Ron Paul has some very backward ideas that really scare me...but my God is he spot on when it comes to economics, fiat currency, ending the Fed, etc etc. It's really too bad he can't just be put in charge of the country's finances...he'll have to be President to get anything done.
Ron paul is not a Capitalist or Socialist, he is a Corporist. It has burned into my mind, listening to one of his debates, that American people who don't give thousands of dollars to private insurance companies have the;
@TruthinessDotCom You obviously have not paid any attention to what he said about how they treated patients in the '60's before universal health care. He's a doctor you know.
@byouno93 First off, he can reminisce all he wants about the 60s, a lot of good that does in the year 2012. I know he was a Doctor, so was Aribert Heim.
Next time a search & rescue team goes to pull a guy out of the ocean with a basket hanging down from a helicopter, first they need to send the basket down for the guys credit card. Otherwise that is tax dollars being used to provide someone with services they didn't pay for. It's socialism.
This entire American economy is almost an exact "major point" model of the depression in germany prior to WWII, I dont know when it began, around the 1870's?
Federal reserve is private when it is making money and a government entity when it is not. The fed is a socialist entity, it "DISTRIBUTES" the wealth by decreasing the value of everyone else's money by providing printed paper to those who want it. That is as socialist as it gets.Money is a reflection of goods and services created, the fed robs your labor. “If a Central Bank is ever created in America- Through Inflation and Deflation the “Bankers” will Rob The Americans” Thomas Jefferson.
@quinnrasta the Fed doesn't distribute wealth, it merely creates money. the devaluation of currency resulting from money creation is not a distribution of wealth. it's a removal of wealth you could say, but not a distribution of wealth. whose money isn't affected negatively by inflation? are there some that are immuned to inflation? of course not. inflation affects everyone's currency equally. the more I look at your comment the more I think you're another ill-informed teabagger, so nevermind.
@dunkafelic The money created has value, it just takes the value of production that is represented by the dollars earned, so when the money is distributed to banks or the federal gov it is REDISTRIBUTED to stimulus projects or whatever the government decides to spend it on. It REMOVES wealth from everyone equally yes, but if I had no money before and I get printed money it still has value so again it has been REDISTRIBUTED. Try knowing what you are talking, you sound like a dumbass
@quinnrasta Yes, a 2 year-old knows money has value. As far as the Fed being responsible in any way for a redistribution of wealth in the USA is ludacris. That word has become the torch that right-wingers love to hold, but it's in no way relevant here. Maybe go after entitlement programs instead as your teabagger brethren are doing so passionately. The Fed does not distribute wealth,
If I give you a quarter will you use it to buy a clue? I think you should.
@dunkafelic I buy you books and all you do is eat the covers. Does the Fed shell out money that its prints? Is it the lender of last resort? Does the fed print money & devalue the currency? Let me ask you a question Karl, where do people get money that do not ave any? The feds lends money that is prints directly. Take for example QE1 and QE2 where they printed and sent the banks billions of dollars which was used to buy T-bonds... while devaluing the dollar and distributed to the shareholders
The Federal Reserve is a socialist institution. Why just the other day, I voted for the President of the FOMC. Oh...wait...no I didn't. I actually have zero decision in what the Fed does. Ohhhh...I guess that means it is private.
Duh
Never mind the fact it pays dividends to secret member banks. Yeah, that's super social right there.
ATTENTION AMERICAN PEOPLE RON PAUL IS BRAINWASHING AND PROMISISNG YOU JOBS, HE FROGOT THAT POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B, HE IS SELLING HIS BOOK AND MAKES ALOTS OF MONEY, RON PAUL DELIVERED OVER 4000 BABIES IF ANY OF YOU HAVE SCOLIOSIS(CURVE OF THE SPINE DUE TO CHILDBIRTH) BECAUSE OF RON PAUL , WE WILL FILE A LAWSUIT, PLEASE DONT TAKE ANTIDEPRESSANTS AND BE SAD IN UR BED , WAKE UP LET HIM PAY FOR YOUR CURVED BACK DOESNT MATTER HOW MANY DEGREES IS YOUR SCOLIOSIS. PSYCHOS HAVE NO EMPATHY !
Ok here's one. Ron Paul claims to be a libertarian but supports the 'right' of states to define who's a citizen, and to tell you who can adopt who can marry and what you can do with your body. That's a completely antilibertarian stance, you can't be a libertarian and support the right of the government (state or federal) to do that.
Here's another. He claims to be a constitutionalist but wants to repeal birthright citizenship.
socialism? obviously what we are doing isn't fucking working. some repub's will just cry socialism every time the democrats want to make a big change. politics is so retarded.
@capenati the dollar won't die (at least not until the US has well and truly descended into mediocrity). It will become less and less relevant though, as the global economy picks up on the renminbi, Australian dollar, yen, pound sterling and euro. The world doesn't necessarily depend on the US dollar - the US economy is another thing, but devaluation of the dollar won't necessarily result in a collapse of the economy. the dollar won't, in any case, die overnight.
Ron Paul saw it before time-A person with a vision!
I'm surprise that there is out-there still some-one that make sence!
Do you think-Aipac-Adl OSEH & and all other E. Europians & Italia-Russians Jews-Mafia-ELITE give a rats who people vote for (they don't even buther to counts the vots)-(from some reason E. Europe wanted to see America & American people on the negative side)!
She didn't have a fucking clue what he said towards the end. I agree with some of the posters as to why this guy wastes his time and energy going on trash programs like this.
The word "socialized" does not mean "nationalized". Socialization is a phenomenon of capitalism in which production becomes centralized and labor becomes a social relationship through the mass congregation of workers in the workplace. This can be seen with the growth of big business and the decline in family businesses. Ron Paul means to say "nationalized" which means state ownership.
