The Socialist Mask of Marxism

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

So your inalienable rights are being severely restricted or banned because of some elderly person recieving much needed healthcare? That's an.... interesting way of seeing things.

Wow, nice TRY to twist my words... Can you point me to the sentence where I wrote TOGETHER that "my inalienable rights are being severely restricted or banned because some elderly person recieving much needed healthcare"?... Or do you like to cut part of a sentence and add it in another sentence?...

I am against medicare and medicaid, as well as against the current form of veteran's insurance simply because they don't really cover the person...

Many elderly people go home from their doctors without being truly helped just because of the way medicaid/medicare, or veteran's insurance works...

In fact it would have been better if part of the money we pay to our employers for our old healthcare was used to pay for healthcare after retirement, or after being truly disabled. The rest of the money, as well as the money to pay for people who TRULY need healthcare and are not able to pay for it would be if there was a VOLUNTARY charity...

Americans, even Republicans, are charitable people, more so if they have more than just "the basics", and as such people who make a good living pay a lot more to charities without being forced to do so.

Americans give BILLIONS of dollars in charity. In 2006 Americans gave $295 BILLIONS to charity. In 2005 Medicare and Medicaid costs were $660 BILLION, but much of that money is misused because of government red tape and inefficiency.

In fact...

Here’s a reality check on Medicare:
■It is structured as a Ponzi scheme. Or should we call it a Madoff scheme? Its unfunded liabilities—an estimated $38 trillion—are unpayable. Promises made to Baby Boomers, who were forced to pay into the system throughout their working lives, simply cannot be kept. Their money is gone, just like that of Madoff’s “investors.”
■Its low administrative costs are a mirage. See Myth 2.
■It is sustained by the general fund and by cost-shifting. Medicare Part B premiums pay only about 25% of the cost; the rest must be made up from the general fund. In addition, Medicare underpays hospitals and physicians, and costs are shifted to private insurers. The hidden tax on private insurers to subsidize Medicare and Medicaid amounts to $89 billion/year, or $1,788 per average family in a PPO plan (Grace-Marie Turner and Joseph Antos, Wall St J 9/11/09).
■It is unfair to both patients and physicians. Payments to physicians are often so paltry that patients are having increasing difficulty in finding a physician who can afford to see them. Coverage of prolonged serious illness is poor; seniors who exceed the allowed number of hospital days are on their own. Neither is Medicare a model for comprehensive coverage of non-catastrophic costs. Seniors pay 50% of their medical bills out of pocket, and most buy supplemental coverage (ibid.).
■The system is rife with fraud. An anti-fraud campaign went into high gear with the passage of the Kassebaum-Kennedy, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. Hundreds of millions of dollars were made available to prosecutors, along with huge penalties and new tools: a fraud hotline, bounties of up to 30% of amounts collected, and money laundering charges, on which the accused can be convicted without being convicted of any underlying fraud. This amounted to a post-hoc criminalization of medicine. Still, despite allocating $1.13 billion for “program-integrity” and enforcement activities in 2008, government-wide “improper payments” allegedly amounted to $72 billion that year, writes John Iglehart (N Engl J Med 7/6/09). “[I]n our freewheeling society driven by capitalism, there is a strong distaste in many quarters for overzealous investigations,” Iglehart opines. While physicians may be ruined or even imprisoned over alleged coding errors, the threshold for investigating a Medicare carrier is $200 million (Theresa Burr, J Am Phys Surg, winter 2003). The Government Accountability Office found that CMS enrollment and inspection procedures were so poor that it routinely granted billing privileges to fictitious companies with no clients and no inventory (GAO-09-838R Posthearing Questions; 2009).
■Government care costs much more. The passage of Medicare led to an immediate, enormous jump in spending. Between the introduction of Medicare in 1965, and 1970, real hospital expenditures jumped 23% , reports Linda Gorman (Library of Economics and Liberty 6/1/09). Since 1970, Medicare’s per-patient costs have risen 35% more, and Medicaid’s 34% more, than all other medical care in America. This analysis greatly underestimates the cost of government care by counting all Medicare prescription-drugs purchases as part of private care; not adjusting for billions of dollars in cost shifting from Medicaid to SCHIP; and counting care purchased privately by Medicare and Medicaid patients (including Medicare copayments and Medigap premiums) as private, without counting those patients as recipients of private care (Jeffrey H. Anderson, New York Post 7/18/09).
■Medicare taxes impose uncounted costs. Among the hidden costs of government programs is the deadweight cost of taxation. The taxes that finance Medicare impose costs on society in the range of 30% of Medicare spending (Michael Tanner, Cato Policy Analysis #642; Aug 6, 2009).

www.aapsonline.org...

