What makes Obama a "Socialist"?

Most people don't even know what socialism and communsim is. They don't know that it's a product of very wealthy bankers and industrialists, and nothing more than a tool of wealth and power consolidation. The Anglo-American elitists funded Trotsky and Lenin and the rise of the Bolshivik Revolution in 1917. So communism was not the product of a few downtrodden people in Russia. It was the product of super-rich control freaks on Wall Street and in London. People like Scribe are still trapped within the left/right paradigm of reality the media has created for the masses to unquestioningly believe, not understading how the system really works and shunning anything contrary to what the nightly news tells him as being a "conspiracy theory."

Communism is as alive as it has ever been, except I don't even call it communism. I call it a few power hungry elites looking to take over the world by consolidating everything into their own hands. Call it fascism or call it communism. It's all the same.

 

Thank you.

Would it be okay with you if I opened a new thread with the video that you made and your post???

PM me if you wish.

 

I have no problem with that. I know you don't agree with anything I have to say, but that's fine because I am open to other people's opinions and intelligent discussion. People can do whatever they would like with the videos I have posted online. Some people have even copied them and passed them off as their own, but I don't even care.

 

Actually, I wasn't being facetious. I agree with everything you've had to say about the 16th amendment so far, so thank you.

I appreciate your opinions although I may not always agree with everything you have to say.

 

What about Obama removing Wagoner from GM? Would that be considered a socialist move?

 

Socialism really pisses me off.Just the thought of everyone being able to get medical care when they need it,everyone being able to get an education according to their abilities,competant lawers for people without money.Fuck all that---I'm going to be a republican and espouse the finest principles of Darwin.I have piles of money and connections---I can have it all.You're not man enough to claw and scratch yourself into a position of privelege--tough shit.Don't expect anything from me.Yeah---that's what I'm gonna do.Uh huh.Will have to get rid of the mirrors in my huge ediface,tho.

 

So why was my thread deleted? If it's because I repeat myself, well, sometimes that is what is required to get the message across.

 

My sentiments exactly.

 

Isn't that what capitalism and free trade has done in the US during the last couple of decades?

 

No, because it's not really capitalism ("laissez faire") and free trade, other than in name. What we see today is state/monopoly capitalism, not free market. So-called free trade is not "free" trade at all. It's managed by corporate interests and their interlocking bureaucracies for the benefit of the corporations and global elites.

The media propaganda leads people to believe that all the blame is on capitalism and free markets. I personally believe the banking system as a whole is part of the control matrix, so I am not a defender of capitalism, either, as some have accused me of. However, it's clear that the elite want a completely managed global economy, controlled by a global Fed and with a global currency. In order to convince people that more control (total control) over the global economy is the answer, they must first convince people that free markets are to blame for all economic problems (which are artificially induced) and that full government (banker) control over the markets is the only solution.

Free market capitalism is non-existent. Again, what we have today is monpoly capitalism, which is corporate/state socialism, and the problems it has created are being used to bring about even more of the same socialistic policies that consolidate power in the hands of the people that created the crisis to begin with FOR THAT PURPOSE.

 

socialism for the corporations and the wealthy sound svery contradictory. since socialism is targeted at equality of wealth distribution it cannot be in favor of the needs of the wealthy or the corporations. in fact, socialism, being linked to the ideals of direct democracy as a tool of empowerment of the people should not and could not ever guard the interest of big money, which is exactly the thing that happens right now. so there can be no such thing as corporate socialism, which is a contradictory term in itself. instead holding up the big money is still in favor of the neo-liberal capitalistic agenda even though its proponents often don't realise it themselves, because it goes against their core ideologies which preach against state intervention at all costs.

 

We have all been taught that socialism was co-equal to 'evil' communism, so many people haven't investigated this any further than that. We see the 'bad' examples of communism as the only way that it can work. These are 'bad' examples of communism because of their form of government.
Socialism and capitalism are ways that economy works and democracy and facism are ways that governments work. Since socialism and democracy are both egalitarian - the best socialist societies are also democracies.
I agree with the definition of socialism as I read earlier in this thread for the Socialist Party Platform.
This type of socialism is to put democratic control over those things that are basic necessities for everyone: food, water, health, transportation, housing, communication, etc. This democratic control for the social good instead of profit motive for capitalism is important for those things that people cannot live without.
Capitalism can still operate and profit as much as they want off of anything else. But it is generally agreed that it is unfair to profit unjustly from things like food (or labor) or to charge someone the equivalent of everything that they ever made in their lifetime to have a lifesaving operation.
There are good governments that are socialist (in the purest sense) because they are democracies. (This is kinda like a giant commune -which is why I'm confused about hippies being all uptight about it)
See Sweden, Finland etc.
There are bad governments that are socialist because they are not democratic and are run by the powerful elitists (either military, political, or corporate). This is the form of socialism that we are all afraid of from Obama and/or the ones with the money and power. Example being the currently evolving social health care system that is being structured to benefit, big pharma, insurance companies, and the health industry. Other countries have socialized medicine that is not structured to benefit these corporations but the people.
-Examples of governments that are capitalist and democratic and work? -
It seems that places like Canada are morphing more socialist, but this must be balanced with a growing power of the democratic process or they will just fall into the hands of the elite and just be a form of 'socialism for the rich'.
Socialism is just a tool, like any other tool it can be used for good or bad, it just depends on who's hands it is in.

 

People often mistake political/economic systems for the examples of how they were corrupted in history.

With decent transparency most of these systems would stand okay (except capitalism, which has to have secrecy to survive. Tells you somethin huh?)

 

For reference, Bush is generally classified as a neo-con, meaning he doesn't represent the republican party very well. Republicans, traditionally, have been in favor of smaller government. Bush was much more liberal/democrat in his big government. Look to presidents who shrunk government size and spending for examples of a good republican.

The Mushroom Man

 

i think it's just a propaganda tool of republican party to call obama a socialist...trying to make morons think he's an evil communist or something.

 

Of course there will be some who buy into the commie scare tactics, but I think the days of "hes evil kuz hes a commie/socialist" are coming to a close, majorly.

The Mushroom Man

 

How can wanting to repeal legislation that has been in effect for decades be reactionary? Is this a typo?

 

Geeze folks.

He's doing all the things we've been bitchin about not gettin done for years.

He's talking sanely to our enemies.

He's trying to get us off of the foreign oil.

He's trying to fix health care.

He's creating a positive environment for the legalization of pot.

He's trying to help babies.

He's trying to feed hungry nations.

He's taking the banks down off their pedestals.

I mean, under the constant scrutiny he has, what could he do better?

Jus Sayin


-

 

He is the Antichrist!

 

even if that were to be true, that's a bad thing? never been a fan of Christianity so... ::shrug::