@Adlasyn you start to walk a slippery slope when you state what someone "means" to say. there are a whole lot of politicians on the right throwing the "S" word around these days...riding the wave of fear in order to thegain popularity and support among concerned (and fearful) citizens.
the Fed is not owned by the state. the Fed is a private bank that works closely with the treasury department and manipulates the valuation of the dollar when it's deemed necessary by those calling the shots.
@dunkafelic I would agree. The healthcare bill of the Democrats isn't really nationalisation, it's something far more diluted than that. It's quite amazing that people manage to call something so watered down as "Socialism". At most Obama is a social capitalist, and certainly not a socialist. By European standards the Democrats would be considered quite right-wing. Besides the dictatorships of the 20th century certainly don't follow the traditional definition of socialism.
@Adlasyn this is cause any attempt to create socialism so far ended up with dictatorship. That's why sane people try to keep as far from socialism as possible
@Adlasyn Capitalism = Privately owned means of production. Socialism = Public means of production. Ron Paul is correct in his use of the term "Socialized". The verb Nationalize, definition: Socialize. Note: Nationalize means to put under state control or ownership.......I.E. Socialism. Make sense?? For the second part of your comment. . "Socialization is a phenomenon of capitalism". Socialization, definition: the act or process of making socialistic...........continuted in follow up comment
@Adlasyn The growth of big business and the decline in family businesses is not an expression of "socialization". It is a result of humans acting freely in their own self interest. It's an expression of Supply and Demand. Citizens give up ownership up their labor in favor of high taxation and socialism, believing it is in their own self interest. Wealthy citizens can often buy freedom in the absence of Capitalism. Freedom that the small business owner cannot afford to pay for.
@66chevyo Socialisation is the centralisation of production, as opposed to the decentralised economy of pre-capitalist times. It is a marxian economic term used to describe a characteristic of developed capitalism. I has nothing to do with state ownership. People just like to make state ownership sound scarier so they use a word that sounds like "socialism".
@Adlasyn Marx coined the word. The term "Socialism" has since evolved. There is no "true" Socialism. Words like "state capitalism", and "libertarian socialism" are merely code words for Socialism. The failure of Socialism has motivated it's subscribers to relabel it. People can slap any label over it that feels good and proclaim it "true" Socialism. Socialism = public means of production. It is the polar opposite of Capitalism. The world will have Capitalism sooner or later. Even the U.S.
Anarchist communists--the first political radicals to call themselves libertarians---were doing so a half century before the conclusion of the Russian Revolution,much less the rise of Stalinism.
Secondly,the word socialism has no definite origins but it's generally attributed to french social reformers,most notably Pierre Leroux.It's actually the British that have the longest historical application of the idea.
socialism is a phenomenon of capitalism? no it isn't. true socialism a phenomenon of democracy, and capitalism is anything but democratic. just because we're a democratic society with a capitalist system does not make capitalism democratic, because it most definitely is not. socialism, by it's very definition, IS democratic.
Paul said "socialism" not "nationalism". how can you correct what he "means to say"? doesn't he know the difference? and you're merely ASSUMING what he means.
Question for supporters of capitalism, is there enough space in society for everyone to do his own thing? The fact that you live in geographically specific area, with defined boundaries and a government makes all of you social people, which means what you do has an impact on others. What if pursuing your interest means destroying natural resources, and my interest is about nurturing the beauty of creation. i do not see how freedom, govenrment an capitalism can work. Think people.
can socialism and freedom work? can communism and civil liberties co exist? those are my questions to you. history has shown that the stronger government you have, the bigger it is, the less civil liberties you have, freedom leaves when government enters. what do you propose for us to do? neither system works even Castro admits communist economy doesn't work, and some capitalists hate there system, so what other way is there?
@scienceatheism Thank you for these intelligent remarks. There is one important thing I want to stress. Systems are not people, people make systems. There is only one way out of these entrapments. It has been echoed by the great wise men of the past. Love you neighbour as yourself and you will not need government. I believe this will be possible a very long time from now, not now though. In political terms, I will propose a system that is based on total respect for nature and the human condition
@scienceatheism The profit based economy which most advocates of freedom acknowledge, will take us all in one direction, war over control of capital and natural resources. Till date no government has actually represented the people and the earth, but themselves. For there to be a radical transformation we need technologies that will destroy the need for humans to work to survive, so men can have more time to engage in creative activities and connect with their natural environment.
@scienceatheism The problem is not government but who controls government. Unitl men have attained the spiritual maturity to rule themelves we will need government. Government however run by the most qualified individuals and not by a cabal of greedy and 'soul-empty' humans. The greatest gift we can ever give ourselves is to be able to think independently and maturely with utmost respect and consideration for others.
@scienceatheism If you are American then you should understand the concept of 'We the People', unless we the people empower ourselves and stop selling our freedoms cheap for illusory security, then i am afraid neither capitalism, socialism, communism will work. We humans make the system work until we understand each an everyone of us is important not just the rich and powerful, then there might be no future here for the human race. Everyone is important , that is my philosophy.
we the people, as in all americans only speak of individual freedom nothing about what you propose. and thats what this country is about is the individual right to succeed and to fail. it isnt about the rich what i am speaking of is the individual right to obtain riches. if i work hard for what i got, then i deserve it. people have no right to tell me what i should or shouldnt with my company, with my money, or what is morally right or wrong. thats the essence of this country..cont..
..cont.. what you speak of isnt this country, its no country, its the very idea john lennon thinks of. what if there was no country, no possession, no loyalty, nothing to call your own. but then i ask you where is your individual identity?