Originally posted by daskakik

It means I care about the truth even though I don't have a particular stance on the subject, unless that goes against your definition.

If you "supposedly" care about the truth in politics, then you care about politics... You CAN'T be apolitical and discuss politics...

Search Results
a·po·lit·i·cal/ˌāpəˈlitikəl/
Adjective: Not interested or involved in politics: "a former apolitical housewife".

Link

Don't try to turn this on me... You are either interested or not in politics, if you are not interested then why discuss it?...

Originally posted by daskakik
It is proof enough of why I am participating. It is my personal reason and no further proof is needed.

Ah, so "PROOF IS JUST SO BECAUSE YOU SAY SO"... Just by writting your OPINION that is "proof to you"... Hummm....

Originally posted by daskakik
You didn't even bother to look. I posted a quote and a link to the The Doctrine of Fascism which clearly states that it was a rightist ideal.

ah, and the fact that it came from a LEFTWINGER means it must be the truth?...

I posted an entire excerpt from a LIBERTARIAN who is even against conservatism...

Originally posted by daskakik
Like I said I don't care one way or the other. I am just posting the facts I come across. I don't think that monopolies where any larger than in the time of the robber barons which happened to be in the 19th century.

I see, so you just care to post what you want, and it must be the truth because you say so...riiiiight...

Originally posted by daskakik
But you stated that the socialist plan was already in play, and had been for 30 years, which, according to you, should have shown different results. It didn't, so either the claim that it was in play is wrong or your claim that it is oppressive is wrong. It is proof that you are wrong, in one way or another.

edit on 15-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Not when the point of the "progress/changes" was to turn Americans to the left... So Americans would accept more and more socialist ideas, which is exactly what is happening.

BTW, there are PLENTY of high ranking communist officials who have been warning of exactly this. That the United States is slowly but surely being transformed into socialism, and Americans have been brainwahsed into accepting socialism...

Those same high ranking officials made these warnings decades ago, but of course you just don't care, you just care of what you say and just because YOU say so it is the truth...

Can I get back the 10 mins of my life I just spent reading this dribble?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
If you "supposedly" care about the truth in politics, then you care about politics... You CAN'T be apolitical and discuss politics...

Yes I can. because I am not championing any particular stance, but just commenting on the truth in the posts about politics. I have no attachment to any particular stance.

Ah, so "PROOF IS JUST SO BECAUSE YOU SAY SO"... Just by writting your OPINION that is "proof to you"... Hummm....

Yes, because it is a personal reason and me wanting to is reason enough. No proof outside of my mind exists, so how can I provide any?

ah, and the fact that it came from a LEFTWINGER means it must be the truth?...

I posted an entire excerpt from a LIBERTARIAN who is even against conservativism...

That's your opinion, but it is that persons words. You have no problem citing Hitler's claims to socialism as true, because it is what he said, but Mussolini words can't be taken for what they are. Bit of a double standard if you ask me.

I see, so you just care to post what you want, and it must be the truth because you say so...riiiiight...

Nope, I think there are enough historical facts to prove that that period was filled with monopolies, regardless of what I say.

Not when the point of the "progress/changes" was to turn Americans to the left... So Americans would accept more and more socialist ideas, which is exactly what is happening.

BTW, there are PLENTY of high ranking communist officials who have been warning of exactly this. That the United States is slowly but surely being transformed into socialism, and Americans have been brainwahsed into accepting socialism...

Those same high ranking officials made these warnings decades ago, but of course you just don't care, you just care of what you say and just because YOU say so it is the truth...

