All this talk of socialism is pure bullshit!

[Joe Fields]

On both sides of the fence! I have three or four emotions, all pretty much at the same time, when I hear republicans shriek in horror of the upcoming "Marxist/socialist" government that the president is "jamming" down their throats. I laugh, shake my head in amazement, yell expletives at the television or radio, (can't help it, sometimes) and all the while I am formulating arguments against what is being said at the moment by whatever shill is spewing utter nonsense.

We are not now, nor have we ever been, nor will we ever be a socialist society. That is not what we are about as a nation.

And I have no warm regard for those in the democratic party and on this site who want us to be pure socialists. I would never want our country to go down that path.

You see, and I'm not afraid to say this, even though this will be intentionally misconstrued, I LIKE CAPITALISM. I BELIEVE IN CAPITALISM.

Everyone here should know that we are part republic, part democracy, and with a smattering of social programs thrown into the mix. I happen to like the mix. It's what I was born and raised on. It's what I know, what I have accepted and come to appreciate, TO A DEGREE!

It all begins to unravel when you throw regulations out the window, when you start and sustain illegal and immoral wars that suck the lifeblood out of this country, literally and financially. It unravels when it is attacked by design, when so much money is intentionally removed from government programs intended to provide safety nets for society that those programs become useless. It unravels when damned near every politician in Washington has their hand out to corporations, while eschewing the public good.

The Great Depression proved to us all that government programs that provide safety nets are crucial for a healthy society. And so, for at least 70 years we have been part socialist, part democracy. This form of society has worked in the past, and can work again, IF we have strict regulations for industry and vigilant regulatory oversight. It will work, if we are able to put back into place and properly fund agencies that provide us much needed safety nets. It will work, IF we can keep the lobbyists at arms length from the politicians. It will work, IF we work at making it happen.

Rank and file republicans, LISTEN UP!!!

Obama is NOT Satan, but you did have a close encounter with two of Satan's minions in the form of Bush and Cheney. So, why do you hate this country? Why do you want to destroy it by openly rebelling against our president? Why are you so unwilling to be charitable toward fellow Americans? Don't you remember the phrase, "There, but for the grace of God go I?" It isn't just Democrats losing their jobs through no fault of their own. It isn't just Democrats losing their homes for whatever the reason. Millions of us are hurting, destitute, families broken up, due to financial catastrophe. And yet, we ALL know that, for all of your talk, all of your posturing, all of the vile things you spew against our president, democrats, liberals, progressives (who are still Americans first) you all will take whatever the government hands out, in the way of help and relief. And you SHOULD take it. And you SHOULD be thankful. No one is looking for thanks, but I swear to God, as I sit here, that the first republican that I face, who badmouths this administration, while I know they are taking government help from the economic recovery plan, I will hit squarely in the jaw with everything I've got. Can you dig it? Whether you want to admit it or not, you know in your hearts tha Bush and his cronies shredded this country. I can think of no one who can put back together what Bush/Cheney broke, but we have a man who is seriously trying, and for all of the right reasons. Is it THAT fact that pisses all of you off so badly? That we have a man who is serious about moving this country forward, while your leadership ran us all aground? Well, republicans, the bottom line is that Obama is NOT a socialist, we are NOT going to be turned into a socialist society, and that some of the measures taken for the recovery are temporary.

SO QUIT FREAKING OUT!!!

As for any dems who are having wet dreams of Obama and Chavez in bed humping each other, take a cold shower and get over yourselves. Ain't gonna happen. All I see being done is the restoration of the New Deal and nothing more.

Lastly, I am going to turn a phrase around that was popular by the right, during the '60's and shove it down the throats of those who won't get over it. "Obama's America: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!"

[aquart]

1. Sadly.

[marmar]

2. You can be a socialist society and a democracy at the same time.

Just as you can be a capitalist society and a fascist one at the same time. Capitalism doesn't mean democracy.

[Mika]

3. Check out the Venezuela threads, there you'll discover that democracy = dictatorship.

The visceral hatred of socialism leaves some THAT whacked.

[MercutioATC]

15. "Socialism" is an economic system. "Democracy" is a political system.

My son (at the ripe old age of 7) told his teacher that when she insisted that Democracy was better than Socialism.


It's nice to know they listen every once in a while...