@scienceatheism Will I please remind you the country you know believe is yours by right, was siezed by force from those who like you thought they could live freely nd do what they want(Red Indians). The American way is the way of selfishness, and can only be sustained through force. You want to live free then find an island and live there, If however you decide to live in an organised society, you need to realise your very subsitence depends on others.
yeah true, im not denying the history of our country what im saying is the reason why we was even created was for freedom from the country our ancestors originate from. all native americans was degraded and raped from there land, south americans, north americans, raped by europeans. not white people only, because the spaniards was also the culprit. but thats beside the point, my people was just as oppressed as much as those we oppressed. doesnt make it right but its true..cont..
..cont.. yes we depend on others im also not denying this fact, but what im saying is that the riches i obtain is mine and mine alone. no one should be able to tell me what i should do with it. what i speak of is freedom of success. and i choose to pay taxes its a choice, because i love my country and what it stands for. democracy and the republic to me screams freedom. life liberty and the pursuit of happiness or the pursuit of possession. john lockes philosophy...cont..
@scienceatheism You need others to buy the goods and services you provide, meaning you cannot really claim to be free. To be truly free means to provide for your own without the need for other humans. To be an individual is far bigger than having earthly possessions, you cannot define who you are in terms of what you have, you were born naked, meaning you cannot even claim you own anything, because when you die you leave everything.
..cont.. and i understand where you are coming from with the idea of freedom, to truly be free is to live like animals basically and living like an animal isnt a bad thing but it isnt good if you want a stable society. but im loyal to 2 things and thats my life and the life of my loved ones, i help my fellow man but it isnt as important as living my life the way i want to. call me selfish i dont care, but you have to draw a line to whats selfish and whats an individual?
@scienceatheism Then we are thinking the same. I did not call you selfish. I belive you are a decent human being who only wants to live his life, I think we all deserve that. However we live on a planet where rules have been made to favour some and not all. Really you shouldnt be told how to live your life. However how we live our lives has an impact on others and the environment. Indifference always seems a good option as long as one is not directly affected. The cost of indifference..........
didnt say you called me selfish. i was just saying. but we live on a planet full of greedy mindless pricks, that find ways to exploit others from many different means, from religion to government sometimes both in worst cases both. greed is not only the root of all evil its ugly sister is pride. you will always have "favors" if we always have pride and greed. we will never get rid of that we are humans.
@scienceatheism I checked this Ron Paul speech at tea party, copy and paste "Ron Paul speech to Tea Party uncensored ". If what he says is what you are trying to point out here then I agree with you 100%.
@scienceatheism It takes a lot of humility to understand that the world does not belong to you or I or anybody else. We all die and leave everything behind. What matters is what we do of the limited time we have on earth, some prefer to pile up wealth which they will not carry to the grave others try to make life better for the human race, and other still simply do not give a damn about others. Where you fall in these categories determin who you are, that's your identity.
@scienceatheism True people have no right to tell you what to do with the works of your hands. Talking about freedom are you free not to pay taxes? The freedom to do as you will is pushing companies to outsource jobs overseas, Americans seem not to be happy with that. You cannot vie for freedom when it suits your interest and then vote and support wars when freedom seems to work against you. It is not possible to be free in organised society, unless there is sufficient space for all to be rich.
@scienceatheism I m loyal to one thing a human being. With my knowledge of the world i will never be loyal to a country or a society. I have loyalty towards any human being who has respect for life and other humans. That is what individual freedom means to me, blind adherence to nationalistic rhetoric is the true mark of a slave.
@fixrifex I'll give my take on your question. Currently the earth is physically big enough for all individuals to pursue their own self interest. The division of labor makes people social. NOT Government. Government is merely the social contract people are willing to largely accept without fighting back. Geographically, people best know what THEIR needs are. That's why independent sovereignty and decentralized governing are so important. People take care of property when it is privately owned.
@dunkafelic Exactly. The fact that we have a Private bank in this country that controls our monsy supply and mankes monetary policy, should direct us towards fascism not socialism. Any case that is presented for defining all of this as socialism will fail.
@waterhead001 you hit the nail on the head. we keep hearing fear-mongerers throwing the word socialism around when I've been seeing us head more and more toward fascism. look at the relationship between the bush/cheney administration and halliburton, or the fact that the entire treasury department is made up of people that worked for goldman-sachs, going back and forth between the private and public sectors, from big banks to the treasury department and back again. that's what we should fear.
@dunkafelic WOW! Most of the time when I say that this isnt socialism I get told Im brainwashed. I was surprised you agree with me. People who claim that Obama is a socialist can't define socialism. Like Bush he is not. Obama and Bush are the same in my opinion controlled puppets by the same people: The one's you mentioned. The one's that own the banks and wall street and the corporations. This talk of socialism etc is a smoke screen while fascism has been incremented.
@waterhead001 that's ironic, because the people who really ARE brainwashed are the ones throwing the word socialism around. by far the most socialist president was FDR, and the people loved him. that's why he was elected THREE times. Obama isn't doing anything close to what FDR did, and it's too bad.
what people fail to understand is that socialism, like capitalism, is everywhere throughout the world,
our public libraries and schools, police and fire depts, post offices, etc...socialism.
@dunkafelic Well, conservatives like to portray FDR as a socialist because of the new deal. But, I dont think he was a Marxist type socialist. I see your point. Socialism, I think is dtermined by the amount of Government ownership or control over corporate entities and the means of production. During the 20's and 30's the Republicans and the Plutocratic rich were in love with Moussolini. Their decendants seem to be in love with him and fascism too.
@coturnix19 yeah they did. does that surprise you? that's how one gains power....by winning the popularity of the people.
Hitler was VERY popular in germany at one time too.
Reagan was popular here even though he crushed millions of americans with his economic policies. he's STILL popular among the wealthy, because they gained what the less fortunate lost under his policies.
trickle-down economics is great for the rich and greedy, but it doesn't work for the economy as a whole.
