conservatives wish to return to a more limited government, a stricter interpretation of the constitution and its supporting documents. We favor a repeal of the federal income tax as unconstitutional. We view the Fed as unconstitutional in its present form.
Did you know that the powers of the first president were defined in three paragraphs? Did you know that the President is not supposed to be nearly as powerful as he is today, according to out founding fathers?
If you'd like to know more about what real conservativism is all about, go to
conservativeusa.org
Thanks for poitning out your socialist point of view. Why dont you move to Canada or Europe?
Socialism may be rising in America, thanks to left-wing elite globalists.
I'm not sure why socialists try to pollute our free society. I wonder why they do not prefer to just go to a more socialist country, and leave this free country alone.
Thease ideas are enemies to the state. Treasonous.
In my view.
I don't need or want to move to another Country. My family and friends live here and so do I. I pay taxes here. I totally support socializing health care and education and other things too. No shame here. Moving may be your solution. I would actually like to see my country improve so I will speak what I believe. You can spout off all you want about "left-wing, elitist, socialist" etc. It's BS and you know it. That's just your partisanship.
I don't know who you are supporting, I don't know your political affiliation. The economic problems we are facing are because of the left and the right. People who didn't pay their mortgages, banks who loaned when they shouldn't have, and the government primarily the Republicans the last 8 years not doing enough to stop it.
Then the government both sides decided to resolve it in a socialist way. It's going on now so you better get out there and start "fighting". Or you can just accept it and hope that we can socialize some positive things. So you and your family can receive quality health care, quality education, without having to give a high amount of taxes to the government.
If you consider the socialist resolution the government has instituted to be "treason", then put your money where your mouth is. Don't pay your taxes. Don't support it if you truly feel that way. Otherwise face it, you're paying into a socialist system.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
Then the government both sides decided to resolve it in a socialist way. It's going on now so you better get out there and start "fighting". Or you can just accept it and hope that we can socialize some positive things. So you and your family can receive quality health care, quality education, without having to give a high amount of taxes to the government.
If you consider the socialist resolution the government has instituted to be "treason", then put your money where your mouth is. Don't pay your taxes. Don't support it if you truly feel that way. Otherwise you're paying into socialist system face it.
well, it is correct that we need to start fighting. The question is what? I believe we should be fighting globalism. While a utopian ideal, the globalist war is being waged by fascists from every side on every front. That's just the way it is right now. If we allow fascim to promote globalism, which is what primarily is moving globalism, then we have a very different globalization than we invisioned.
And we will be forfeiting our sovereignty, being now subject to international law, and paying tax dollars for the privelege.
Since we know that socialism has fascism built into it by it's very nature, and we see our government is getting ever bigger with socialism, we see how effective it is for fascists to promote globalization and in fact be legitimized. a legitimized fascist form of globalization is what is coming. One world government. Not the utopia.
Since we know that socialism has fascism built into it by it's very nature, and we see our government is getting ever bigger with socialism, we see how effective it is for fascists to promote globalization and in fact be legitimized. a legitimized fascist form of globalization is what is coming. One world government. Not the utopia.
Can I just ask what your definition of fascism is? The reason I ask is because it seems to be a loose term. I have heard many different definitions from people. I thought it was when the government is controlled mostly by corporations, then I heard there was much more to it than that. It's a word I've never truly understood so what is your definition of fascism?
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
I have no definition of fascism. As you aptly put, it is a subject that requires historical and comparitive thinking. My definition of fascism would never be adequate, and for me to try to define it for you doesn't really serve you.
I have no definition of fascism. As you aptly put, it is a subject that requires historical and comparitive thinking. My definition of fascism would never be adequate, and for me to try to define it for you doesn't really serve you.
Research the subject.
I have researched the subject. Again it's a loose term. I'm trying to figure out your definition to understand it as you used it in your context. This is what the free online dictionary says:
fas·cism
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
is that your definition?