[vssmith]

39. Chile had that under Allende until Kissinger put that to an end

[jobycom]

4. You got my vote. nt

[David__77]

5. Socialism would be a good thing.

Socialism would mean people's democratic rights to employment, housing, education, rest, culture, etc. It would mean real power for working people in their workplaces. I think it's a good thing. Obama is no more a socialist than was FDR, but the left can certainly pressure him from the left and win concessions in the right direction.

[Believing Is Art]

6. I believe in neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism

It really irks me that in the 21st century, with thousands of years of civilization under our belts, that most people are so stupid that they think we should stick stubbornly to one and only one system. Both unchecked capitalism and unchecked socialism will surely fail. There is more than enough history of both systems that we should be able to choose the best of both. We should be able to adapt more of one or the other as the situation demands. We're able to make composite materials, we have hybrid cars. We're obviously capable of mixing and matching to suit our needs in other applications. Why can't the same concept apply to the government and economy?

[Joe Fields]

8. Thank you!

:toast:

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Public Roads? Public Military? Public Police? Public Fire Dept?

Public water supply? Income taxes?

I think that we're already socialist. The only thing that folks differ on is *how* socialist to be.

[stillcool]

10. Becoming more and more..

'private' every day. Like Private Prisons, Private Military Corporations, Private Ambulance Companies, Private Maintenance of Government Structures and Roads.

[Joe Fields]

11. we are socialist, to some degree, but a long way off from being full blown.

As I said in the body of my text.

[Selatius]

34. I think the US would be better off being two parts socialism, one part capitalism.

Right now, the balance is way towards corporate capitalism.

[DailyGrind51]

37. In Chicago, Richie Daley has privatized more and more of what used to be

public functions, and even with the highest sales tax in the nation (10.5%), our city budget is STILL in the red.

[stillcool]

9. It seems to me the success..

of any form of government depends on the people. Why is it that when people cede all power to the few, they are surprised when human beings behave like human beings?

[Joe Fields]

12. and the success of any government is made nearly impossible,

when a large percentage of citizens pout and withdraw because "their guy didn't win."

[iamjoy]

13. Capitalism Needs Trust....

For capitalism to thrive there must be trust.

The bank/mortgage companies need to believe that the person to whom they are loaning money will pay it back. By the same token, the person taking out the loan must believe that the bank is offering them fair terms. Using a mortgage as an example, the person buying the house with borrowed money must believe that the price they are paying is based on its actual value - so they must trust the appraisers and real estate agents. They also must believe that the bank would not offer them a mortgage if the bank didn't have valid reason to believe they could make the payments.

For people to invest in companies (think stock market) they must trust that companies are being responsible with their capital. They must believe that the companies are honest in their bookkeeping. They must believe no one is playing games with stock prices for their own benefits.

Workers must believe that if they work hard for their company, they will be rewarded. They must believe that if they help their company become profitable, the company will share that wealth in the form of better wages, richer benefits and job security.

What we are seeing in our current economic crisis is the result of lack of trust.

Banks, mortgage brokers, real estate agents, etc were the serpents in the Garden of Eden. They told Eve nothing bad would happen if she ate that fruit.

The corporate executives made irresponsible business decisions and in some cases, outright fraud (cooking their books). Hedge Fund managers and high dollar investors sold "short" learning to make a profit when stock prices went down.

Corporations asked their workers to sacrifice and then rewarded executives with high salaries, bonuses and fringe benefits. Then they laid off American workers because it was cheaper to have things done overseas, where wages were lower.

There's no more trust. Obviously we cannot trust business to do the right thing. Corporations are motivated by profit. Even the warm fuzzy things they do usually have a calculation behind it. We can't trust them. Whining and ranting isn't going to change it. Since we can't trust them, we need government regulations. No profit driven insurance company is going to willingly cover a sixty-something year old with a history of heart disease. So, if we don't want our parents and grandparents who aren't millionaires to die of something treatable, our government must either require the insurance company to offer coverage, or it must provide the coverage.

If you believe in capitalism, you must believe in social programs. To me, social programs can be like homeopathic "medicine." That is, they may do more to protect Capitalism from Marxism than dismantling regulations and taking a complete free market approach. We should never have gotten to the point where we even talked of nationalizing banks (who obviously can't be trusted on their own to manage money wisely). The government should have been watching them all along. We never should have let any business get to the point where it was "too big to fail." In addition to trusting that wise decisions and hard work will be rewarded, for Capitalism to truly work, we have to know that poor decisions have consequences - for the people who make them, not for stakeholders who had no say. If government had been doing its job for the past 28 years, we wouldn't be at this point.