@dunkafelic you naive people.... fed can be the most private bank ever, but as long as its powers are guaranteed by the government - is a government agency from market point of view. If it walks like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, than what is it? That's right, it's a duck!
@coturnix19 The Fed is not a government agency just because it works in cooperation with the government. The Fed decides when and how much to raise the interest rates, not the government.
you wanna call a duck a duck? in that case call it what it is....fascism.
big business is taking over, so if you want someone to blame, blame Goldman-Sachs because they're making the calls from the treasury department (where they alternate positions between the white house and the bank...back and forth).
the money supply has to be centralized, there's no other way to do it.
we saw what happens when utilities are deregulated and decentralized, so imagine what would happen if we did the same with our money supply.
a controlled and regulated monopoly is in the peoples' best interest when it comes to huge infrastructural systems such as water, electricity, and the money supply.
so yes the government had a hand in the Fed's creation and existence, but it is in no way socialism
collusion between big business, in this case big private banks (like the Fed, the World Bank and the IMF), and the government points more toward fascism than socialism. it's actually contrary to true socialism, as the citizens have no say in the decision-making process. true capitalism is much more democratic than capitalism ever could be, and fascism arises out of rampant corporate greed, combined with political corruption and collusion.
@dunkafelic There's Capitalism (privately owned means of production), and Socialism (Public means of production). Ever Socialist believes their dogma is the only TRUE Socialism. The State uses force against the privately owned production of money with "Legal Tender" laws. The FED is more powerful than the Executive Branch. The FED IS the state. It's powers are "public" powers. It's production is "public". It reigns truly supreme over you and ALL privately owned production. That is Socialism.
@dunkafelic The FED does this with state power. That makes it the STATE. The FED is more powerful than the executive branch. When the state creates "legal tender" laws and monopolizes the production of money with violence. That's Socialism (public means of production). When you are ordained with state power, you are no longer a "private" citizen. Bernanke is the real leader of the U.S.. Obama is akin to the FED's General Manager. He does all the bitch work and takes all the heat. The public Czar
I apologize for bringing up a comment from so long ago
But when the fed is printing money to give to congress to pay for entitlement programs (or any spending for that matter), that creates a devaluation of the currency.
yes of course, creating new currency and putting more money into circulation devalues the currency already in existence (inflation). it's interesting that you correlate money creation with "entitlement programs" though rather than something like, say, footing the bill for multiple wars.
actually I believe you were making it a left vs. right thing with your initial comment. I was merely bringing objectivity to your point by using an alternate example. I agreed with your point, just not with the biased, one-sided example. I find it ironic that you feel *I* was the one making it a left vs. right thing for merely trying to level out the biased statement that you made....but ok.
Listen to the EXTREMELY Important and Powerful Message from Dr. Charles Stanley on this subject: intouch.org Video recorded on July 4th 2010 titled – Turning The Tide…..ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!!! A Must See!!
It's just harder to distinguish government from business. Government is just taking a leadership role in their reprehensible and unholy partnership with gigantic corporations. Yeah this is a republican talking!
@mongoose704 I hear you, the problem is that...they are crossing the line in many instances. The international corporations know no boundaries and when they break a law, the fine they pay is like a business expense!
If everyone knows that health care isn't free, how come Obama and everyone else, even SCHOOLS, call it FREE health care?
Because many believe IT IS FREE. Others to make you BELIEVE it is. It is the younger people that fall for it. They are the most impressionable age group and polticians and schools will tell them that it is really free. They won't tell you that the property and wealth of others is being illegally seized to pay for it. They won't tell you it is a form of slavery.
But socialism cannot exist. There are no sociliats nations. Socialism is utopian.
What we see today in Europe, Asia and America is something far worse than socialism. What we see today is the partnership between government and government licensed and protected billionaire corporations.
It is called corporatism. Given America's nationalist foreign policy, we can safely call us Fascist.
Obama is more of a corporatist. In fact we embrace corporatism (a partnership between government and business) because if anything goes wrong, the government can blame the company for not managing some number properly.
Socialism (government management of the means of production) will eventually fail politically everywhere because in a crisis there is nobody for government to blame but itself.
I read Marx back in college. I read Mein Kampf and did a report on it. Know your enemy I always say. I am interested in the history of the former Soviet Union from Nicholas to the fall of the Soviet State. I oppose war unless in self defense of a direct attack. I believe government's role is to protect civil and economic liberty. I oppose economic anarchy but I feel government has intervened too much into our economy and am for open and competitive markets.
@mongoose704 For these points, I respect you, I'm guessing you studied history. A subject I too love. I am, what many would call a "conditional pacifist" In that, I'd never be the one attacking first. Perhaps it's not a case of the Government interfering too much, more a case of when they do interfere, they do it badly? Up until 2 days ago before that prick David Cameron took over my country, we had a Socialist governement.
@mongoose704 cont. government that regularly inteferes with our economy, and although in we have economic problems, we're not doing too badly. For all the crap you Americans have given it, our healthcare system does work, and it works bloody well too. If I feel under the weather I can just book an appointment woth my GP and within a few days see him/her, and not have to worry about bills I can't pay or expensive insurance.
@rimfa123 Your health care isn't free. It is being payed for with the property and wealth of others. I get health care in America when I need it as well. Over 50% of health care is financed by our government. You might not be paying for it at the office, but if you are working you are being taxed for it. Your government borrows to pay for it.
There isn't one place on the planet where health care is "free." The term "free health care" is propaganda.
