Do we really want to elect a Communist?

American Heritage Dictionary
so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key 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.

This, to me, sure sounds like what obama wants to do.

Marilyn~

why huh??? aren't they also the human????? hehhehehhe

Originally posted by ANOK
That's why I am a libertarian socialist, socialism without a centralised government.

That's a total oxymoron. How can you have socialism without government?

Originally posted by SteveR
You are not a socialist or a communist. I'm willing to bet you work for a living and satisfy yourself with material purchases like the rest of us.

Oh so what am I then? I happen to live on less than a $1000 a month before rent and bills and no I’m not a blind consumer. And you are still showing your ignorance of what socialism is. I have nothing against material possessions, where do you get the idea I would? Socialism came from the WORKING CLASS, so what would be wrong with me, or anyone working? The workers just want what’s theirs, what they produce with their labour.

Socialism has never been tried. Socialism is not about emotional hype, or hating anyone. Socialists want you to understand how capitalism works and why it cannot serve the interests of the working class (everyone who must work, or depend upon social programs, for a living).

When people understand why capitalism cannot work for them, the structure of society needed to solve our problems becomes clear.

Working Class

A class struggle begins the minute you say the word "socialism." Or, to put it another way, socialism is the idea at the heart of the ideological struggle between the capitalist class and the working class.
As Communists understand very well there is really no way to challenge the system of capitalism without forcefully advocating its replacement with socialism. All the critical issues of our day - war and peace, full employment, labor rights, full equality, social justice, the environment - cannot be resolved under capitalism.

Source

I have no interest in demonising socialism. You are constantly on the defensive about it. I appreciate some socialism. I point out your inaccuracies in saying that Hitler was not socialist, Russia was never socialist. These are comments far below your intellectual level. You know damn well that they were socialist.

Oh and you don't get defensive if someone makes claims that are not true about what you believe in? It's kind of frustrating to hear complete lies.

Again Hitler was not a socialist. Hitler was a fascist, modeled after Italian fascism. Again it comes down to what socialism is and that's the workers democratic ownership of the means of production…

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic.

Source

As for Russia…

So often Russia is described at having tried 'socialism.' Russia under Lenin, Stalin and the rest is usually described as socialist or communist by the media. Yet, as these extracts from our British-based journal, The Socialist Standard, argue, Russia was never socialist…

World Socialism

And China…

No wonder “a considerable number of people” had come to the conclusion that China is not socialist. And they are right. China is not a “socialist country” but a capitalist one. And it never was socialist. What the Chinese “Communist” Party established when they came to power in 1949 was a state-capitalist regime under their political dictatorship. The workers and peasants continued to be exploited but, from then on, by a “vanguard” which collectively exercised a monopoly, through its political control, over the state-owned means of production.

Source

It’s just the same old game, exploitation of the working class.

Socialism is enacted by the state. It is government control of the markets. It is a tool of economic management and that is the definition. Any educated fellow will you tell you so. Anything else is communism, and communism seems to be your socialism.

You’re describing one form of socialism, it’s not the only one.
No I am not a communist, I am a Libertarian Socialist…

Why "Libertarian"?
It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)
Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives…

The state has nothing to do with Socialism.

No-one mentioned the word 'everything' only you. All countries use socialism in some form or another.

But you were saying socialism is government ownership, I’m only trying to point out that is not true. And what countries use socialism? Again social services is not socialism, similar word different meaning…A society can’t survive without social services, capitalist or whatever.

That is communism. You are recycling the same old ideas in a new package to avoid the stigma. Libertarian socialism, it is nothing more than another way of saying communism. I noticed you rarely reference communism. Why is that?

Again I’m not a communist, but I agree it’s similar. But again you are wrong, Libertarian Socialism is another way of saying Anarchism not communism. Even though communes would be a good way for some people if they chose to organize themselves that way.

Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Source

LibSoc is not a new term for communism...

Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it.

Source

What you think is socialism is nothing but a capitalist dictatorship in sheep clothing.

I don’t expect you’ll read any of this, or the links provided, you’re so conditioned to hate liberty and believe the illusion of freedom provided by the state.

Edited to add...

The fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea. Benjamin Tucker[Instead of a Book, pp. 363-4]

[edit on 29/7/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by EverythingYouDespise
That's a total oxymoron. How can you have socialism without government?

Why do you think socialism requires a government?

Read my last post and it is well explained, don't be shy to read the links provided for more clarity.

You all have been conditioned by your media to hate what would be a benefit to you, so a small group of people can exploit you for their own gain. That's why the top 5% own something like 80% of the wealth.
Wealth created mainly by the sweat of the working class. Socialism puts that wealth back in the hands of those who create it by their labour.

Edited to add...

