Posted on 12/14/2012 9:38:57 AM PST by ColdOne
You say he’s not a socialist because socialism does not go far enough. But if I remember correctly both pure socialism and communism desire collective ownership of the means of production. The difference is communists want the state to “wither away” (into what, who knows?). So to say Obama isn’t a socialist because socialism doesn’t go far enough isn’t true. I don’t think he’s thought beyond central control of most of the economy.
No, it just proves that facists (socialists) and liberals lie to everybody, including themselves. Equal opportunity liars.
He’s not lying.
He’s an out and out Communist - endorsed by the CPUSA.
Every time this Marxist Muslim Manchurian IQ challenged, half breed opens his lying mouth, I detest him even more.
He has left socialism in the dust in his quest to “get even” for all perceived injustices carried out by the USA since we became a nation.
He TOLD us that if we wanted to know who he was to look at the people he placed in his administration. Well he has packed it with SELF AVOWED communists, Maoists, revolutionaries so we are on solid ground when we call him out to be a Marxist, communist, Maoist.
He has soiled the land, the country, the Constitution and We The People with his march towards total government dominance in every aspect of our lives. Thomas Jefferson had people like him and 99% of the democrat party in mind during the formulation of our Constitution.
0bama finally tells the truth ,,,, he’s not a SOCIALIST ,,, He’s an ULTRA RADICAL COMMUNIST in the image of Mao Tse Tung .
To be precise, he is a Fascist Socialist.
Yes, Mr. President, I believe you, you aren’t a socialist.
You’re a f*****g communist faggot.
No, he’s a Communist.
Well, there’s an imposter in the WH that looks and speaks just like him that is a communist.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can be pretty sure it’s a Friggin Duck!
Obama’s denials aside, it is a fact that all socialists of every stripe will LIE or worse to advance their cause. Fidel Castro did not reveal his true nature until two years after the Cuban revolution.
One can only pay attention to what he actually says.
He does not deny being a socialist he only says
socialism is mainstream thinking now.
We are in for a terrible time.
Obama is a socialist who pushes things as far left as they can feasibly be pushed within the limits of prevailing political reality. When dodging the issue of his being a socialist, he likes to pretend that his incrementalism makes him not really a socialist.
I’m accepting their terms.
I have always argued that Socialism can never be and was never intended to be its own economic system.
It is a crossroads.
On the path from free-market economies to central planning, you reach the crossroads of Socialism. It is at that point that the free market has been demonized enough to be unpopular and the amount of socialism that has been enacted has already proven itself to be an economic failure and a limiter of civil rights.
At the crossroads of Socialism, a country must either turn left to Communism, or right toward privatization, which eventually heads back to free markets.
I’m not sure those are their terms. I’ve always understood socialism to mean ownership of the means of production by the central government. All finer distinctions and lesser versions and how, exactly, leftist anarchism and communism differ from it, well, after a while it starts sounding like arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
Your assertion that socialism is communism only less so or communism is socalism only moreso I reject. Socialism is the government owning Everything. Communism is one variety of socialism, and it is the dictatorship of the proletariat before a withering away of the state.
You can reject it all you want, but to those who claim they are socialists, there is a difference. That is why Hitler and his National Socialists were at war with Stalin and his Communists.
The socialists claim they do not own the means of production but that they take a large portion of the profits in order to maintain a very large government that provides the necessities to the people and in order to help ‘redistribute’ those profits for the sake of egalitarianism (equality of outcome). The socialists still allow private property and ownership of companies. They rule employers through regulation, not by outright confiscation.
The communists are bold in proclaiming that they own everything outright and they do not allow private property or the accumulation of wealth.
My point was, and I repeat, that the two have as their ultimate goal (whether the socialists will admit it or able to see far enough down that road or can review history honestly enough) Statist totalitarianism.
Socialism is a path toward total state control because eventually the government does run out of money to take from the produces and eventually the producers give up after being robbed enough and the socialist state does not have the funds it needs. So it either reverts back to varying degrees of privatization (free market), or it simply takes over everything and the socialists become communists.
You and I can argue that there is no real difference, and I’d agree with that, but if you try to argue with socialists about why their ideology will ultimately fail and will result in a change of direction (thus my crossroads analogy) you will lose if you do not define the difference between socialism and communism as they differentiate between the two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.