@mongoose704 To be honest, I don't think anyone is actually stupid enough to think healthcare is paid for out of thin air. I would never go so far as asking people that work to give a minute amount of their income to people that work but haven't got the intelliegnce or cultural capital to earn as much. Of course, like you I'm guessing, I'd draw the line at lazy people whom refuse to actually contribute anything to society. And that comes from someone with a middle class background.
@rimfa123 Never underestimate the ignorance and stupidity of people 8^)
Yes I have encountered people that actually believe it is free. That is verified by the fact that politicians, who are masters in the art of deception, always refer to it as "free." Propaganda is used because it works.
But in a sense it is paid for by MONEY CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR. Alas in the end, the government only has a printing press.
The worst form of socialism is National Socialism ala the NAZI party. Marxist-Leninist Socialism is a close second.
Democratic socialism? I find I have a bit in common with them. They are usually anti-war and pro civil liberty which is precisely where I stand. We disagree on the issue of economic liberty and the government's role in it.
BTW Obama isn't a socialist. He is worse. He is a corporatist (which is soft fascism.)
I can actually post a link to where you can find a book written by Robert Servive called "comrades" if you read even the first two chapters, you would realise what a show of yourself you're making.
@mongoose704 BRW, scienctific studies conducted MANY years ago displayed that the size of a human brain has absolutely no effect on their intelliegence, "pea-brain" not only was that mature, it was creative, and I can tell you now, it had me crying with laughter! You know what they say? "It's easy to condemn, without looking in the mirror".
True socialism cannot exist in its pure form. The closest we can come to it is through the brutality of totalitarian, terrorist socialism of the type Lenin, Salin and Demorats embrace.
Last time I checked, it's called inflation, not inflationism... anyway, Marx's ideology is morally and economically flawed, and Chuck Norris would have chopped his head off with a round house kick.
Ron Paul you are clueless,Nationalisation of the means of production= State run Capitalism,the workers remain wage slaves forced to sell their labour power to the state employer in return for a Wage/salary.
Ron Paul you are clueless,Nationalisation of the means of production= State run Capitalism,the workers remain wage slaves forced to sell their labour power to the state employer in return for a Wage/salary.
Capitalism comes from capital-ism. A system in which capital is owned by someone. In the USSR the capital was owned by the government. So a select few owned the capital.
Socialism means workers control the means of production. Collective ownership, and not state ownership.
@pulsatingremedy Shitler was a brownshirted commie pinko. Chuck Norris would've stuffed a Texas sized boot up his goosestepping ass with one swift roundhouse kick.
@pulsatingremedy LOL Hitler was a Fascist that took over the controle of business, Took over the controle of the main Auto company (V.W.) .Demonised the aponants of his social agenda with the ideal of creating a blind fallowing population, He had the IDEALS of a one world nation, Nationalisation of Health care, and an indroctrination of the youth that comunity should be above personal gain and accomplishment, Now just replace the V.W. with G.M. and who's name comes up ?
@pulsatingremedy Actually he was appointed Chancellor, not President, by Hindenburg whose state of mind was seriously in question. He was old and extremely fatigued, likely in the stages of alzheimers or dimentia. Hitler was never President. He was given dictatorial authority in the Enabling Act by the Reichstag which was surrounded by armed, marching stormtroopers.
@mongoose704 So it wasn't conservtive ideology that caused Hindenburg to appoint Hitler. He actually had hoped to be able to contain Hitler by naming him Chancellor. In the prior Presidential election Hitler actually forced a runoff election and was a serious political threat and had clout. Hindenburg had no respect, love, admiration for Hitler or his ideology. He made the mistake, like so many did, of underestimating Hitler.
What you say about Hindenburg is just silly. He was very well aware of risks of making Hitler Reichskanzler. He was pursuaded by Von Papen, a conservative.
Orwell reminds us that deception and debasing language is inherent to socialism. Today socialists and communists change the meaning of "socialism" to exclude all bad examples of their system like Stalin, Lenin and the USSR. Furthermore they now claim those are all examples of capitalism. Socialists and commies have always been trying to tell us 2+2=5, debasing language, or that it really said all pigs are created equal. Sanitizing socialism is like sanitizing Nazism.
I see alot of people talking about how communism is good. And indeed it is for those in power! If you are not the one in power then you have no say over anything including your own life! You know kinda like America is getting closer and closer, and I'm sad to say it. It is going to take alot more people like me who want to restore this nation to her former glory. And it will probably take violence, because the government is already doing whatever they'd like and completely ignoring all of us!!!
@cenochs Socialism and communism are brutal, tyrannical, elitist systems that are inherently undemocratic.
You cannot have socialism or communism without collective property ownership and that only way those can be collectivized is through brutality, tyranny and terrorism.
@cenochs However I will say that most Americans are given only a sunshine view of socialism from their propaganda pushers. Most people here that claim to be socialist have no idea what socialism is. In fact, most of them are actually welfare statists which is different than socialism (no collective ownership of property or the means of production.)
Marxist communism is a classless stateless society. This is obviously not the ideology that Stalin followed. Instead Stalin had his own ideology, which we call Stalinism.
The lowest class is the working class. The highest class is the bourgeoisie.
What makes the bourgeoisie the highest class? It is oppression. The bourgeoisie controls the means of production, and no one else is allowed to use them without having to give the product as payment.
If the workers control the means of production, there is no more oppression.
Also I think you understood Marx wrong, you might be well off by reading some of his works.
Exactly. Collective property ownership is impossible thus socialism is impossible.
There are two methods to achieve a system that is close to collectivbe proparty ownership.
The corporate-bureacratic model. The preferred method of Democratic Socialists
Or the Marxist Leninist model whereby the State owns it but claims themselves as representatives of the collective. The preferred method of totalitarians.
I do agree that Marx's vision was a classless, stateless society.