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

In a word, no. This question is often asked by those who have come across the so-called "libertarian" right. As discussed in section A.1.3, the word "libertarian" has been used by anarchists for far longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. Indeed, outside of North America "libertarian" is still essentially used as an equivalent of "anarchist" and as a shortened version of "libertarian socialist."

Source

America you have twisted and confused political ideology for obvious reasons...

[edit on 29/7/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Wotan

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Wotan

 

He who does not learn from the past will be condemned to repeat it. Moved on indeed. No doubt why you are having the "politically correct" problems you are having now. Don't count on us to save your bacon this time. Ungrateful louts.

Then why do you keep making the same mistakes? hmmm.

What mistakes are you speaking of?

Mistakes like daring to send our troops into countries where terror and tyranny was the form of government in an effort to loosen the reins of a regime that kept power by murdering, maiming and intimidating its citizens?

Mistakes like sending thousands of our young men to Europe in WWII to die heroically so that much of Europe would be able to exist without being part of Hitler's monstrous regime?

Mistakes like answering the call of countries in need of humanitarian supplies and lifesaving aid like following the recent Tsunami?

Mistakes like standing up for our nation's security by refusing to let Communism's threat grow within arm's reach of our nation, in that day when Kennedy looked into the eye of evil and refused to blink?

Mistakes like reacting to the massacre of thousands of our sailors and soldiers at Pearl Harbor by hitting back at Japan with a vengeance?

Mistakes like refusing to let foreign-born terrorists invade our land and strike fear into our hearts without taking the fight to them?

Sorry, I'll take our mistakes any day if any of these are of what you speak.

So far we haven't made the mistake of letting an enemy get so close to overthrowing us that we have had to ask other countries to race to our defense in order to save us from being taken over by a communist/fascist nation. We also haven't made the mistake of forgetting exactly what our nation was founded on: freedom, liberty, justice, and the ability for any person to get ahead with hard work. We haven't made the mistake of swapping our nation's solid foundation for an ever-shifting and often-sinking foundation of socialism where hard-work and ingenuity aren't prized or rewarded, and where wealth-redistribution aims to bleed the reward out of hard work and replace it with complacency.

Our system might not be perfect, but it has been perfect enough to last over 200 years while allowing us to become the superpower we are today. Forgetting the lessons of the past and thus being unable to apply them to the future is a mistake I am glad my nation isn't making, thanks!


[edit on 29-7-2008 by xtradimensions]

[edit on 29-7-2008 by xtradimensions]

Originally posted by Wotan
Now you will probably hate me for saying this but ..........

THe US seems to live in the past, especially the ''this is what we were founded on''. Move on, it was a long time ago, things evolve. Until you can get rid of that baggage the US will be stuck up its own arse.

WW2 was a bloody long time ago - We in the UK have moved on. Its totally irrelevant nowadays. Jeez, we dont go on about the battle of waterloo, trafalgar etc etc.

When has North Korea or Iran ever been a threat to the US?

For a nation that has the amount of wealth the US has, it is very selfish with it. Dont you care about your own citizens? It doesnt look like it from this side of the pond.

To me, the US is a third World Country with money.

So? Democracy and Capitalism is "out of style" now.

Let me guess, you are an Atheist who also subscribes to Darwinian evoluton and living in the UK?

Now you will probably hate me for saying this but ..........

No, I don't hate you, you ain't that important, but I sure get the idea
you think you are. Socialism and Communism is not only out of style, it is OUT OF THE QUESTION, PERIOD

After your country and your Government ever surpasses ours in,, oh you name it,, then you can tell us to keep up with the times but until then, you got a lot of catching up to do.

reply to post by ANOK


We have socialism, they are called "democrats"

Originally posted by Marilyn

American Heritage Dictionary
so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key 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.

This, to me, sure sounds like what obama wants to do.

Marilyn~

Yep, that is exactly what he wants to do and this kind of Government is being taught in our public schools by Darwinists using many of the same language semantics and "new definitions" to muddy the waters.

Just check it out, do a search of the boards here and you'll see the major majority of them have this kind of worldview for America and it needs to be crushed along with that religion of atheism called evolution

reply to post by mattguy404



As i stated earlier, feel free to speak of our goverment all you want, we do.


I see you agree with me that an isolationist republic may be what's best for this country, see we do have something in common


No i don't suggest that we vote any regime in. This is a country filled with very diverse people, and we need a diverse goverment, this two party system is ridiculus, but if i had to choose just one it would have to be constitutionalist.



I've already stated a goverment of the people, by the people, for the people, just as our forefathers intended. A goverment of people that are truely representatives of the people, as they should be. Representatives that listen to what the people want, and vote what the people want, not what corporate america and the elitest want.


This country belongs to the people, not to the corporations, we are the citizens, not them, and it's about time the goverment remembered that.

reply to post by chise61


Yes! You have posted the most accurate depiction of the American experiment in purity without all the garbage that pollutes it from working.

