Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

[Foxfyre]

Mao is an excellent example of Marxism right up to the point that resistance has been eliminated and the government controlled everything. And then Marx's vision was that the government would equally distribute the wealth among all the people, the government would dissolve itself, and the people would live happily ever after with no need for government.

As history has thus far demonstrated, however, in no nation that has embraced Marxist principles, once the government has total control, it never moves into the final phase where the people are all equal and live happily ever after.

I respectfully disagree.

Lenin gave true Marxism a valid run through. In the winter of 22-23, Lenin segregated Petrograd and outlawed all currency. Housing, food, and work assignments were determined by the Soviets, the peoples congresses, which were elected on a block by block basis with the NKVD at their disposal to shoot dissenters. The problem was that these wonderful proletarians often decided that bourgeois families should work 24 hour days and had no need of food or shelter from the sub-arctic St. Petersburg winter.

It was of course, and utter disaster, after which Lenin instituted the NEP. I honestly believe that Lenin would have again tried real Marxism, had he lived longer.

An interesting perspective, but after reading at least some of Lenin's works, I don't believe he ever contemplated a society practicing true communism; i.e. without a central government authority. He advocated universal education teaching the principles of a disciplined lifestyle necessary for communisim to be productive, but even that suggested government authority to implement it. Also a government is necessary to enforce his concepts that the people should have no political power.

As all would-be dictators do, he promised universal social welfare including healthcare for all, child care, and all manner of social benefits, all state directed.

No, though he no doubt saw himself as an intended benevolent dictator of a new and superior social order, I do not believe Lenin would ever have willingly given up the power he had attained

 

[Uncensored2008]

An interesting perspective, but after reading at least some of Lenin's works, I don't believe he ever contemplated a society practicing true communism; i.e. without a central government authority. He advocated universal education teaching the principles of a disciplined lifestyle necessary for communisim to be productive, but even that suggested government authority to implement it. Also a government is necessary to enforce his concepts that the people should have no political power.

As all would-be dictators do, he promised universal social welfare including healthcare for all, child care, and all manner of social benefits, all state directed.

No, though he no doubt saw himself as an intended benevolent dictator of a new and superior social order, I do not believe Lenin would ever have willingly given up the power he had attained

What you say is absolutely true, Lenin was instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat, not a classless state. And I agree that he had no plans to move beyond that. But the attempt to change the economy from currency driven to communal was more than any other Marxist dictatorship has done.

I often hear the left claim that we don't know that Marxism is a failure, because it's never been tried. In fact, it has been tried and was such a disaster that it couldn't even last a year.

 

[Contumacious]

An interesting perspective, but after reading at least some of Lenin's works, I don't believe he ever contemplated a society practicing true communism; i.e. without a central government authority. He advocated universal education teaching the principles of a disciplined lifestyle necessary for communisim to be productive, but even that suggested government authority to implement it.

teaching how communism can be productive is like teaching how infertility can be productive.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

We who still have capacity for critical thought know that human nature prevents literal communisim--the ultimate goal of Marxism--from ever being productive. The industrious will invariably resent the less industrious who share in all the benefits the industrious provide. And if that condition is not addressed, the industrious will stop being so industrious which means everybody has much less and all will be equally deprived.

And if the situation is addressed and the industrious are allowed to benefit more as a reward for their industry, the less industrious resent the greater affluence of the industrious. And then there will be some who will see that as a means to gain power, prestige, and wealth for themselves and who encourage the class envy.

So the only true communism that can succeed is that the Founders intended the U.S. Constitution to provide. All would have equal opportunity to be as industrious as they chose to be, and each would benefit from his/her industry. And there would be no class envy as the system would not restrict anybody from reaching his/her full potential and there would be no incentive provided for not attempting to reach one's full potential. And indeed it did away with class. The U.S. system provided the first society in which people moved seamlessly from poor to rich, back and forth among the income groups. The world's first classless society.