But Lenin saw Marx in err and that collective property ownership, the final state of true Marxism, would never come about without the creation of a selected, elite class who are given total power to terrorize and brutalize the public into surrendering their possessions to the collective. He also saw the folly of collective property ownership.
Name one Marxist society that has existed? 0! It cannot exist!
BTW to speak of Communism as a political movement that mirrors Marxist Leninism and Stalinism is absolutely correct. The word "communist" in the work of Marx was a metaphor of a marxist society, not a party or political movement. Torotsky used the word Communist as a name of their political movement. Thus it is accurate to call the Soviet system and the resulting terror, COMMUNIST.
Communist replaced Bolshevik and thats what communism as a political movement stands for.
And let's face it: Accordng to Marx, socialism IS collective property ownership which cannot and will not ever exist...
without the creation of an all powerful terrorist State to take ownership of said property to represent on behalf of the proletariat as collectivism..
through the tactic of brutality and terrorism. "There is no socialism without terror."
Yeah the socilaist nutlickers love to debase the English language and academia so they can change the definition of socialism to eliminate any negativity.
Taking Stalin, The USSR and Lenin out of socialism is like taking Hitler out of Nazism.
The Ussr was not socialist in the real meaning of the word. The main element of socialism is that the workers are in control of production-economic democracy. This was simply not the case in the USSR. I support true socialism, but i detest the USSR
Why do you support something that cannot and will never exist which is collective property ownership?
I oppose all attempts to realize an unrealistic system. Lenin was horrifically correct when he said there can be no socialism without an elite government head state with total power to terrorize the individuals into giving up their possessions to the collective.
Socialism as a politcal movement cannot be seperated form the horrific and barbaric brutality of lenin and stalin.
The USSR and is not SOCIALISM get this into your small head. I am a member of a socialistic party in my country i know what i am. And i am not a USSR supporter.
@mongoose704 Well im not sure if lenin did ever say that, i doubt if he ever did he said it in public. and even if he did say it, so what? he was a barbaric totalitarian, and i dont no about you, but i tend not to take my advice from mass murderers??
and socialism is and will be the natural progression of how people live with each other. yes its being kept down by an extremly powerful elite, but their power is fragile, and when they fall we will live as one^^
But Lenin was a realist, and was absolutely correct in noting Karl Marx's great error that the bourgeoisie have not nor will they ever willingly give up their property to the collective (and by definition socialism IS collective property ownership and does not exist without it) without a small select elite given total power to terrorize the public. Name one society where there is collective property ownership? The closest thing to that is a corporation.
Marx did argue that it would be a natural progression....
but part of that progression would be violent revolution by the proletariat. He was also very clear that the final state would be ANTI-DEMOCRATIC: "Pure communism."
And that is socialism. It has been sanitized and revised by propagandists and apologists over the years but history records what socialism truly is and will always be.
Now I find a lot of people that call themselves socialists who are really welfare statists.
Ron Paul has some very backward ideas that really scare me...but my God is he spot on when it comes to economics, fiat currency, ending the Fed, etc etc. It's really too bad he can't just be put in charge of the country's finances...he'll have to be President to get anything done.
DJFLDJFL 1 month ago
Thank god for some goddamn common sense.ron paul to save this country
Psilocybong420 2 months ago
Ron paul is not a Capitalist or Socialist, he is a Corporist. It has burned into my mind, listening to one of his debates, that American people who don't give thousands of dollars to private insurance companies have the;
"Constitutional right to die."
TruthinessDotCom 2 months ago
@TruthinessDotCom You obviously have not paid any attention to what he said about how they treated patients in the '60's before universal health care. He's a doctor you know.
byouno93 1 month ago
@byouno93 First off, he can reminisce all he wants about the 60s, a lot of good that does in the year 2012. I know he was a Doctor, so was Aribert Heim.
TruthinessDotCom 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Next time a search & rescue team goes to pull a guy out of the ocean with a basket hanging down from a helicopter, first they need to send the basket down for the guys credit card. Otherwise that is tax dollars being used to provide someone with services they didn't pay for. It's socialism.
Friedstuffsable 2 months ago
This entire American economy is almost an exact "major point" model of the depression in germany prior to WWII, I dont know when it began, around the 1870's?
ddddcheaper 3 months ago
Federal reserve is private when it is making money and a government entity when it is not. The fed is a socialist entity, it "DISTRIBUTES" the wealth by decreasing the value of everyone else's money by providing printed paper to those who want it. That is as socialist as it gets.Money is a reflection of goods and services created, the fed robs your labor. “If a Central Bank is ever created in America- Through Inflation and Deflation the “Bankers” will Rob The Americans” Thomas Jefferson.
quinnrasta 5 months ago
@quinnrasta the Fed doesn't distribute wealth, it merely creates money. the devaluation of currency resulting from money creation is not a distribution of wealth. it's a removal of wealth you could say, but not a distribution of wealth. whose money isn't affected negatively by inflation? are there some that are immuned to inflation? of course not. inflation affects everyone's currency equally. the more I look at your comment the more I think you're another ill-informed teabagger, so nevermind.
dunkafelic 3 months ago
@dunkafelic The money created has value, it just takes the value of production that is represented by the dollars earned, so when the money is distributed to banks or the federal gov it is REDISTRIBUTED to stimulus projects or whatever the government decides to spend it on. It REMOVES wealth from everyone equally yes, but if I had no money before and I get printed money it still has value so again it has been REDISTRIBUTED. Try knowing what you are talking, you sound like a dumbass
quinnrasta 3 months ago
@quinnrasta Yes, a 2 year-old knows money has value. As far as the Fed being responsible in any way for a redistribution of wealth in the USA is ludacris. That word has become the torch that right-wingers love to hold, but it's in no way relevant here. Maybe go after entitlement programs instead as your teabagger brethren are doing so passionately. The Fed does not distribute wealth,
If I give you a quarter will you use it to buy a clue? I think you should.
dunkafelic 3 months ago
@dunkafelic I buy you books and all you do is eat the covers. Does the Fed shell out money that its prints? Is it the lender of last resort? Does the fed print money & devalue the currency? Let me ask you a question Karl, where do people get money that do not ave any? The feds lends money that is prints directly. Take for example QE1 and QE2 where they printed and sent the banks billions of dollars which was used to buy T-bonds... while devaluing the dollar and distributed to the shareholders
quinnrasta 3 months ago
The Federal Reserve is a socialist institution. Why just the other day, I voted for the President of the FOMC. Oh...wait...no I didn't. I actually have zero decision in what the Fed does. Ohhhh...I guess that means it is private.