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
I have researched the subject. Again it's a loose term. I'm trying to figure out your definition to understand it as you used it in your context. This is what the free online dictionary says:
fas·cism
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
is that your definition?
I think I know where you're going with this. I'm right there with ya' on that.
But in the context of what you're talking about: The definition posted ignores how fascism happens in the first place, hence the need for historical reference. The lack of context can be equated to skipping from 2nd grade to high school
It's a good frame of reference to discuss globalism.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society where labor is the main source of wealth
good enough?
quitcherbitchin and say something relevant.
Comments
I'm an anarchist honey, but in a country where 99% of the wealth resides in 1% of the population, maybe it would be a little better if we 'spread the wealth around' just a little bit.
Iraq Veterans Against the War
www.ivaw.org
Or perhaps people may, somehow, someway, though thought and consideration decide that maybe socialism isn't so bad after all.
Naaaah.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>
"thought and consideration" that socialism isn't so bad is a contradiction of itself.
but that's priceless. know your history much?
think about it....
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
No. Feel free to tell me about the Nazis. :rolleyes:
Know your economics much?
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>
synergize!!!!
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Actually, i'm pretty sure a "textbook" definition would be a little more detailed and a lot more accurate than that.
An honest definition would probably include something about a socio-economic system that recognizes that those that collect garbage, or those that dig ditches, have as much societal value as those that provide other services to said society and should be awarded as such.
EXACTLY! Republicans just freak the fuck out when you mention it in their taxes. Until I see this as the left AND RIGHT are turning this country into socialism then you have 0% room to bash obama for these remarks...face it...calling just obama a socialist makes no sense when both parties have taken socialist actions...to save rich people's asses. So like i said, until i see the label thrown onto your own candidate i think you're just avoiding a bigger picture.
a six pac and a plumber....
that's a pleasant thought...
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
fugawzi has adequately expressed the situation here.
The US is a mixed economy, a capitalist system with a socialist hybrid element. There are no economies which are purely capitalist. This is correct.
The amount of socialism in our mixed-economy has been increasing over time.
The question really is, do we have too much socialism, the right amount, or not enough?
It's funny how the rebuttal's were framed:
Obama's tax plan is not socialist!
and now the rebuttal is:
Okay, it's socialist...what's wrong with that?
Not too many conservatives are happy with the bailiout, I will not vote any rep who voted in favor of the bailout. I opt for less socialism.
would you change the level of socialism that is available at this point? i mean i realize that it should be up to an individual to provide for him/herself and family...we should carry our own weight.
but i also look at how many people do prosper from some level of socialized supplements. i look beyond the monies given to say, afdc or ssi, and think about healthy families, preschool, and other programs that will cultivate benefits for global enhancement.
joe the plumber and joe six-pak are male oriented terms...
what about helena the housekeeper, or suelyn the waitress in your favorite tai restaruant? or beatrice the babysitter? does either of these archtypes (joes) have anything in common for their benefit...perhaps these people are completely dismissed???
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Not being a woman, I can't speak to charges of sexism. Only to say that my wife pretty much does whatever the hell she wants. Hairstylist, housewife...she does what makes her happy.
The thing is is you can't even define a spectrum of socialism-capitalism, becuase socialism has its own spectum. from left-wing fascism to right-wing utpoian "soft" socialism (look it up).
This is probably the biggest reason why socialism is so problematic. The fact is, socialism historically INCUBATES, grows the fascist elements within it, and becasue government(authority) readily lends itself to fascism anyway, government socialism VALIDATES socialism in its full spectrum.
We now have our spectrum of socialism-capitalism. We're somewhere right of center right now. The strict capitalist would argue that socialist programs actually do little to foster indivudual freedom, but rather the opposite. Socialist programs have no need to succeed, becasue they are paid for by the government. They provide no real world value because they are not subject to real world success/fail scenarios. Their only motivation is to remain entrenched in government. Without the government, socialist programs have no legitimacy. The the bigger the socialism, the bigger the government, the more validated the establishment becomes.
this is the essential argument against socialism, but it's so much bigger than that it would take a long time to go through.