It however was achieved by an important twist on Marxism. Rather than an authoritarian government forcing the process into place, it was accomplished by first removing government from the equation. The government would secure the unalienable rights of the people and then would otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

The current Marxist philosophies that have seeped into our government processes, and yes, into our tax system, too often discourage industriousness and reward those who choose not to be so industrious. And this system is encourage by those who use it to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and fortune. More and more, government is used to force us into the sort of society those in power want us to be.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We who still have capacity for critical thought know that human nature prevents literal communisim--the ultimate goal of Marxism--from ever being productive. The industrious will invariably resent the less industrious who share in all the benefits the industrious provide. And if that condition is not addressed, the industrious will stop being so industrious which means everybody has much less and all will be equally deprived.

And if the situation is addressed and the industrious are allowed to benefit more as a reward for their industry, the less industrious resent the greater affluence of the industrious. And then there will be some who will see that as a means to gain power, prestige, and wealth for themselves and who encourage the class envy.

So the only true communism that can succeed is that the Founders intended the U.S. Constitution to provide. All would have equal opportunity to be as industrious as they chose to be, and each would benefit from his/her industry. And there would be no class envy as the system would not restrict anybody from reaching his/her full potential and there would be no incentive provided for not attempting to reach one's full potential.

The current Marxist philosophies that have seeped into our government processes, and yes, into our tax system, too often discourage industriousness and reward those who choose not to be so industrious. And this system is encourage by those who use it to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and fortune.

I made a similar point in the Marxism thread. Even among students who have no currency or capital, one finds that the industrious, the achievers, will segregate from the main pack, which will segregate from the slackers. There were those in my graduate classes who were very motivated to make top grades, and those who were not. Though the opportunities were literally equal, the outcome varied significantly.

 

[Foxfyre]

Probably most of us have seen variations on this illustration:

The course was on comparative economic policies. The instructor asserted that finishing the same under the socialistic model would remove incentives to excel and the risk of failure and would ultimately lower the overall quality of life in a society. Some students asserted that without incentives to excel or the risk of failure, people would give their best effort and altruistically excel to advance the greater good. So, the professor proposed an experiment: on individual exams in the course, all students would receive a score equal to the average score of all students. Students would finish the same. The students agreed.

On the first exam, the average score was a B and all students received a B. On the second exam, the average score was a C and all students received a C. After successive exams in the course, the average score dropped to an F. At the end of the course, all students received a cumulative grade of F.

Why did this happen? The instructor learned from the lower performing students that they saw no reason to study at all. The top performing students related that their hard work was for naught, so they studied less.

And, then what happened? The students complained to the university’s administration that they each received an F and not a higher grade. After confirming that the students agreed to the grading methodology and that the students chose to apply themselves less, the university’s administration left their grades unchanged.
Why Socialism Doesn't Work - Forbes

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was the government-sponsored national bank with private participation.

Just like the auto companies and the banks today.

Government interaction is not, ipso facto, communism or socialism.

And reading the libertarian creed above only reinforces thank heavens no more than 2 to 4% of the voters (about the same number as hard core commies and socialists) buy into that stuff.

If that is what you are teaching, gang, our nation is safe from both of those spectrums of false light.

Your belief is not fact at all, grunt11b.

Grunt11b would argue then, just as wrong as below, that when the 1st National Bank (1791) was organized with 5 of 25 directors on the board from the government and 20% of capitalization, that was communist.

Grunt11b is seriously brain damaged.

Taking what one person has earned to give to another person is indeed socialist. Obamacare is socialist, you dont have to like it, but that my friend is a fact.
Taking over industry or means of production is a part of communism, you dont have to like that one either, but when Obama decided to take over GM, that was communism.
Fascism Goes along with the taking over of GM as well, because that could be considered public ownership of property.
Even if those of you supporters on the left choose not to see it, Obama is a threat to everything this country has ever stood for that is good in this world. And you are nothing more to him than pawns in his little game. He doesn't care about you, only your votes.
I believe Obama is a mixed bag of every ideology that has ever destroyed good countries, he is a little bit of everything bad ideologically, which explains why we know so little about his background, because if you had a background like that, it would be worth millions to keep it a secret.

