This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Obama a socialist?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
My words are underlined:Did you read the rest of the post sir?
Yep
@redwoodelf. Look into Hitler's Policies. Nazism is separated from the idea of socialism by a wide margin. That is all I am saying. Socialism is the control of public assets and in fact all assets by the people. Communism is the attempts of the Russian and Chinese governments among others to implement those ideals into policy.
Fascism (noun)
(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Let's compare that to Hitlerian Politics, shall we?
Socialism (noun)
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Enlighten me as to where Nazi policy is anywhere close to that?
(Question: How much of control of the land did the average German Jew have in the late 1930's and early 1940's?)
@MyTie just read my actula post, I already argue that the "We the people" and "Of the people" stuff is non inclusive of corporate entities.
You're arguement seems to be that since the constitution doesn't argue for corporations, then it is for socialism. I was just asking you to look at the text and justify governmental ownership of goods.
Either provide an argument or keep quiet.
I just asked you a question. I am allowed to ask you to clarify what you mean in a debate. Am I not?
Moreover, if you are talking about government ownership of commodities, rather than public ownership of commodities, refer to the above definitions. Apparently you want to call Obama a Fascist. What is the difference between society owning goods and government owning goods? I would say that the way government is formed would be the answer. Since we have a part in electing our leaders, it would seem to be a more social ownership of goods. Now that I have put my thoughts forward about the difference between fascism and socialism, perhaps you'll return the favor of answering my question a little better.
Also, please don't pull arguements like "You must think Obama is like Hitler" out of this: And how is this empowering government to control economics? The constitution was there in order to limit government power.It's not going to phase me, and it makes you look tacky.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
And so... how does the "We the people" quote, that explains why they laid down the constitution, a statement of socialist values? Because it doesn't say anything about corporations? I don't understand what that has to do with communism or fascism. I also don't understand what any of that has to do with my views on Obama.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I didn't say ANYTHING about Obama. I asked about the constitution. Then, you make an entire post about Nazism and Fascism, and then say I am comparing Obama to that. Then you roll over and try to play innocent? Don't expect to debate anything with me in the future unless you clean up your tactics first.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
governmental control of property, which is found in either Communism or Fascim, but not Socialism.
What?
social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.
This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society.
Post by
MyTie
If you disagree with him, you are calling Obama a Nazi. If you can't figure this out, you need to GTFO.
Post by
MyTie
And how is this empowering government to control economics? The constitution was there in order to limit government power.Apparently you want to call Obama a Fascist.and I'm just like... lolwut
Post by
Skyfire
governmental control of property, which is found in either Communism or Fascim, but not Socialism.
What?
social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.
This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society.
I don't see anything in that quote which says that government controls the property... Fail.
Post by
MyTie
I don't see anything in that quote which says that government controls the property... Fail.
I'm still trying to figure out a way for equal social control of economics without government intervention. Perhaps you could field some possibilities?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
governmental control of property, which is found in either Communism or Fascim, but not Socialism.
What?
social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.
This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society.
I don't see anything in that quote which says that government controls the property... Fail.
No, what you don't see is it anywhere stating that government can't control property in socialism.
Do my point go that far over your head?
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Where does it say the government CANNOT CONTROL PROPERTY in the encyclopedia Brittanica article on Capitalism.
If it does, then how do we say we have a capitalist system with publicly owned utities?
Capitalism =/= libertarianism
I think you're confused.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
RedwoodElf
Hitler was not against Stalin because of Communism (he was, after all, a Socialist himself) but because of the concept of
Lebensraum
- He wanted territory, and Russia had the most territory near Germany Hitler felt he could conquor.
Good thing Hitler was an idiot who didn't properly study history.
Russia? Winter? Hello, Napoleon!
Post by
MyTie
Is that good enough for you?Satisfactory enough. Though, I haven't seen "socialistic passages", whatever those are.
On the second point at hand, I don't think that socialism and government have to be mutually exclusive.
Edit: I think you might have been joking, but if you want to put together a thesis, I would be interested in reading it. Use my inbox for anything you like, btw.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.