There are plenty of people warning about all kinds of things but it doesn't make them true. That is why things need to be looked at objectively.

Of course I don't care, even if I think it's true or not, because I can be wrong. I don't have a problem with that.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

No you haven't. You think cooperatives and communism are one in the same, are aren't necessarily.

Errr...no, I wrote that under communism, and even socialism, corporations exist as cooperatives...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Where did I say communism was for the good of the people?

I wrote LEFTWINGERS in general because it is generally what leftwingers think... i didn't write your name anywhere in there...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I also said that communist economic conditions do not favour the existence of corporations let alone big business. Corporations are in the business of maximizing profits for their shareholders, not for society. Communism dictates that wealth be spread, and that profits be distributed to make society 'equal', these conditions make it hard for corporations to function. This is common sense.

And you are wrong sir...

...Exports and imports are handled in the U.S.S.R. by state trading companies...

www.marxists.org...

Under socialism/communism corporations/businesses on the overall are owned and controlled by the state...but they EXIST, and make a profit for the STATE...

I have already written about hotels owned and controlled by the STATE in Cuba as well...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I guess that's why the likes of Reagan and Ron Paul never proposed privatization of these programmes during their presidential campaigns.

Do you have ANY idea of what Ron Paul said about this?...

Although he campaigns on his disdain for government involvement in the private sector, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Wednesday said that he would preserve health care entitlements, including the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled, while trying to transition Americans into medical savings accounts.

"Probably the worst thing that we ever did was make medical care the responsibility of the government," Paul said at a meeting of the Republican Congressional Health Care Caucus. "I don't think our federal government should be any more involved in medical care delivery than they should be in delivering education to our children."
..

www.cbsnews.com...

Do you understand the difference of what he actually said and what YOU CLAIM?...

Originally posted by daskakik
Yes I can. because I am not championing any particular stance, but just commenting on the truth in the posts about politics. I have no attachment to any particular stance.

Riiight by stating that you opinion it is the truth just because you say so...

Originally posted by daskakik
Yes, because it is a personal reason and me wanting to is reason enough. No proof outside of my mind exists, so how can I provide any?

Hence you don't have any real proof, just your OPINION...

Originally posted by daskakik
That's your opinion, but it is that persons words. You have no problem citing Hitler's claims to socialism as true, because it is what he said, but Mussolini words can't be taken for what they are. Bit of a double standard if you ask me.

It is not my opinion when Hitler called himself a socialist, and when he implemented SOCIALISTS PROGRAMS...

Only leftwingers, or very ignorant people would claim he was a rightwinger when his policies WERE SOCIALIST...

Originally posted by daskakik
Nope, I think there are enough historical facts to prove that that period was filled with monopolies, regardless of what I say.

Monopolies which grew bringing more jobs to Americans who started to become adjusted to the ideas of socialism...

Originally posted by daskakik
There are plenty of people warning about all kinds of things but it doesn't make them true. That is why things need to be looked at objectively.

And what does it mean when those things that were warned about all happen?...

Originally posted by daskakik
Of course I don't care, even if I think it's true or not, because I can be wrong. I don't have a problem with that

Sure you do care, because you claim your opinion is the truth because you say so...

Anyway, I am tired of these mindless discussions with you, post evidence and not claims. Define how the policies Hitler implemented were not socialist...

Professor Silverman argues, as a result of impressive research in Nazi archives, that it was work creation programs that account for this "miracle" and it was the 4-year Plan announced in 1936 that represented an emphasis on autarky and arms and a seller's market. Plans called for motorization and the famous autobahns. It is natural to compare Hitler's achievements with FDR's New Deal. Strangely Silverman hardly mention the USSR as a source of ideas in the Hitler years, though the 4-year Plan itself was inspired by the Soviet FYP, the second of which was being completed by the time Goebbels began administering the German equivalent. Earlier (February,1935) Soviet-type "work books" necessary for employment were introduced.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:

"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."

(Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hitler setup the Labour Front. Both employers and employees joined it. According to the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under the control of the government.