Was that a federal Bank or a private bank? There's a big difference here, although I dont expect you to notice it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

.

Here we go...

And in your answer, please include how the 39.6% top marginal tax rate he wants would constitute "socialism" or "fascism". Thanks.

.

Taking what one person has earned to give to another person is indeed socialist. Obamacare is socialist, you dont have to like it, but that my friend is a fact.
Taking over industry or means of production is a part of communism, you dont have to like that one either, but when Obama decided to take over GM, that was communism.
Fascism Goes along with the taking over of GM as well, because that could be considered public ownership of property.
Even if those of you supporters on the left choose not to see it, Obama is a threat to everything this country has ever stood for that is good in this world. And you are nothing more to him than pawns in his little game. He doesn't care about you, only your votes.
I believe Obama is a mixed bag of every ideology that has ever destroyed good countries, he is a little bit of everything bad ideologically, which explains why we know so little about his background, because if you had a background like that, it would be worth millions to keep it a secret.

The Left/ concern trolls in attempts to diffuse criticism of Papa Obama's socialist tendencies is to equate all gov't activity as 'socialist''.
Thus , what is really socialist and therefore anyone that points out the socialism of the left or Papa Obama is simply just a partisan ideologue.

Since the majority of this country is still conservative, Papa Obama and the left know that their "ism's", don't sell.
Papa Obama will even deny he is or has socialist tendencies. Of course, denying a point is not the same thing as proving the point.

The left/concern trolls love to say that Papa Obama is just “pragmatic” . Notice of course,
that “pragmatic” approach is always for an expanded role for gov't.

Due to our nation being more conservative than not and the limits, that still remains, of our Constitution,
the left's approach to socialism is more like an 'American variant of Fabianism'. A gradual development of socialism
by peaceful means. Which is why one always sees the left so eager and willing to
either reject the Constitution or at least 'bend' it in a way that favors their approach.

The political advantage of this, since socialism has never been fully implemented, it can never be fully blamed
for the failings of the statist policies. Notice, as well, the cure is always more gov't control and the disease is free market economics.

Papa Obama offers and the left hopes, for a response to Reagan's success or as some writers have suggested it be called, a Neosocialism.
The Left will even claim that they have a new pragmatic way; but it is nothing more than a rehash of the 'third way' and the answer is always more and more gov't.

The question to ask is not if Papa Obama is socialist...

The question to ask is Papa Obama more socialist than Romney
and who will be best for our nations' future?

Papa Obama is not working

 

[Foxfyre]

.

Here we go...

And in your answer, please include how the 39.6% top marginal tax rate he wants would constitute "socialism" or "fascism". Thanks.

.

Taking what one person has earned to give to another person is indeed socialist. Obamacare is socialist, you dont have to like it, but that my friend is a fact.
Taking over industry or means of production is a part of communism, you dont have to like that one either, but when Obama decided to take over GM, that was communism.
Fascism Goes along with the taking over of GM as well, because that could be considered public ownership of property.
Even if those of you supporters on the left choose not to see it, Obama is a threat to everything this country has ever stood for that is good in this world. And you are nothing more to him than pawns in his little game. He doesn't care about you, only your votes.
I believe Obama is a mixed bag of every ideology that has ever destroyed good countries, he is a little bit of everything bad ideologically, which explains why we know so little about his background, because if you had a background like that, it would be worth millions to keep it a secret.

The Left/ concern trolls in attempts to diffuse criticism of Papa Obama's socialist tendencies is to equate all gov't activity as 'socialist''.
Thus , what is really socialist and therefore anyone that points out the socialism of the left or Papa Obama is simply just a partisan ideologue.

Since the majority of this country is still conservative, Papa Obama and the left know that their "ism's", don't sell.
Papa Obama will even deny he is or has socialist tendencies. Of course, denying a point is not the same thing as proving the point.

