It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama says: Don't Worry If It's 'Socialist Theory or Capitalist Theory'

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Obama went to Argentina right after his Cuban "vacation".

One thing he did was to address a hall meeting with community organizers.

He made some statements that make questions out of answers.


Thanks to advances in technology, "You don't have to settle for the world as it is; you can create the world as you want it to be," President Barack Obama told young people in Buenos Aires, Argentina on Wednesday. "You have the freedom to build the world in powerful and disruptive ways."


Obama took questions...

In the course of answering the question, the president indicated that the "sharp division" between "capitalist and communist or socialist" is starting to blur, and instead of clinging to any one of those ideologies, people should just do what works to create change:

"[S]o often in the past, there's been a sharp division between left and right, between capitalist and communist or socialist," Obama said. "And especially in the Americas, that's been a big debate, right? Oh, you know, you're a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you're some crazy communist that's going to take away everybody's property.



The article has a video where Obama stumbles and stammers a few times !!!!

Obama: Don't Worry If It's 'Socialist Theory or Capitalist Theory...Just Decide What Works'



I think today's "definition" of Capitalism is a version of Karl Marx's "definition.




edit on Mar-26-2016 by xuenchen because: (0-0)




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   


I think today's "definition" of Capitalism is a version of Karl Marx's "definition.


please, explain.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
It really doesn't matter in my opinion, any economic model will eventually start benefiting those at the top. That's how it always goes with money, people are greedy and will do anything in their power to acquire more of it regardless of what economic model they live within.

I'm starting to think anything Obama says will be picked apart by people who don't like him. He's right in my opinion, the lines ARE blurred because they all end up going the same way in the end.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
He is correct.

Glad he is willing to say it.

In fact if you read it correctly, Obama is trolling people like the OP who actually say things like " you're some crazy communist that's going to take away everybody's property".



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Of course he's correct, all systems are fallible, and none are perfect.

Conservatives demand sharp divisions in everything because they don't want to have to spend any time or energy on evaluating things and making moral decisions, or having any responsibility, or thinking at all for that matter.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: stinkelbaum

I think he is meaning that Marx view of Capitialism was as exploitation of the people (by the few greedy and unscrupulous evil men at the top) were as until the corporations took over the world American capitalism was not so much capitalism as free trade and personal enterprise, "note" that personal bit the people were feeding off one another in a vibrant economy of small to large business with corporatons being far smaller and far fewer in number, this was also reflected in the US tax regime of the past in which Corporations and Business carried the bulk of the Tax burden while individuals had most of there wage to themselves coupled with a cheap cost of living and high living standards for the time period in question, circa pre 1980's but at it's higherst level of personal enterprise probably about the turn of the 19th and twentieth century's.

Marx to be fair was not critical of the American's he was reflecting on the injustice he saw in Europe and particularly in Britain were low wage, short life expectancy, poor health, low living standards and abject poverty were the rule for the majority of the population while the capitalists were the minority of ultra wealthy whom exploited these people, just as the world is returing to as a state of affairs now, in fact what many ANTI socialist americans miss out on is the point that it was the Capitalist society's of europe there own ancestor's fled when they emigrated to the America's in search of more freedom and SOCIAL liberty as well as more fair (SOCIAL) economic's.

Just don't tell the nutter ultra right wing (Satan's right not god's) nut case the gun whom has been raise like a junkyard dog and trained to hate the very word socialism, he can not see streight and is a slave to his masters, that foam around his mouth is a sure sign of rabies.

By the way like I have said in the past Marx did not found the concepts of socialism he merely codified them in his theory's but Christ was far more socialist, if you have two coat's and your brother has non then give him the one you are not using.

So the concept of Socialism and Social Justice is a fundemental christian virtue, by the way the first christian church's were essentially commune's, later they became house churches to avoid persecution and then the religion was coopted and altered by the powers of the day as a tool to control the mass of the public, just like the communists party stole socialism and twisted it to there own idiology but with there own capitalist twist, they were ruled by a small elite whom ended up having everything while there people were suffering so is that really so different to run away unregulated corporate capitalism?.

edit on 26-3-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
He is correct.

Glad he is willing to say it.

In fact if you read it correctly, Obama is trolling people like the OP who actually say things like " you're some crazy communist that's going to take away everybody's property".



I'm speechless now.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, I am convinved some people are less honest about their extremist ideologies.

Honesty would leave no doubt and make them just spill the beans about WHAT EXACTLY they advocate for.

Something in line with establishment efforts.

Everything people here oppose, either from the left or right, but MOST oppose as we see it ruining our world to the benefit of a select few.

These select few fall in line with the power elite and everything meant to crush free will and identity.


edit on 3 26 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman



Everything people here oppose, either from the left or right, but MOST oppose as we see it ruining our world to the benefit of a select few.


