Yup. He’s a Socialist....

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Regardless I think the state can be made to serve everyone if people are knowledgeable and constructive. A public central bank would immediately remove the parasites from government and then all campaign donations should be banned in favor of a vote tax. Once that is established then we can nationalise whatever else is deemed necessary.

Theparasites sucking on the current public teat ought to be sufficient to tell you that it can never work without corruption. Sorry, all this Utopian love and rainbows didn't work for the Soviet Union and it won't work anywhere else.


But but but you say, the Soviet Union wasn't really communism or socialism after all, oh no it was really fascism.....never realizing that fascism is cut from the same cloth as communism and socialism and is but a variant. Totalitarianism is the constant characterization of all these different methods of centralized control.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

But but but you say, the Soviet Union wasn't really communism or socialism after all, oh no it was really fascism.....never realizing that fascism is cut from the same cloth as communism and socialism and is but a variant. Totalitarianism is the constant characterization of all these different methods of centralized control.]

But that isn't true, socialism and fascism are completely different. For one socialism is an economic system, and fascism is a political system.

Socialism is not a method of centralised control, it is the workers ownership of the means of production. Just because Russia used the term communism it doesn't mean what Russia did was communism, it wasn't. They did not use the term communism as a description of their economic system.

Hitler did not use socialism to mean the same thing as socialists...

Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler had objected to the party's previous leader's decision to use the word "Socialist" in its name as Hitler at the time instead preferred to use "Social Revolutionary".[14] Upon taking over the leadership, Hitler kept the term but defined "socialism" as meaning a commitment of an individual to a community.[14] Hitler claimed that "true" socialism does not repudiate private property unlike the claims of Marxism, and claimed that the "Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning" and said that "Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism."

www.guardian.co.uk...

Hitler was a lunatic, I can't believe anyone would take anything seriously he did, or said, only if it suits your agenda I guess eh?

If you actually read the Communist Manifesto, I suggest you do, it's only 64 pages and easily available, you would understand why the USSR was not "communist" as communism was envisioned by Marx, Engels, and others. So trying to equate the "communism" of the USSR with the communism of Marxism is silly at best.

Whether owned by the state or by private individuals, if the means to produce are not worker owned it is not socialism/communism. Both are forms of hierarchy and both are detrimental to the worker. Socialism/communism is/was a workers movement, not a form of government. Government appropriated left-wing terms for their own agendas not because they supported the labour movement.

When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism

Just like here in America and western Europe the Russian workers were fooled into supporting a system that was not in their best interest. No matter what you want to call their system, it was not what socialists/communists wanted.

Obama a Socialist? So incedibly moronic that it does not deservive a response.

Not only is Obama a Socialist. He is also a racist too. I haven't seen or experience this kind of racism in my life until the past 4 years, especially from his supporters. I will never look at race relations the same. Don't call me a racist, I'm not. And don't assume I'm caucasion, I'm not. I may have learn my dislike...

Originally posted by RELDDIR
Not only is Obama a Socialist.

Please show me when Obama said he supports worker ownership?

In fact workers have been trying to lobby Obama, and others, to support worker ownership since 2007.

Chrysler Workers Urge Obama to Support Ownership Push

If Obama was a socialist he would be supporting worker ownership, because that is what socialism is.

Good grief!. Obama is not just a socialist but he is a racist that hates his mother. What gibberish!