The left/concern trolls love to say that Papa Obama is just “pragmatic” . Notice of course,
that “pragmatic” approach is always for an expanded role for gov't.

Due to our nation being more conservative than not and the limits, that still remains, of our Constitution,
the left's approach to socialism is more like an 'American variant of Fabianism'. A gradual development of socialism
by peaceful means. Which is why one always sees the left so eager and willing to
either reject the Constitution or at least 'bend' it in a way that favors their approach.

The political advantage of this, since socialism has never been fully implemented, it can never be fully blamed
for the failings of the statist policies. Notice, as well, the cure is always more gov't control and the disease is free market economics.

Papa Obama offers and the left hopes, for a response to Reagan's success or as some writers have suggested it be called, a Neosocialism.
The Left will even claim that they have a new pragmatic way; but it is nothing more than a rehash of the 'third way' and the answer is always more and more gov't.

The question to ask is not if Papa Obama is socialist...

The question to ask is Papa Obama more socialist than Romney
and who will be best for our nations' future?

Papa Obama is not working

None of us are capable of looking into the heart, mind, and soul of another and reading what is written there; i.e. how they see their own point of view. All we have to go with on Obama is about five and a half years of more closely followed rhetoric/comments/speeches/interviews/writings/behavior/voting record, three years and nine months track record as President of the United States, and what we know of the people who have surrounded him his whole life, those who have most closely mentored and/or influenced him, and the people he has chosen to surround himself including now.

You put all that together and it screams anti-Americanism, pro-European models, pro-Marxist philosophy, most especially that rephrased as 'liberation theology', and definitely pro-Authoritarian government.

And if you are an originalist, freedom loving American, all that is not at all comforting.

 

[percysunshine]

I have this concept for a Fourth Presidential Debate;

Town Hall format, sitting at tables, Obama and Romney debate the benefits and drawbacks of a Fascistosocialisticregulatorystructure of the the federal government.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Taking what one person has earned to give to another person is indeed socialist. Obamacare is socialist, you dont have to like it, but that my friend is a fact.
Taking over industry or means of production is a part of communism, you dont have to like that one either, but when Obama decided to take over GM, that was communism.
Fascism Goes along with the taking over of GM as well, because that could be considered public ownership of property.
Even if those of you supporters on the left choose not to see it, Obama is a threat to everything this country has ever stood for that is good in this world. And you are nothing more to him than pawns in his little game. He doesn't care about you, only your votes.
I believe Obama is a mixed bag of every ideology that has ever destroyed good countries, he is a little bit of everything bad ideologically, which explains why we know so little about his background, because if you had a background like that, it would be worth millions to keep it a secret.

The Left/ concern trolls in attempts to diffuse criticism of Papa Obama's socialist tendencies is to equate all gov't activity as 'socialist''.
Thus , what is really socialist and therefore anyone that points out the socialism of the left or Papa Obama is simply just a partisan ideologue.

Since the majority of this country is still conservative, Papa Obama and the left know that their "ism's", don't sell.
Papa Obama will even deny he is or has socialist tendencies. Of course, denying a point is not the same thing as proving the point.

The left/concern trolls love to say that Papa Obama is just “pragmatic” . Notice of course,
that “pragmatic” approach is always for an expanded role for gov't.

Due to our nation being more conservative than not and the limits, that still remains, of our Constitution,
the left's approach to socialism is more like an 'American variant of Fabianism'. A gradual development of socialism
by peaceful means. Which is why one always sees the left so eager and willing to
either reject the Constitution or at least 'bend' it in a way that favors their approach.

The political advantage of this, since socialism has never been fully implemented, it can never be fully blamed
for the failings of the statist policies. Notice, as well, the cure is always more gov't control and the disease is free market economics.

Papa Obama offers and the left hopes, for a response to Reagan's success or as some writers have suggested it be called, a Neosocialism.
The Left will even claim that they have a new pragmatic way; but it is nothing more than a rehash of the 'third way' and the answer is always more and more gov't.