Appeal to the majority? That's a logical fallacy.



These select few fall in line with the power elite and everything meant to crush free will and identity.


And then we have some dramatic hyperbole.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Are you saying most people here fall in line with establishment agenda?

Laughable.

It is not hyperbole, it is an acute observation. Supporting policies whos source is the power elite IS supporting policy meant to destroy national sovereingty, errode identity in favor of a globalist one, and crush opposition with arguments founded on divisive moral charges.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

God forbid anyone should suggest that dogmatism take a back seat to pragmatism. We've got to choose from one of a limited ideologies and then defend it's purity until the bitter end!



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Pragmatism like asking for a mix of capitalism and socialism like we always had in the west

INSTEAD of what is forced, that is a highly purist socialist push that is highly critical of capitalism?


edit on 3 26 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

there's been a sharp division between left and right, between capitalist and communist or socialist," Obama said. "And especially in the Americas, that's been a big debate, right? Oh, you know, you're a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you're some crazy communist that's going to take away everybody's property.


Bernie Sanders, the self-avowed Demacratic Socialist, must agree with the above sentiment if he follows the basic tenets of that movement:

democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Superseding" or taking away? I guess it's not too much of a stretch to some.
edit on 9062016512016-03-26T15:44:51-05:0020166pm510344 by Boscowashisnamo because: forgot sourced material.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: theantediluvian

Pragmatism like asking for a mix of capitalism and socialism like we always had in the west

INSTEAD of what is forced, that is highly purist socialist push that is highly critical of capitalism?



There's no "highly purist socialist push" and in fact, "a mix of capitalism and socialism" is exactly what we have now. It may not be exactly the mix that you want (or more likely believe you want) but the reality is that our economic policies since Reagan have been neoliberal. A "pure" socialist wouldn't have bailed out anything. A "pure" socialist would have taken the opportunity to nationalize as much as possible.

Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama — all part of the globalist neoliberal establishment which really started its ascension at the end of WWII with Bretton Woods. The IMF, World Bank, WTO, Inter-American Development Bank, OECD, UNCTAD, GATT/TRIMS/TRIPS/GATS/NAFTA, G6/G7/G8, etc — any of that ringing a bell?

Maybe instead of repeating political propaganda nonsense you'd be better served spending your afternoon doing a bit of light reading?


edit on 2016-3-26 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Of course he's correct, all systems are fallible, and none are perfect.

Conservatives demand sharp divisions in everything because they don't want to have to spend any time or energy on evaluating things and making moral decisions, or having any responsibility, or thinking at all for that matter.


You are referring to Obama then. This is also his MO



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I dont know if you understood me..I said we have always had a mix of socialism and capitalism.

There is most certainly a push for a more purist socialist state. The fact that single payer health care is seen as the enemy of all things moral, the obtusely critical nature of thought about capitalism, and so on.

The fact that people now are advocating for free education instead of regulation of cost, asking for greater social spending to change social behavior, greater government intervention and so on is a socialist interpretation not in line with the traditional mix of both ideologies we have always had.

It is not pure socialism in that WORKERS dont own the production. Corporations do and that is the one sided goal of globalism and the power elite.

the Capitalist side of our nation DID grant ownership, so in order to combat that socialism is used to promise the benefits of a people owned production, without actually giving ownership to the people. We are asked to surrender what means of production we do own based on moral charges against capitalism.

The state is then made owner, and consequently transfers ownership to nationless corporations.

The reason the globalists push to erode national sovereignty is to this end. Borders are blurred and erased making all these efforts easier, like in the EU.

That is why immigration is pushed with the promise of socialisms benefits, while providing NONE of its guarantees.

In this way national identity is watered down by the influx of weak people who dare not defy the hand that promises to feed them, which asks for a World citizenship, not a national unity.

I am not ill informed or a republican. I have no idea what the hell the last part of your post is drawn from.

assuming much?

I am probably better read than you sir. I also understand the nature of government and globalism better than you.

so check that mess at the door when speaking with me.

edit on 3 26 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




The IMF, World Bank, WTO, Inter-American Development Bank, OECD, UNCTAD, GATT/TRIMS/TRIPS/GATS/NAFTA, G6/G7/G8, etc — any of that ringing a bell?


My sentiments EXACTLY....which considering your stance here shows you dont know the source for all these things.

you are either GROSSLY misinformed or entirely confused about the modus operandi of Globalists and government in the modern world.

all these things are what I advocate against.

free trade....which you and introvert support wholeheartedly through advocating in line with these moral charges against our peoples traditional ethos.

You support greater government intervention, open borders, free education and healthcare instead of cost regulation, the eroding of national identity and the supposed balance of free trade.

All things a globalist does.