Duh
Never mind the fact it pays dividends to secret member banks. Yeah, that's super social right there.
aluisious 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATTENTION AMERICAN PEOPLE RON PAUL IS BRAINWASHING AND PROMISISNG YOU JOBS, HE FROGOT THAT POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B, HE IS SELLING HIS BOOK AND MAKES ALOTS OF MONEY, RON PAUL DELIVERED OVER 4000 BABIES IF ANY OF YOU HAVE SCOLIOSIS(CURVE OF THE SPINE DUE TO CHILDBIRTH) BECAUSE OF RON PAUL , WE WILL FILE A LAWSUIT, PLEASE DONT TAKE ANTIDEPRESSANTS AND BE SAD IN UR BED , WAKE UP LET HIM PAY FOR YOUR CURVED BACK DOESNT MATTER HOW MANY DEGREES IS YOUR SCOLIOSIS. PSYCHOS HAVE NO EMPATHY !
democratsaresmart 7 months ago
I still have not found any inconsistencies in Paul's comments over his entire career. Ron Paul 2012!!!!
friedoctorock 8 months ago 5
@friedoctorock You just didn't notice them.
Ok here's one. Ron Paul claims to be a libertarian but supports the 'right' of states to define who's a citizen, and to tell you who can adopt who can marry and what you can do with your body. That's a completely antilibertarian stance, you can't be a libertarian and support the right of the government (state or federal) to do that.
Here's another. He claims to be a constitutionalist but wants to repeal birthright citizenship.
Laughingblades 1 week ago
All 12 people that voted 'thumbs up' for that top comment are dumb asses for believing that the Federal Reserve is private.
andyottito1 8 months ago
@andyottito1
uh no..the Federal Reserve IS private. Don't be fooled by the name just because it has the word "Federal" in it...
Iceman78985 8 months ago
@andyottito1 I'd feel like the dumb ass if I said that... all you had to do was google it ;)
rhth79 7 months ago
Sweden has a society which is pretty much socialist and it's a gr8 place to live.
maggru91 8 months ago
socialism? obviously what we are doing isn't fucking working. some repub's will just cry socialism every time the democrats want to make a big change. politics is so retarded.
dr0by1 8 months ago
If the dollar dies, the entire world's economy collapses, in other words a new great depression.
capenati 8 months ago
@capenati the dollar won't die (at least not until the US has well and truly descended into mediocrity). It will become less and less relevant though, as the global economy picks up on the renminbi, Australian dollar, yen, pound sterling and euro. The world doesn't necessarily depend on the US dollar - the US economy is another thing, but devaluation of the dollar won't necessarily result in a collapse of the economy. the dollar won't, in any case, die overnight.
kenan6346 8 months ago
Ron Paul saw it before time-A person with a vision!
I'm surprise that there is out-there still some-one that make sence!
Do you think-Aipac-Adl OSEH & and all other E. Europians & Italia-Russians Jews-Mafia-ELITE give a rats who people vote for (they don't even buther to counts the vots)-(from some reason E. Europe wanted to see America & American people on the negative side)!
src438 9 months ago
i am happy i am wise enough to realize this but sad because fellow humans cant seem to get a grasp on whats really happening
jeffy12 9 months ago
Ron Paul for 2012!
Baptistfire1611 9 months ago
RON PAUL 2012!
USARMYSOLDGE 10 months ago
She didn't have a fucking clue what he said towards the end. I agree with some of the posters as to why this guy wastes his time and energy going on trash programs like this.
Twissovski 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MARXIST PHILOSOPHY
1. Consciousness comes from material existence.(materialism, i.e. no god)
2. Class is a relationship to the means of production.
3. Classes are always in conflict.
4. Change is due to the conflict between opposing forces(dialectics)
danielc1112 1 year ago
OMG. im a fool. i havent listened to Ron Paul until now. Tea Party get behind this man. I would vote for him to be president
trigger0704 1 year ago
I feel sorry for Paul he has to talk to all the dumbass people from FOX NEWS.
carnypimp 1 year ago
Comment removed
carnypimp 1 year ago
The word "socialized" does not mean "nationalized". Socialization is a phenomenon of capitalism in which production becomes centralized and labor becomes a social relationship through the mass congregation of workers in the workplace. This can be seen with the growth of big business and the decline in family businesses. Ron Paul means to say "nationalized" which means state ownership.
Adlasyn 1 year ago 15
@Adlasyn you start to walk a slippery slope when you state what someone "means" to say. there are a whole lot of politicians on the right throwing the "S" word around these days...riding the wave of fear in order to thegain popularity and support among concerned (and fearful) citizens.
the Fed is not owned by the state. the Fed is a private bank that works closely with the treasury department and manipulates the valuation of the dollar when it's deemed necessary by those calling the shots.
dunkafelic 1 year ago
@dunkafelic I would agree. The healthcare bill of the Democrats isn't really nationalisation, it's something far more diluted than that. It's quite amazing that people manage to call something so watered down as "Socialism". At most Obama is a social capitalist, and certainly not a socialist. By European standards the Democrats would be considered quite right-wing. Besides the dictatorships of the 20th century certainly don't follow the traditional definition of socialism.