I just think it's funny when you say left wing elite globalists are turning this country socialist. With anything I'd have to say it's the right that's doing this since bush is the one passing all of these socialistic ideas.
bush is a neocon, not a conservative. I guess you could call that right-wing elite. neocons pursue American imperialism. They think all people should live in American-style democracy.
in keeping on topic, one could argue that globalist socialism, in part, gives him enough equity (big government validation) to exercise and expand presidential power, which he has done more than any president since maybe Andrew Jackson. In a smaller government he would have never been able to get as far as he has, the checks upon him would be much more equal and stronger. How much so if at all is probably for another debate.
I'm inclined to believe the guy is just a crappy president, more than anything having to do with the topic.
True conservatives wish to return to a more limited government, a stricter interpretation of the constitution and its supporting documents. We favor a repeal of the federal income tax as unconstitutional. We view the Fed as unconstitutional in its present form.
Did you know that the powers of the first president were defined in three paragraphs? Did you know that the President is not supposed to be nearly as powerful as he is today, according to out founding fathers?
If you'd like to know more about what real conservativism is all about, go to
conservativeusa.org
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
I don't need or want to move to another Country. My family and friends live here and so do I. I pay taxes here. I totally support socializing health care and education and other things too. No shame here. Moving may be your solution. I would actually like to see my country improve so I will speak what I believe. You can spout off all you want about "left-wing, elitist, socialist" etc. It's BS and you know it. That's just your partisanship.
I don't know who you are supporting, I don't know your political affiliation. The economic problems we are facing are because of the left and the right. People who didn't pay their mortgages, banks who loaned when they shouldn't have, and the government primarily the Republicans the last 8 years not doing enough to stop it.
Then the government both sides decided to resolve it in a socialist way. It's going on now so you better get out there and start "fighting". Or you can just accept it and hope that we can socialize some positive things. So you and your family can receive quality health care, quality education, without having to give a high amount of taxes to the government.
If you consider the socialist resolution the government has instituted to be "treason", then put your money where your mouth is. Don't pay your taxes. Don't support it if you truly feel that way. Otherwise face it, you're paying into a socialist system.
well, it is correct that we need to start fighting. The question is what? I believe we should be fighting globalism. While a utopian ideal, the globalist war is being waged by fascists from every side on every front. That's just the way it is right now. If we allow fascim to promote globalism, which is what primarily is moving globalism, then we have a very different globalization than we invisioned.
And we will be forfeiting our sovereignty, being now subject to international law, and paying tax dollars for the privelege.
Since we know that socialism has fascism built into it by it's very nature, and we see our government is getting ever bigger with socialism, we see how effective it is for fascists to promote globalization and in fact be legitimized. a legitimized fascist form of globalization is what is coming. One world government. Not the utopia.
Can I just ask what your definition of fascism is? The reason I ask is because it seems to be a loose term. I have heard many different definitions from people. I thought it was when the government is controlled mostly by corporations, then I heard there was much more to it than that. It's a word I've never truly understood so what is your definition of fascism?
Research the subject.
I have researched the subject. Again it's a loose term. I'm trying to figure out your definition to understand it as you used it in your context. This is what the free online dictionary says:
fas·cism
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
is that your definition?
I think I know where you're going with this. I'm right there with ya' on that.
But in the context of what you're talking about: The definition posted ignores how fascism happens in the first place, hence the need for historical reference. The lack of context can be equated to skipping from 2nd grade to high school
It's a good frame of reference to discuss globalism.
We can talk about fascism, or globalism.
That's a pretty shitty definition of socialism. You must have had really bad textbooks.
good enough?
quitcherbitchin and say something relevant.