Socialist : an insult ?

The fact is I am not going to repost all that material every time another socialist shows up pretending Obama is not what he is. Go do your research through the archives. You have that option. But what I find interesting is you failed to address any of the information I posted in post # 53.

 

Still not engaging, are you? Another wasted post...

[ETA - Me, a socialist? That's a laugh - in that comment alone you've amply demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for the laugh, though, it'll keep me smiling all day]

 

And yet you still have failed to address any of the info I posted in post # 53. How many times do I have to mention it. And of course you have also failed to show a dimes worth of difference between socialism and communism.

 

And? None of what I heard on those Youtube links demonstrate Marxism as opposed to your common-or-garden social democracy of the western European model. Nothing Soviet bloc, Marxist or (old) eastern European there at all. And as for the argument that he had Marxist friends and teachers, well one of my teachers was a racist, my headmaster (principal) was a local councillor for the Conseravtive Party, one of my friends at school was a socialist, another at university was a member of the Social Democrat Party, still another the Liberal Democrat Party, and one of my friends at Law School was a Conservative; none of that makes me anything of those things. Your argument seems to be based on a bizarre concept of political 'guilt by association'.

That's why I hadn't as yet commented on your links - because those links prove nothing.

 

And this example fails to make an equal and legitimate comparison What is it with libbies and their inability to do that. When all or most of the associations are marxist then it speak to your won ideology. Add to that his own words over the years which i have already posted multiple and previous times.

Sure it is. That is why you constantly stated I had not responded when I had. Given that his Father was a Marxist, two of his mentors Davis and Wright are marxists and his current policies line up with marxism says otherwise. Then again your premise begins falsely that there is a dimes bit of difference between socialism and marxism. So tell me what goal found here does Obama not support?

 

Well, for starters, the CPUSA describes the Democratic Party as 'capitalist', so that's a failry fundamental parting of the ways. Looking at their specific goals, somehow I can't see Obama supporting, for example:

And I'm not convinced that the CPUSA are even consistently socialist, let alone communist, in their aims. Take this nugget, for instance:

That's far closer to social democracy than it is to socialism; socialism calls for the abolition and collectivisation of private property, as practised in the Soviet Union and public ownership of small businesses etc. A 'mixed economy' is social democracy, not socialism.

Sounds like they're as confused as you are...

 

The commies are coming...the commies are coming. Hide under the bed.

Sheesh, somebody needs to inform these dinosaur McCarthy followers that the cold war is over. Communism lost. Time to find a new bogeyman.

 

Well there you go. Everyone else is confused and Matt is the only one who know what he is talking about. Of course you could not refute my point so you resort to everyone else is wrong.

What folks like you do is point to past expressions of socialism/communism as the only example intentionally ignoring that in recent years it has moved into more modern expressions. But I see you are not willing to work in the realm of honesty as is with a number of others on this board.

 

So you're resorting to calling me a liar?!

Wow...just...wow.

 

Sounds like they have: Obama. Except they can't make up their minds whether he's an Islamist, a Marxist, a socialist, a fascist, or what. Talk about confused!

 

So it is your position that the cold war ended communism?

 

Not entirely, but it did take it off the table as the pre-eminent threat to our nation.

 

It also (and in particular the events of 1989-91) dealt it a hefty bodyblow as an idealogy, demonstrating that, basically, it didn't work. Hence I suspect the much more socialist-social democrat program adopted by the CPUSA.

 

They have, his name is President Obama.

 

You are right, only China, Cuba and North Korea claim to be Communist, but none really are. Cuba and North Korea are simply dictatorships and pay no real attention to Marx's political philosophy.

China is now very Capitalistic. The so called 'iron rice bowl' was broken and thrown away years ago under Deng Chow Ping when his "to get rich is glorious" concept was put into force. In 2000 when I worked in China for six months I would tease my Chinese friends telling them that China was more Capitalistic than we are. They had much less regulation of public transportation than here. If you got a license, and they were easy to obtain, and had a van you could run your own bus route in competition with the city buses. The same is true in Russia.

If we move toward Socialism it will look more like the European Social-Democrats than pure Socialism IMHO.

 

Exactly. With perhaps a dose of liberalism thrown in. I would object to the latter far more than the former.

 

Please give us your definition of communism and why you believe that Obama is a communist as well as all the 'libbies" and Democrats.

 

The USA is quickly becoming a corporate fascist state. The bankers and corporitos control the government. It doesn't matter one tiny iota what ideology Obama believes in as long as he follows the orders of the elite.

Something he does quite well btw.

Obama is a marketing creation. Nothing more. His job is to keep us attacking each other (and arguing about stupid things that don't matter like y'all been doing in this here thread) while his masters steal what's left of our national wealth. Is Obama a Marxist? Who cares? It doesn't even matter because he doesn't call the shots anyway. The international banking cartel and the mega conglomerated global corporations do.

Are they Marxists? No, they're just greedy power hungry Malthusians. Who think we'll all serve them much better as fertilizer after they finish stealing us blind.

 

Your analysis is much closer to the reality; to a degree we are all pawns of the international bankers, including former President Bush who, let us not forget, nationalised the banks under pressure from Wall Street, as did our Prime Minister under similar pressure from the City of London, with the consequence that we taxpayers are now shellling out the bankers' bonuses. Ain't life grand?