I'm not sure I like trusting government either, but at least its mission is not to pursue profit.

[Joe Fields]

20. Thank you for adding an all-important dimension to this equation.

It's funny how people's priorities change (or does the media change them for us?) I can remember right before the mid-term elections, the most important issue on voters minds, according to polls was the issue of accountability, both in government and in the business sector. That lasted about a week.

[paulsby]

14. thank you

"You see, and I'm not afraid to say this, even though this will be intentionally misconstrued, I LIKE CAPITALISM. I BELIEVE IN CAPITALISM"

the kneejerk "capitalism sucks, socialism is the answer to all our woe" screeds are starting to get to me.

[Mollis]

16. OMG, tell that to my Psych teacher.

He never shuts up about it.

[Mollis]

17. dupe

[No.23]

18. Don't fall for this frame job.

He who successfully frames the issue, wins it.

The adversary wants you to see it as socialism, when, in fact, the real issue is significantly increasing regulation where there was little or none.

This is a REGULATION issue, not a socialist one.

We need to frame it for what it actually is.

Not what they want us to call it.

[Joe Fields]

21. regulation is part of the issue, a big part, but this is not a regulation issue.

I am very careful not to fall for anything. I like to look at issues from many different angles. No one will be able to reframe this issue, because of Obama's health care plan, because of added benefits to those on welfare, because he plans to overhaul public education, etc... Shall I go on?

I'm all for these examples I've mentioned, but the truth of the matter is that the republicans have only one way of looking at examples like these. Socialism.

[No.23]

25. And my point is...

that the Republicans want you to see it as a socialism issue and to talk about it as a socialism issue.

If you do, then you playing by their rules... their preferred frame.

I'm suggesting that the advocates of Obama's increased regulatory efforts should call it a regulatory issue... albeit a drastic one... and not an issue of socialism.

Most people equate socialism with nationalization. And any talk of nationalization fuels a corollary discussion of socialism.

Drastic regulation... drastic regulation... drastic regulation ought to be the pro-increased-regulation advocates' mantra.

Not socialism or nationalization, etc.

Most folks feel negatively about socialism. On the other hand, most folks support drastic regulatory efforts... particularly now.

[Joe Fields]

26. good luck with that.

no one will be able to reframe this issue. If the examples I cited aren't enough for you, then put yourself in the average republican voter's shoes and then tell yourself that when Rush says socialism and begins talking about my aforementioned examples that it isn't socialism. The left can cry foul, but no one will listen. We won't win the war of words, but with a Democratic president and congress, we will win. That's what's important.

[Senator]

36. You might want to be a bit more careful.

Because when you claim that we are "part republic, part democracy" it seems you have (at least partially) fallen for one of the more insidious propaganda memes of the right.

Note: I have pasted this response more than a few times over the years. It is not intended to single out any poster here who has fallen into this propaganda trap. And yes, this has been a pet peeve of mine for some time now.

-----Paste-----

I fear you may be tangled up a bit in the dreaded "Not a democracy, but a Republic" meme. It's something that sounds reasonable but in reality is nearly devoid of content -- a particularly insidious type of propaganda. And in fact, neofascist propaganda. What makes the phrase so troublesome is not really what it says -- but rather what it implies without actually saying.

The word "republic" simply means "non-monarchy" (which would be a kingdom). Cuba is a Republic and the "evil empire" was the USSR(epublics). They also have/had constitutions. And since the US is not a monarchy, we are certainly a republic. But that's not really saying anything substantive.

The only real content in the statement is "not a democracy," which in addition to being false about the US -- implies something derogatory about democracy or democracies (and thus about America and Americans). The implication is that there is some "other thing" that is better than a democracy. The purpose is to allow people to fill that void with whatever vague notion they'd like to: presumably some form of a theocracy, or autocracy, or "our side"-ocracy.

It sets up a false dichotomy between "Bad Democracy" vs. "Something Good." Also, on a rhetorical level it projects a Democra(tic Party is bad) vs. Republic(an Party is good) subliminal message.

In an attempt to save time, I'll describe the next step in this argument (as I have had this discussion before).

Next comes an attempt to claim that "representative democracy" itself is somehow not democracy. And that this is the "other thing" that the founders wanted and agreed to, in order to avoid the dreaded "mob rule." The reality is that there has never been, nor could there be, a "non-representative" democracy. Not even in ancient democracies was there ever a situation that could be considered "direct democracy" (i.e., "mob rule"). It's simply not workable.