So either you are a globalist or are an unwitting supporter by being completely fooled as to how these measures were bought into being.

bad either way, since you take a hard line stance against me, where I advocate against them.

You dont even know what you are saying anymore.

Obama here is pushing FOR these measures, and you defend him and his supporters.

Maybe instead of repeating political propaganda nonsense you'd be better served spending your afternoon doing a bit of light reading?

edit on 3 26 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

He's a self-avowed Democratic Socialist but somebody should have told him a long time ago that he's actually a Social Democrat. Maybe the nomenclature was still being ironed out when he started labeling himself that way.

Wikipedia Social Democracy


Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.[4][5][6]


In particular, he's a big fan of the "Nordic model" which is why you'll hear him reference Scandinavian countries regularly.

Democratic socialists are essentially straight up socialists (as in complete state ownership of the means of production) with the "democratic" part added to make a distinction to Soviet "socialism" in which everything was owned by the state and the state was totalitarian. A democratic socialist advocates political democracy and economic socialism (there are actually varying schemes for this too).

It's important to keep in mind that all of these ideas have evolved greatly over time. Socialist concepts didn't start with Marx and Engels and they didn't end with them either. Marx was dead 40 years before the Bolshevik Revolution and Engels I want to say 20+ years prior. What developed in the Soviet Union was largely the effect of Lenin and then Stalin though I wouldn't go so far as to say that orthodox Marxism would have had successful results either — quite the contrary in fact — but neither Marx nor Engels would have supported or even recognized what was to follow. Which brings me back to why dogmatic adherence to these grand political ideologies with radical, unproven, overarching socioeconomic prescriptions which reject gradualism are dangerous. I include modern libertarianism as influenced by Austrian economics in that category.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman


There is most certainly a push for a more purist socialist state. The fact that single payer health care is seen as the enemy of all things moral, the obtusely critical nature of thought about capitalism, and so on. The fact that people now are advocating for free education instead of regulation of cost, asking for greater social spending to change social behavior, greater government intervention and so on is a socialist interpretation not in line with the traditional mix of both ideologies we have always had.


I don't think you realize what single payer healthcare means.

Bernie doesn't articulate well and some of his ideas are in need of updating but then again so are some of yours. What do you think "regulation of cost" actually entails? More to the point, why do you think that college tuition has been drastically rising? A lot of people believe it has something to do with wasteful spending and I assume that might be what you're getting at. I used to believe this too. If you look at certain sectors of the economy where the prices of services are increasing relative to others, it becomes obvious. What do education, healthcare, childcare and auto repair have in common? They don't benefit from automation and they can't be off-shored.

For the record, I don't believe that subsidizing college education is going to going to save the middle class.

I'm really not sure what "asking for greater social spending to change social behavior, greater government intervention and so on is a socialist interpretation" is even referencing.

The rest of your post is a mishmash of conflation and unsubstantiated rhetoric:


It is not pure socialism in that WORKERS dont own the production. Corporations do and that is the one sided goal of globalism and the power elite.


What? What about capitalism isn't ownership of the means of production by corporations? I'm trying to interpret what you're saying so I might be wrong: are you referring to the domination of markets by small numbers of competitors? That seems to be a popular libertarian proposition — intervention stifles competition, usurping market dynamics that would otherwise discourage the formation of monopolies and cartels — and it's unproven conjecture that doesn't comport to historical reality.


We are asked to surrender what means of production we do own based on moral charges against capitalism. The state is then made owner, and consequently transfers ownership to nationless corporations.


Example of this nationalization and transfer of ownership to stateless corporations?


That is why immigration is pushed with the promise of socialisms benefits, while providing NONE of its guarantees.


Example of promises of socialist benefits from immigration?


The reason the globalists push to erode national sovereignty is to this end.


That's the one statement I can almost agree with. Globalists do regularly erode national sovereignty and most often it's in the interest of Western oligarchs seeking to exploit developing nations.


Borders are blurred and erased making all these efforts easier, like in the EU.

In this way national identity is watered down by the influx of weak people who dare not defy the hand that promises to feed them, which asks for a World citizenship, not a national unity.


This is less than baseless speculation. Your overarching NWO conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense. Oligarchs are conspiring to water down national identity in first world nations with "illegal immigrants" in order to breakdown resistance to their evil globalist agenda which is to what? To turn first world nations into authoritarian sweatshops? To what end?


I am probably better read than you sir. I also understand the nature of government and globalism better than you. so check that mess at the door when speaking with me.


I doubt it. You obviously don't. Try putting forth a reasoned argument for your position rather than disjointed bits of run-of-the-mill rhetoric and maybe it won't be taken for regurgitated propaganda?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

so you just want to argue?

welp, not today. have at it globalist.





edit on 3 26 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join