Let The Weeping, And Gnashing Of Teeth (for Liberals), Begin.

a reply to: nenothtu

That's Fascist, not Marxist, so I have to agree with you - he's not gone "Full Marxist Jacket". I love that phrase - can I use it?

Of course - words are communal property. Well - mine are anyhow :-)

I don't know what they think he could accomplish by going full-on Marxist - we've got that little "checks and balances" problem to thwart such schemes, and I believe the "checks" part of it might give him a little gas of late. I doubt that his pen and phone could overcome the opposition.

Checks and balances...and a full on oppositional Congress - and Senate. Golly but this should be a fun two years - that pen just might catch fire

:-)

Love the sackcloth and mourning theme, and so true. The last 6 years liberals have been telling Republicans that they won so get over it. Shoe is now on the other foot.
It's been 6 looooong years since u know who told us we should spread the wealth and we were really going to like it. You know I've been arguing with people here on ATS about the whole socialism thing. I don't understand why they keep telling me that the programs the Democrats are instituting are not socialistic. I think it must be that Da Nile thing. The truth is, that while Democrats have been telling us we need socialism to help everybody be happy and fed, they have been creating the very conditions which create more poverty. Someone asked me yesterday what my personal economy was(I thought a bit inappropriate myself) and my statement was that I'm not required to give my personal conditions on this forum, especially since everything that's been going on around me bears out the truth of what I just said.
More people are on food stamps than ever before under this President who tells us we need to spread our paychecks around to everyone else. I personally know people who are on food stamps.
I hope liberals will eventually see that TPTB create the very conditions they pretend to be saving us from.

article from the Washington Post

Enrollment in the food stamp program — officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has soared by 70 percent in the years since President Obama first took office, a new report finds.
The government said the recession ended in 2009, The Wall Street Journal reports, but enrollment in the food stamp program didn’t wane, as would be expected in an improving economy. Since 2008, it’s been on a steady rise, The Journal reports.

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Isn't it ironic that more people are on food stamps under a President who promotes socialism?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I don't understand why they keep telling me that the programs the Democrats are instituting are not socialistic.

Because they are not. It's not "Da Nile" - it's common sense. If most people can't afford anything, they can't contribute to the economy. WHAT do you not get about that?

WHAT do you not get about the income inequality and hoarding of wealth?

Really.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I've decided that the GOP will dig their own graves. Only two more years.

So - that's that.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Someone asked me yesterday what my personal economy was(I thought a bit inappropriate myself) and my statement was that I'm not required to give my personal conditions

Nope - you're not "required". But why wouldn't you? Because you have NO problems making ends meet, and get to eat Filet Mignon whenever you want to??? Because you're sitting pretty, and it's nobody else's business??


Lame.

Interesting - but still lame.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Ya all that common sense healthcare subsidizing has made the costs of insurance for the rest of us go way up. Somehow you guys have closed your ears to the deafening roar of it.
Subsidizing was always socialist, and you guys complain about corporate welfare but don't see that social welfare programs are just the same.

Here's a quick definition of a mixed econ for those of you challenged by definitions of socialism

An economic system in which both the private enterprise and a degree of state monopoly (usually in public services, defense, infrastructure, and basic industries) coexist. All modern economies are mixed where the means of production are shared between the private and public sectors. Also called dual economy.

www.businessdictionary.com...

More for the definition of socialism challenged

While most modern forms of government are consistent with some form of mixed economy, given the broad range of economic systems that can be described by the term, the mixed economy is most commonly associated with social democratic parties or nations run by social democratic governments. In contemporary terms, "social democracy" usually refers to a social corporatist arrangement and a welfare state in developed capitalist economies.

www.boundless.com... vantages-of-mixed-economies-170-668/

Let us not forget that the US is not a social democracy, but a Republic, however, the Progressive movement continues to project the image that we are a democracy, and they just keep saying it and saying it..... there's no place like home, there's no place like home....
They are trying very hard to turn our republic into the social democracy they want, and of course they have made a lot of headway but they want more

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

fee.org...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Someone asked me yesterday what my personal economy was(I thought a bit inappropriate myself) and my statement was that I'm not required to give my personal conditions

Nope - you're not "required". But why wouldn't you? Because you have NO problems making ends meet, and get to eat Filet Mignon whenever you want to??? Because you're sitting pretty, and it's nobody else's business??


Lame.

Interesting - but still lame.

Why wouldn't I? Because it's none of your business or anyone else here. You are making outrageous surface judgements. You obviously believe that if I am not gung ho for socialist programs than I must be one of them 1% ers
or at least one of them's gots more than $250,000 a year.
So now that we''ve established that it's none of your business, let me explain that even if I did have that kind of money, it doesn't change my opinion. My opinion has been the same since the 80's, that free enterprise is the best system.
Right now we have a mixed economy. We have a mixed bag of some socialist programs, some Keynesian policies, and some monopoly capitalism.
True free enterprise and free market are not really functioning.
Just because some Marxist college professor told you income redistribution will gut the evil 1% and make life beautiful for all the rest doesn't make it true.

What's lame is you here telling me I owe you an accounting of my finances and you thinking you know something about me you don't. That is as lame as it gets.

One thing I do see here is a lot of bravado...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I think Imma lay low on discussions of socialism until the socialists can come up with a cohesive definition of what it is amongst themselves. There's no arguing with it when they keep moving the post that holds the target.

For example, Kali74 came up with a definition on the last page of "if men and women of all colors and orientations own their own laboring", by which definition I AM a socialist - I own my own laboring. I sell it to whom I like, I pocket the money for it, and I hold it close to the vest when I take a notion to. None of the "socialist" countries of the last century met that definition, however, so it befuddles me. In all of those countries, no one owned their own labor - NO ONE. The State owned it, and redistributed the benefits of it as they saw fit.