Great post you saved me a lot of time saying everything I wanted to and some I hadn't even considered.

Wise and intelligent post

Originally posted by LetsTouch
So to any americans reading this you should vote communist because you will get back more than you give by FAR

I guess thats the difference between the United States and Canadians.

You see,, for most Americans, we don't have a problem giving, even when it is more than we get.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Have you ever really read the communist manifesto ? Did you read the part that says that the proletarians need someone to show them that they are oppressed by the bourgeois ? I mean really, do you truely not see the hidden agenda there ?


How many oppressed people do you know that aren't aware of the fact that they are oppressed ? Oppressed people don't need anybody to tell them that they are oppressed, believe me they know. And the last thing they need is someone trying to further their own agenda under the guise of helping the poor downtrodden proletarians, which they only care about to fufill their own needs and desires.




@ XIDIXIDIX Thanks, check your private messages.

[edit on 29/7/08 by chise61]

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX



Excuse me, The British Empire in its heyday far surpased the US in all accounts. True, we are a shadow of our former selfs as you will one day be to yours.

Yes, I am an Atheist, Yes I do subscribe to Darwinism and yes I do live in the UK ........ What the hell does that have to do with you and this thread.

No I am not a Communist, in fact I am a paid up member of the Conservative Party and a Trade Unionist, and I do beleive in social policies and the welfare state.

reply to post by Wotan


Wotan, don't let an ignorant bloke like XID get to you...there is a particular form of mental instability in people who shout 'Chicken Little' slogans about alleged 'communism' (please look up the history of Sen. Joe McCarthy) and simultaneously wrap themselves in that fiction that is known as the 'bible'....as if there is some real correlation.

If the 'bible thumpers' stopped and thought about it (I know, quite a mental stretch) then they'd realize that Jesus Christ (if he really existed) could be considered to have been a communist...or, at least, a socialist.

So, what we have here is YET ANOTHER Obama-bashing thread, of late...I'm seeing at least a five-to-one bias against Obama, as opposed to McInsane. I mean, if you want a doddering old man, 75 years old, with anger issues and a complete lack of any understanding of geography in the Middle East, no comprehension of the religious problems (needs his lapdog Sen. LIEberman to correct him repeatedly) who will just chug along, business-as-usual to repeat the disaster that is the 'bush' legacy, then by all means, vote for McCrazy...I mean, McStalin....or, whatever flip-flop name he has lately.....

*edit* for spelling

[edit on 7/29/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Going back to the original post, I will like to remind people that in our nation our for the people elected politicians AkA corporate chosen ones are all behind agendas that do not concern the American tax payer citizens.

As evidence we have not other than the last elected president, so like the OP said who wants to elect a communist I will answer with we already elected the village idiot perhaps the next one will happen to show more brains and even look intelligent.

reply to post by marg6043


Marg, I'll agree with the 'village idiot' comment, but will quibble with you choice of the word 'elected'.

Our cute little idiot was last genuinely elected to be Governor of Texas...and, for that reason, he can be always referred to with the honorific 'Mr. Governor'....and nothing else. Although, I'm guessing his daughters call him 'Daddy'.....

editing in, to stay topical....seems this 'discussion' rings a little similar to the furor over JFK's campaign, and the issue of his being a Catholic!!

Horrors!!! 'The Vatican will be running the country if he gets elected!!'
That was the refrain back then...same Chicken Little bollocks.

[edit on 7/29/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Sad to point out that in our nation, the nation of today our Chosen presidents are nothing more than village idiots to do the bidding of the ones behind the power.

If for some reason Obama is chosen to be the next president, he either will have to succumb to the powers, of his presidency will be a short lived one as many has already posted before in other threads.

That is why I actually believe that the victory of the next elections will be with McCain, no because he is the best of the two but McCain will be the next easiest Idiot to manipulate.

reply to post by marg6043


marg, seems as if you're subscribing to the notion that JFK was killed for daring to go 'against the grain' and to attempt to actually be 'president'?

That is apparently a commonly held theory, with perhaps a nugget of truth, but not the whole truth. We may never know all of the machinations from behind the scenes.

Same in this election cycle...the PTB want McLenin...I mean, McCan't, to take the 'power', since they wish to maintain the republicrat stranglehold on the WH. They worry at the prospect of a democan'tic administration, because it'll be harder to manipulate...and hence, the bashing, even at this early stage. Because, Obama just might maverick out on them, and force their hands in even more evil directions.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Point taken, but remember that even Obama has to side with the powers in order to be allowed to get as far as he has gone as a candidate.

The question is . . . will he be given the presidency? and dispose of him when things are not going the way that is expected?

Or just keep it clean and free with a manipulated winning for McCain that is an easy target? with no mess to leave behind.