But the "mob rule" threat is simply a bogeyman. Again, the intent is the same. To disseminate a message of "democracy is bad," without revealing that what is being promoted is some nonspecified form of fascism -- minority rule.

----- End Paste-----

As to your core point, while not really disagreeing I would suggest you consider that the "socialism threat" is no where near the weapon it once was. It's been more than a generation since it was synonymous with communism and had an "evil empire" lurking behind its shaking fist. For younger Americans it more easily tracks with Social Security here and the social democracies with Social-Democratic parties they read about in Europe.

It might well be better in the long run to let right run with it a while. And see if they might be, as they have with so many things lately, be running off a cliff.

---

[No.23]

41. Well said.

I can see why it would be a pet peeve of yours.

But then again, and when you (re)act from fear, very little energy/attention is given to precise thinking.

The fuel of reactive fear is often assumption.

[Toucano]

19. "That is not what we are about as a nation"

Says who? You?

On what basis can you make such a statement?

Please, then, tell me what we are "about" as a nation and then tell me how that doesn't suck.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

23. That was just rude

FWIW, I had the same question upon reading that part of your post. After all, there is nothing I am aware of in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution that precludes Socialism or endorses explicitly a capitalist system. In fact, many of our founding fathers expressed no small measure of concern that banks and corporations could potentially acquire dangerous amounts of power left unchecked.

Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating for pure Socialism, nor even against the main gist of your post, merely pointing out that his question is a perfectly legitimate one.

[Joe Fields]

27. you're right. it was rude. it was meant to be.

Are you saying you have no idea what America's about?

[tkmorris]

33. I think I was fairly clear

But I'll try to be even more so.

You said, and I quote, "We are not now, nor have we ever been, nor will we ever be a socialist society. That is not what we are about as a nation.". I am asking you why you say this. I would agree that there are those who have long tried to sell both you and I a vision of this nation as a fundamentally capitalist one, a nation of Rosie the Riveters if you will. Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller were both in love with such propagandist American templates. However, as far as I know, nowhere in our founding father's vision of this nation was it ever stated that Socialism "isn't what we are about". From where do you draw this? Is it in some little noticed portion of the Constitution?

[leftstreet]

24. "I BELIEVE in Capitalism!" FFS, it's not a religion

...or maybe it is

:eyes:

[Joe Fields]

28. if you want to call a practiced way of life a religion, then yes.

[SmileyRose]

29. Socialism is NOT a dirty word.

Chavez is a dictator - after that, it doesn't matter what his political philosophy is.

[Two Americas]

30. turn it off

Turn the TV and radio off. None of what you are talking about is happening in real life. It is all fairy tales made up by the MSM.

[Imagevision]

31. Only 651,000 jobs were lost last month - whack-jobs are using socialism to change the... subject?!!!

[Joe Fields]

43. yep. So true.

[readmoreoften]

32. You're being paranoid.

I agree Obama's not a socialist. I am. I voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils and because he may get a few things done.

"IF we have strict regulations for industry and vigilant regulatory oversight."

And who is going to do all this regulating? Politicians? ALL of whom, including Obama, are in the pockets of health insurers and financial conglomerates. The DTCC has been allowing scams and those calling for "regulation" are often NAKED SHORT SELLERS trying to bankrupt companies for their own big profits.

If you like capitalism so much, take the advice of Patrick Byrne (CEO of Overstock.com) and his experience on deepcapture.com (could be .org or .net, don't remember.)

You can't have a little big of stealing. A little bit of usury.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[certainot]

38. call your 1000 local right wing radio stations

that's where most of it comes from.

oh yeah, they don't take real calls from complainers.

[B Calm]

40. In order for capitalism to work you need a little socialism to keep it in check!

Or you'll end up with predatory capitalism like the past 8 years!!

[sellitman]

44. You lost me at that last sentence.

That saying doesn't work no matter who repeats it.


It's America...love it or try to change it.

[Mari333]

45. just send them these quotes it drives them crazy

20 The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?"
21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

20 And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth."
21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
22 At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

21 And he said, "All these I have observed from my youth."
22 And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
23 But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very rich.
23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

[elias7]

46. If you favor our military to Blackwater (Xe), you might be a Socialist

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

48. So how big a contribution can I put you down for in the "Get Out of America" fund

we're putting together?

I'm sure that such a "God fearing, red-blooded American" as yourself would feel much better with fewer of us in your blessed homeland.