Notes on: "On the Theory of the Centrally Administered Economy: An Analysis of the German Experiment," by Walter Eucken

Walter Eucken was a professor of economics at the University of Freiburg, Germany and an architect of the economic reforms that led to the Economic Miracle. In this article Eucken wanted to explain the problems and weaknesses of centrally administered economies such as that of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany and the Soviet Union.

The Nazi economic system developed unintentionally. The initial objective in 1932-33 of its economic policy was just to reduce the high unemployment associated with the Great Depression. This involved public works, expansion of credit, easy monetary policy and manipulation of exchange rates. Generally Centrally Administered Economies (CAE's) have little trouble eliminating unemployment because they can create large public works projects and people are put to work regardless of whether or not their productivity exceeds their wage cost. Nazi Germany was successful in solving the unemployment problem, but after a few years the expansion of the money supply was threatening to create inflation.

The Nazi Government reacted to the threat of inflation by declaring a general price freeze in 1936. From that action the Nazi Government was driven to expand the role of the government in directing the economy and reducing the role played by market forces. Although private property was not nationalized, its use was more and more determined by the government rather than the owners.
...

constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

Phew, the above sure sounds "rightwing"...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Riiight by stating that you opinion it is the truth just because you say so...

Only said it is the truth when I have something to back it up, even if you dismiss it.

Hence you don't have any real proof, just your OPINION...

How can the reason for participating, in any given thing, be other than a personal affair?

It is not my opinion when Hitler called himself a socialist, and when he implemented SOCIALISTS PROGRAMS...

And Mussolini called himself a right wing fascist and implemented corporatism. I know it may not fit your definition but, if we play by your rules, then he must be right wing.

Monopolies which grew bringing more jobs to Americans who started to become adjusted to the ideas of socialism...

I was talking about the 19th century. You know the heyday of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and the like. This was before 1913 and during Americas (supposed) freest markets.

And what does it mean when those things that were warned about all happen?...

You see it happening because that is how you want to see it. The whole fascist turn in the US is, in my opinion true, but it is not socialist because I don't see those terms as interchangeable.

Sure you do care, because you claim your opinion is the truth because you say so...

How it is that you can take "I can be wrong" to mean "I am right because I say so" is beyond me.

reply to post by daskakik


wow...ok, directly from wikipedia...

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (Italian pronunciation: [beˈniːto musːoˈliːni]; 29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician who led the National Fascist Party, ruling the country from 1922 to his ousting in 1943, and is credited with being one of the key figures in the creation of fascism.

Originally a member of the Italian Socialist Party and editor of the Avanti! from 1912 to 1914, Mussolini fought in World War I as an ardent nationalist and created the Fasci di Combattimento in 1919, catalyzing his nationalist and socialist beliefs in the Fascist Manifesto, published in 1921.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Mussolini like OTHER socialists/communists was against other forms of socialism/communism, that didn't make him any less socialist...

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
Benito Mussolini

www.brainyquote.com...

Mussolini knew only about SOCIALISM, he was a socialist ALL HIS LIFE... He made some changes, and was against mainstream socialism, because some other forms of socialism are against nationalism.

But just like Stalin was in favor of NATIONAL COMMUNISM, and Lenin was in favor of INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISM, Hitler, and Mussolini were in favor of NATIONAL SOCIALISM, in which most other branches of socialism are against.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Unfortunately you fail to understand the difference between liberalism, nationalism, fascism, and socialism.

Government handouts is liberalism, not socialism.

State control and ownership is nationalism, not socialism.

Big government and corporations is fascism, not socialism.

So what term is defined as, 'worker ownership and control of the means of production', in your mind?

Originally posted by daskakik
How it is that you can take "I can be wrong" to mean "I am right because I say so" is beyond me.

edit on 15-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Oookay...let's recap...

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by ElectricUniverseAh, so "PROOF IS JUST SO BECAUSE YOU SAY SO"... Just by writting your OPINION that is "proof to you"... Hummm....

Yes, because it is a personal reason and me wanting to is reason enough. No proof outside of my mind exists, so how can I provide any?

Or are you now going to claim you never made that statement?...

Originally posted by ANOK

Unfortunately you fail to understand the difference between liberalism, nationalism, fascism, and socialism.