That "redistribution" thing is a hold up. Up to now, "redistribution of wealth" was a socialist principle - but that is not possible if everyone owns their own labor. If I own something, then the government can't take it away and redistribute it. If they can, then THEY own it, not me, so now even socialism is not socialism.

It's too confusing now. I think I'll lay out of socialist discussions until the socialists themselves can figure out what socialism is.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

Of course - words are communal property. Well - mine are anyhow :-)

PLEASE! Can we just call it "public domain" instead? Any phrase including the word "communal" makes me break out and get all twitchy!

Checks and balances...and a full on oppositional Congress - and Senate. Golly but this should be a fun two years - that pen just might catch fire

:-)

Georgie the Boy Wonder - AKA "King George Bush II", had the same problem during his last two years or so - how much did it hamper HIM? Is he not still taking blame for that time period as well?

Usually, it seems to me any way, when the executive and the legislative are both owned and operated by the same party - it doesn't matter which party - things DO get done... BAD things, things we would rather have done without. I really don't mind if you all take back the legislature in 2016, or the executive - but I DO mind of BOTH get taken over again - OR if both get steamrolled by the Republicans. That sort of folly brought us "Obamacare" last time it happened, and "The Patriot Act" last time it happened before that.

Can't no good come from it.

a reply to: nenothtu

You've had the word socialism defined for you, your entire life by vulture capitalists terrified of Socialism... so really I need to ask you since you are much more rational than others suffering the effects of programming... would 'they' be right or would someone that realized she was a socialist purely by accident by reading history (not the kind taught in school)?

Look up Libertarian Socialism... read some Noam Chomsky and Mikhail Bakunin, it would be really interesting to discuss those with you.

a reply to: Kali74

Sure, I can do that. It may take a while, depending on how much there is to wade through. I hope it's not like Marx, though. Reading Marx, you can pick it apart and find the flaws in opposition to each other nearly by the page, and know that it's unworkable page by page.

I've been to places where Marx was trying to be put into operation, and seen how bad it was, but not these other guys you speak of. I've no idea how their ideologies would function.

Is there something in their writings that might harmonize the discrepancy between individual control of self and state control of everything?

a reply to: nenothtu

IMO Marx had some great ideals that, due to human nature, can never be realized. There is no way to keep those who want more from getting what they want. In Capitalism it used to be about hard work - work harder and earn more. That, in practice, has failed equally as well.

Going forward, IMO, we really need an entirely new paradigm and a shift in social priorities.

a reply to: nenothtu

Take your time. PM when you're ready and we'll do a thread together. I'm really looking forward to it. One thing to know is that Libertarian Socialism is essentially Anarchism in philosophy and anti-authoritarian socialism in economic theory. No bosses, no hierarchy in anything.

a reply to: Hefficide

Ideals are great, but putting them in to practice often runs head on into human nature. Marx had a dual dose of human nature that he couldn't overcome. Most people are in no way prepared to govern themselves, as would be required in a pure "dictatorship of the proletariat" - most humans are unable to dictate to themselves on a macro scale, especially when it comes to interactions with their fellow man. Because of that, some sort of hierarchical structure comes into play, and really is needed in order to produce a framework that people can live together in. That's where Marx ran into his second human nature roadblock. That hierarchical structure is replete with opportunities for opportunists, who naturally gravitate to where they can exercise tho most power for their own benefit.

Oddly enough, that's also the main problem with the sort of "capitalism" that we have now.

I don't think humanity in general is ready for either a "dictatorship of the proletariat" OR a "classless society". Humanity seems to be evolving AWAY from a readiness for that rather than TOWARDS it. I personally blame increased urbanization for that. People thrown together in hives have an increased incidence of frictions, and the concentration of people creates an atmosphere where power centralization is also concentrated. Centralization is probably the real stumbling block - but I've yet to understand a way in which large-scale industry can function without it.

Of course, large scale industry seems to be deserting our shores at a fairly rapid pace, too... leaving behind a centralization with no purpose. As they say, "idle hands do the devil's work".

a reply to: Kali74

Sounds interesting - but if you turn me into a socialist, neither my parents nor my children will ever forgive you!

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Kali74

Sounds interesting - but if you turn me into a socialist, neither my parents nor my children will ever forgive you!

She's dragging you into the club....

a reply to: KyoZero

Shhh! First rule of fight club!

a reply to: Kali74

Yes ma'am

I know the punishment...40 lashings from the book of workers' rights using the Left hand

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Just because some Marxist college professor told you income redistribution will gut the evil 1% and make life beautiful for all the rest doesn't make it true.

Wow. Who's assuming now?

I've been a parent since the 80s, ma'am - and "some Marxist college professor" did not just tell me stuff that I parrot. Like people who condemn socialist ideals just because someone told them those ideas are 'evil'. Ridiculous.

As for asking you to account to me? Nope. I never asked you to disclose anything TO ME. I asked why you wouldn't. Personally I don't give a crap about your financial status. What I care about is people who are disenfranchised by the current system - and who will NEVER make it without help.

When a person has no security in terms of simple SURVIVAL, they are at the very bottom of Maslow's pyramid. A person desperate for shelter and food does not have the luxury of working on "self-actualization." But maybe you don't know what that big word means, or what Maslow's pyramid is.

You just know that you have to hate everyone who's not a Libertarian.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

My opinion has been the same since the 80's, that free enterprise is the best system.

Yep. Reaganomics. That's exactly what caused the crash, you know.