Thursday, April 16, 2009

Thurvey

It's Thursday. You know what that means. Or maybe not. On Thursdays there is a survey question. Thus the post title, "Thurvey". To respond to the question, which I hope you will do, just click on "comment" below, type your response in the window, click anonymous and then click publish. Sign your name if you want. If you don't you will remain anonymous.


The word "socialist" is being thrown around as a description for the direction President Obama is taking us, or some say wants to take us. If you believe that, give specific examples and reasons. If you don't believe that, defend your position.

Socialist, liberal, conservative, ideologue. . . . labels. Do they do any harm? Are they helpful? Why?

Answer any or all, or something else if you wish.

3 comments :

  1. These labels are very harmful to useful dialogue. Most issues are complicated and require more in depth discussion than the political rhetoric allows. Inflamatory language like Socialist, Communist, Liberal, and Conservative are often used to compensate for a lack of substance within an argument or a lack of understanding about the real debate. They are also useful to get ignorant people worked up about nothing. There are times when these words are appropriate. When describing Russia after 1917 it might be appropriate to use the word Communist. When discussing Italy during World War Two the word Socialist might come up. When talking about the United States, people need to measure their words and gain some perspective on where we stand along the ideological spectrum.

    We as people also need to lose our fear of words, people and ideas that we do not understand or are unfamiliar with. It is alright to consider new ideas. There is nothing pragmatic about tradition. Tradition in practice is overrated by its very nature. Many countries in Europe considered to be more Socialist in nature than our own, continue to outperform the United States in Education and Healthcare. One of the fundamental underpinnings of Marxism, an obligation to take care of your fellow man, is similar to many of the words of Jesus in the New Testament in regards to neighbors. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all terrorists are Muslims. Not all spending is bad. Not all war is unjust. Not everything President Bush did was wrong. Not all sex is immoral. Not all penguins can fly. You get the idea.

    All I am saying is that things are not usually as black and white as most people want to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Socialist is a buzzword. Buzz words/smear words only serve to attack the messenger without addressing substance. That's all it is. It's a different verse to the same song that has been sung ever since Karl Rove and Fox News got started. It makes me furious. Truth is the victim in politics. Politics itself is like watching a horrible car accident; you don't want to watch, but you can't look away. When's the last time you listened to talk radio or talked about politics in general and came away happier or uplifted? Back to the question.
    Socialism is where the government controls the means of production in order to control the economy. Obama is not trying to control the means of production. Is what Obama is doing with GM and certain banks socialist? No. Is it protectionist? Yes. Whether it is a good idea is debatable but it isn't socialist.
    Every "new deal" idea that we currently accept--minimum wage, hour controls, child labor laws, medicare, medicaid, and Social Security were originally lambasted as socialist. History shows that it was the powerful stoking the masses by offering a new bogeyman to rally against. These men were so concerned with citizen's liberties. Thankfully they supported a nine year old's right to work 7 days a week for 14 hours at a time in the coal mines for a nickel an hour. What patriots!!!

    Even if the US was heading towards socialism it's more stockholm than Stalin as has been said by some wise columnists. I think some conservatives are mistaking re-regulation as socialism. I guess they can't agree with anything he does in order to get elected. It's sad and it does nothing for the country.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Webster's dictionary defines socialism as: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
    3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    The bailout of banks, AIG, and the auto industry are a few examples of government takeover of private businesses. When a government dictates the conditions of how a business is to operate, and sets up "czars" or places people in positions of management within those companies, this is socialism. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are another example. When our government mandates that a company must lend money to people they know cannot repay the loan, for what purpose other than eventual government take-over could possibly be the motive? A government run and mandated health care system could be defined no other way but socialism. It is interesting to note that those countries who have this even refer to it as "socialized" medicine.

    I have been been one of those who have called Obama a socialist, as recently as today. However, I believe that the more accurate description for him would be Marxist. By his own words spoken during the elections, he believes in "spreading the wealth around."
    I will remind your readers of a famous quote by Karl Marx: "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability."
    When a government begins dictating the salaries of bank executives, taxing bonuses at 90%, setting salary caps on employees, this is nothing less than Marxism.

    I do not hold Bush and others harmless in the current condition of our nation. They were just as responsible for what we are now faced with. However, I do not want my children to be saddled with the additional burden that this administration is driving us into, and will continue to stand up and make my voice heard.

    I'll close with a quote from Vladmir Lenin: "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."

    May God bless our nation!

    ReplyDelete

Real Time Analytics