The question to ask is not if Papa Obama is socialist...

The question to ask is Papa Obama more socialist than Romney
and who will be best for our nations' future?

Papa Obama is not working

None of us are capable of looking into the heart, mind, and soul of another and reading what is written there; i.e. how they see their own point of view. All we have to go with on Obama is about five and a half years of more closely followed rhetoric/comments/speeches/interviews/writings/behavior/voting record, three years and nine months track record as President of the United States, and what we know of the people who have surrounded him his whole life, those who have most closely mentored and/or influenced him, and the people he has chosen to surround himself including now.

You put all that together and it screams anti-Americanism, pro-European models, pro-Marxist philosophy, most especially that rephrased as 'liberation theology', and definitely pro-Authoritarian government.

And if you are an originalist, freedom loving American, all that is not at all comforting.

All very true
and the MSM/ left and concern trolls are
working hard to cover for Papa Obama's radical ways
and his fantastic failures

Only the die hard leftists will try
to defend him or a total fool

I suspect that statement will be proven true
soon

 

[Foxfyre]

The Left/ concern trolls in attempts to diffuse criticism of Papa Obama's socialist tendencies is to equate all gov't activity as 'socialist''.
Thus , what is really socialist and therefore anyone that points out the socialism of the left or Papa Obama is simply just a partisan ideologue.

Since the majority of this country is still conservative, Papa Obama and the left know that their "ism's", don't sell.
Papa Obama will even deny he is or has socialist tendencies. Of course, denying a point is not the same thing as proving the point.

The left/concern trolls love to say that Papa Obama is just “pragmatic” . Notice of course,
that “pragmatic” approach is always for an expanded role for gov't.

Due to our nation being more conservative than not and the limits, that still remains, of our Constitution,
the left's approach to socialism is more like an 'American variant of Fabianism'. A gradual development of socialism
by peaceful means. Which is why one always sees the left so eager and willing to
either reject the Constitution or at least 'bend' it in a way that favors their approach.

The political advantage of this, since socialism has never been fully implemented, it can never be fully blamed
for the failings of the statist policies. Notice, as well, the cure is always more gov't control and the disease is free market economics.

Papa Obama offers and the left hopes, for a response to Reagan's success or as some writers have suggested it be called, a Neosocialism.
The Left will even claim that they have a new pragmatic way; but it is nothing more than a rehash of the 'third way' and the answer is always more and more gov't.

The question to ask is not if Papa Obama is socialist...

The question to ask is Papa Obama more socialist than Romney
and who will be best for our nations' future?

Papa Obama is not working

None of us are capable of looking into the heart, mind, and soul of another and reading what is written there; i.e. how they see their own point of view. All we have to go with on Obama is about five and a half years of more closely followed rhetoric/comments/speeches/interviews/writings/behavior/voting record, three years and nine months track record as President of the United States, and what we know of the people who have surrounded him his whole life, those who have most closely mentored and/or influenced him, and the people he has chosen to surround himself including now.

You put all that together and it screams anti-Americanism, pro-European models, pro-Marxist philosophy, most especially that rephrased as 'liberation theology', and definitely pro-Authoritarian government.

And if you are an originalist, freedom loving American, all that is not at all comforting.

All very true
and the MSM/ left and concern trolls are
working hard to cover for Papa Obama's radical ways
and his fantastic failures

Only the die hard radical leftist will try
to defend him

Yes, the surrogate media doesn't really defend him all that much, but they do run interference for him, they provide and solicit talking heads who will sugar coat his words and actions or deflect attention from them, and they do their damndest to make any opposition or critics look worse. Most especially any woman or minority who dares to criticize or challenge President Obama will be uncategorically destroyed or at least so marginalized he or she cannot be in any way strongly effective. You can't name a single personality in those categories they have not done that to.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have this concept for a Fourth Presidential Debate;

Town Hall format, sitting at tables, Obama and Romney debate the benefits and drawbacks of a Fascistosocialisticregulatorystructure of the the federal government.