Unfortunately, you coninue to TRY to rewrite history to fit your needs, and so COMMUNISM can be achieved. You want to completely forego the "stage of socialism" that Marx talked about, and want to implement directly COMMUNISM...like MANY other COMMUNISTS want...

I presented evidence which shows quite clearly that both Hitler, and Mussolini were SOCIALISTS... They favored the STATE/government over the individual... They put the "collective" over the individual... They implemented SOCIALIST programs, and were against FREE MARKET/CAPITALISM...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
wow...ok, directly from wikipedia...

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (Italian pronunciation: [beˈniːto musːoˈliːni]; 29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician who led the National Fascist Party, ruling the country from 1922 to his ousting in 1943, and is credited with being one of the key figures in the creation of fascism.

Originally a member of the Italian Socialist Party and editor of the Avanti! from 1912 to 1914, Mussolini fought in World War I as an ardent nationalist and created the Fasci di Combattimento in 1919, catalyzing his nationalist and socialist beliefs in the Fascist Manifesto, published in 1921.

...

en.wikipedia.org...

I posted his words from 1935, which were the words of the man when he was in a position to make a change and it seemed that his ideas had also changed.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ElectricUniverseAh, so "PROOF IS JUST SO BECAUSE YOU SAY SO"... Just by writting your OPINION that is "proof to you"... Hummm....

Yes, because it is a personal reason and me wanting to is reason enough. No proof outside of my mind exists, so how can I provide any?

Or are you now going to claim you never made that statement?...

Of course I made it. Why you can't see my reason for participating without a political agenda just points out your bias.

Originally posted by daskakik
...
I posted his words from 1935, which were the words of the man when he was in a position to make a change and his ideas had changed by then.

...

You forgot to continue reading...

...
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts
...

www.worldfuturefund.org...

Anti-capitalist, in favor of the collective instead of the individual, and in favor of the state above the individual...

His FASCIST MANIFESTO...

...
The manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on class collaboration (the idea of social classes existing side by side and collaborating for the sake of national interests; the opposite of the Marxist notion of class struggle).

en.wikipedia.org...

He was a National SOCIALIST... sorry to rain in your parade...

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ElectricUniverseAh, so "PROOF IS JUST SO BECAUSE YOU SAY SO"... Just by writting your OPINION that is "proof to you"... Hummm....

Yes, because it is a personal reason and me wanting to is reason enough. No proof outside of my mind exists, so how can I provide any?

Or are you now going to claim you never made that statement?...

Of course I made it. Why you can't see my reason for participating without a political agenda just points out your bias.

edit on 15-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Wow, so we also have to add a lack of reading comprehension to your flaws...

And btw, Mussolini wasn't against democracy...

Grouped according to their several interests, individuals form classes; they form trade-unions when organized according to their several economic activities; but first and foremost they form the State, which is no mere matter of numbers, the suns of the individuals forming the majority. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number (17); but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation (18). Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality (19).
...

www.worldfuturefund.org...

Like I was saying, he, like Hitler, invented their own branch of socialism...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

You can add whatever flaws you think fit to my abilities but they are not significant in any way. I posted that a person is free to participate without having to side with any particular fraction. This is a fact. If you want to force me you go against your own premise.

You can post whatever you like but the only parade being rained on is your own because I don't share your definitions and neither did Il Duce. He was all about private ownership as long as it fitted the nation. That is capitalism, albeit with restraints but nothing like communism and much less like socialism. I am not to blame for the fact that those systems are different and you can't grasp that.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

I'm just curious Electric, what do you define as 'socialist', is it any use of public funds for social needs?

I've just posted some definitions on another thread

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.

. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism

1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.

www.thefreedictionary.com...


That is just one source

Maybe what you are really looking for is how much socialism do we have to have before we call it socialism

reply to post by Southern Guardian

You can't pick and choose or make exceptions on what socialist programmes you accept and which ones you don't. Either you

These things have been foisted upon us since FDR(a 33rd degree Mason mind you) and we have no choice in such matters until such time as enough people are sick and tired of this nonsense and throw off the yoke of it.