Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Socialists


4588686

Recommended Posts

Redistribution of the wealth.  No. That is not socialism.


 

 

 

That's right.  It isn't.  Redistribution of wealth has always existed in capitalism.  Maintaining an army involves redistributing wealth.  As does paying for roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there may have been socialist movement before FDR, but it had no real traction. The New Deal is what started the ball moving in any significant way. I think the tea party is a comparable example. Yes the movement is there, yes the interest is there, but there is a lack of political capital for any real movement in the tea party's direction at the moment. I see the Socialist movement in America much the same. Social Security, works project admin...ect they were all meant to be temporary programs, but are socialist in basic nature.

again...while I personally am enjoying this topic at the moment...why is this not in the debate table?

 

 

Again, this is false.  Socialism reached its apex in America prior to WWI.  During and after WWI the pretext of national security was used to crush socialist movements (deporting Emma Goldman and other socialist leaders, for example).  Socialism still had a substantive, albeit much diminished presence in the US prior to FDR and WWII (where again, the pretext of national sexurity was used to defang socialist parties, labor unions et cetera). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right.  It isn't.  Redistribution of wealth has always existed in capitalism.  Maintaining an army involves redistributing wealth.  As does paying for roads.

 

false

Link to comment
Share on other sites

false.

 

taxes, how they are today, is not redistribution of wealth. however, your bud wants to change that.

 

 

I was under the impression that the government took money from people through taxes and then gave some of that money to the military.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the government took money from people through taxes and then gave some of that money to the military.  

 

Apparently, you and I have a different understanding of what is redistribution of wealth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a socialist

 

w_obama.jpg

 

This is a successful American politician with liberal sympathies and a pathology for being a symbol of compromise in American politics.  He wants to strike a 'grand bargain' with the Republican leadership while helping America inch towards a more centrist liberal, technocratic future.  Much like the core states of the EU.  

 

 

 

 

 

These are Socialists:

 

http://jacobinmag.com/issue/modify-your-dissent/

 

If you will compare the things that they say with the things that Obama says (he says, not what Rush Limbaugh says he said) you will notice a marked difference between the two.  You will also notice that the socialists don't much like Obama.  

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 

 

0123-benghazi-hearings-hillary-clinton_f

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The demonizing of wealthy upper-class society, while at the same time enjoying a Extremely opulent lifestyle May or may not be socialism but it is hypocritical, To say the least.

Edited by add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, you and I have a different understanding of what is redistribution of wealth.


Are you saying that what I described is not a redistribution of wealth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The demonizing of wealthy upper-class society, while at the same time enjoying a Extremely opulent lifestyle May or may not be socialism but it is hypocritical, To say the least.


When has Obama demonized the extremely wealthy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has never advocated putting the means of production in the hands of the workers. He does not believe in egalitarianism, since he believes in a ruling class that kills people it deems a threat to its rule, including those who resist arrest for smoking a plant.

Obama is a statist. Real socialists are not statists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 

 

0123-benghazi-hearings-hillary-clinton_f

 

 

I guess it doesn't.  Unless the political beliefs of the President are an important.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it doesn't.  Unless the political beliefs of the President are an important.  

 

I share zero common ground with thim, so what difference does it make which label is applied to him? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...