LOL. Unfortunately you would spend more than half the time defining that for His Worship, and the media would find a way to illustrate how Romney, who WOULD understand it, is a negative thing.

I would be happy if we would have a give and take between those two about the Founder's intent re:

1. The federal government
2. The intended limitations of the federal government.
3. Unalienable rights, opportunity, and prosperity.
4. States rights.
5. What life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yes, the surrogate media doesn't really defend him all that much, but they do run interference for him, they provide and solicit talking heads who will sugar coat his words and actions or deflect attention from them, and they do their damndest to make any opposition or critics look worse. Most especially any woman or minority who dares to criticize or challenge President Obama will be uncategorically destroyed or at least so marginalized he or she cannot be in any way strongly effective. You can't name a single personality in those categories they have not done that to.

Interference no doubt, after all the 'myth Obama'
was created in part by them.

But, a lack of interest in asking him tough questions
and where if a reporter did ask one- makes the news- not his answer
They are in full defense of him

Which explains Papa Obama's poor performance
If the press actually did their job and asked tough questions of the President
Then the most overrated politician in our lifetime, Papa Obama, might have done a better
job at the debate.

 

[kaz]

I often hear the left claim that we don't know that Marxism is a failure, because it's never been tried. In fact, it has been tried and was such a disaster that it couldn't even last a year.

Actually if Marxism worked and were the ideal, then it is capitalism that would get us there. Capitalism is simply distributed economic decision making where each person makes that choice which is in their own interest. Capitalism is economic freedom. The role of government is simply to ensure that people are not able to use force on others to remove their choice.

If Marxism were the ideal, everyone would freely chose it, and only Capitalism would allow them to do that. Marxism/socialism is central economic planning, which is inherently contradictory to individual choice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOL. Unfortunately you would spend more than half the time defining that for His Worship, and the media would find a way to illustrate how Romney, who WOULD understand it, is a negative thing.

I would be happy if we would have a give and take between those two about the Founder's intent re:

1. The federal government
2. The intended limitations of the federal government.
3. Unalienable rights, opportunity, and prosperity.
4. States rights.
5. What life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is.

Hell, the left can't even get the concept of "life" down...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not one of you will post accept definitions of socialism and marxism, then show Obama meets those definitions.

Not one of you.

This why the libertarian wing and the far right reactionary extremists are the laughing stocks of America.

Romney is going to win. Then he will turn his back on you forever.

 

[percysunshine]

Not one of you will post accept definitions of socialism and marxism, then show Obama meets those definitions.

Not one of you.

This why the libertarian wing and the far right reactionary extremists are the laughing stocks of America.

Romney is going to win. Then he will turn his back on you forever.

Even you must admit that trying to put Obama in a Marxist box is difficult when he keeps exhibiting Fascist tendencies.

I think Obama is trying to be both at the same time. Which is probably why he stares at his shoes during debates.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Not one of you will post accept definitions of socialism and marxism, then show Obama meets those definitions.

Not one of you.

This why the libertarian wing and the far right reactionary extremists are the laughing stocks of America.

Romney is going to win. Then he will turn his back on you forever.

Starkey you're a hypocrit, you never post your definitions either....like the NEW Left or what is MArxism/Comusnism/facisim, ect

So why dont you let us in on your "knowledge"?

 

[American_Jihad]

Not one of you will post accept definitions of socialism and marxism, then show Obama meets those definitions.

Not one of you.

This why the libertarian wing and the far right reactionary extremists are the laughing stocks of America.

Romney is going to win. Then he will turn his back on you forever.

Starkey you're a hypocrit, you never post your definitions either....like the NEW Left or what is MArxism/Comusnism/facisim, ect

So why dont you let us in on your "knowledge"?

Snarkey's head is broken, 36K+ posts and only started one thread in the "rubber room"...