Adlasyn 1 year ago
@Adlasyn this is cause any attempt to create socialism so far ended up with dictatorship. That's why sane people try to keep as far from socialism as possible
coturnix19 1 year ago
@Adlasyn Capitalism = Privately owned means of production. Socialism = Public means of production. Ron Paul is correct in his use of the term "Socialized". The verb Nationalize, definition: Socialize. Note: Nationalize means to put under state control or ownership.......I.E. Socialism. Make sense?? For the second part of your comment. . "Socialization is a phenomenon of capitalism". Socialization, definition: the act or process of making socialistic...........continuted in follow up comment
66chevyo 1 year ago
@Adlasyn The growth of big business and the decline in family businesses is not an expression of "socialization". It is a result of humans acting freely in their own self interest. It's an expression of Supply and Demand. Citizens give up ownership up their labor in favor of high taxation and socialism, believing it is in their own self interest. Wealthy citizens can often buy freedom in the absence of Capitalism. Freedom that the small business owner cannot afford to pay for.
66chevyo 1 year ago
@66chevyo Socialisation is the centralisation of production, as opposed to the decentralised economy of pre-capitalist times. It is a marxian economic term used to describe a characteristic of developed capitalism. I has nothing to do with state ownership. People just like to make state ownership sound scarier so they use a word that sounds like "socialism".
Adlasyn 1 year ago
Comment removed
66chevyo 1 year ago
@Adlasyn Marx coined the word. The term "Socialism" has since evolved. There is no "true" Socialism. Words like "state capitalism", and "libertarian socialism" are merely code words for Socialism. The failure of Socialism has motivated it's subscribers to relabel it. People can slap any label over it that feels good and proclaim it "true" Socialism. Socialism = public means of production. It is the polar opposite of Capitalism. The world will have Capitalism sooner or later. Even the U.S.
66chevyo 1 year ago
@66chevyo
You need to get up on your history.
Anarchist communists--the first political radicals to call themselves libertarians---were doing so a half century before the conclusion of the Russian Revolution,much less the rise of Stalinism.
Secondly,the word socialism has no definite origins but it's generally attributed to french social reformers,most notably Pierre Leroux.It's actually the British that have the longest historical application of the idea.
BTW,State Capitalism is Fascism.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@Adlasyn
socialism is a phenomenon of capitalism? no it isn't. true socialism a phenomenon of democracy, and capitalism is anything but democratic. just because we're a democratic society with a capitalist system does not make capitalism democratic, because it most definitely is not. socialism, by it's very definition, IS democratic.
Paul said "socialism" not "nationalism". how can you correct what he "means to say"? doesn't he know the difference? and you're merely ASSUMING what he means.
dunkafelic 9 months ago
@Adlasyn Well said too bad most Americans are idiots who are simply trained like dogs to bark at the word socialism.
Laughingblades 1 week ago
Comment removed
Laughingblades 1 week ago
Comment removed
Adlasyn 1 year ago
Question for supporters of capitalism, is there enough space in society for everyone to do his own thing? The fact that you live in geographically specific area, with defined boundaries and a government makes all of you social people, which means what you do has an impact on others. What if pursuing your interest means destroying natural resources, and my interest is about nurturing the beauty of creation. i do not see how freedom, govenrment an capitalism can work. Think people.
fixrifex 1 year ago
can socialism and freedom work? can communism and civil liberties co exist? those are my questions to you. history has shown that the stronger government you have, the bigger it is, the less civil liberties you have, freedom leaves when government enters. what do you propose for us to do? neither system works even Castro admits communist economy doesn't work, and some capitalists hate there system, so what other way is there?
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@scienceatheism Thank you for these intelligent remarks. There is one important thing I want to stress. Systems are not people, people make systems. There is only one way out of these entrapments. It has been echoed by the great wise men of the past. Love you neighbour as yourself and you will not need government. I believe this will be possible a very long time from now, not now though. In political terms, I will propose a system that is based on total respect for nature and the human condition
fixrifex 1 year ago
@scienceatheism The profit based economy which most advocates of freedom acknowledge, will take us all in one direction, war over control of capital and natural resources. Till date no government has actually represented the people and the earth, but themselves. For there to be a radical transformation we need technologies that will destroy the need for humans to work to survive, so men can have more time to engage in creative activities and connect with their natural environment.
fixrifex 1 year ago
@scienceatheism The problem is not government but who controls government. Unitl men have attained the spiritual maturity to rule themelves we will need government. Government however run by the most qualified individuals and not by a cabal of greedy and 'soul-empty' humans. The greatest gift we can ever give ourselves is to be able to think independently and maturely with utmost respect and consideration for others.
fixrifex 1 year ago
@scienceatheism If you are American then you should understand the concept of 'We the People', unless we the people empower ourselves and stop selling our freedoms cheap for illusory security, then i am afraid neither capitalism, socialism, communism will work. We humans make the system work until we understand each an everyone of us is important not just the rich and powerful, then there might be no future here for the human race. Everyone is important , that is my philosophy.
fixrifex 1 year ago
we the people, as in all americans only speak of individual freedom nothing about what you propose. and thats what this country is about is the individual right to succeed and to fail. it isnt about the rich what i am speaking of is the individual right to obtain riches. if i work hard for what i got, then i deserve it. people have no right to tell me what i should or shouldnt with my company, with my money, or what is morally right or wrong. thats the essence of this country..cont..
scienceatheism 1 year ago
..cont.. what you speak of isnt this country, its no country, its the very idea john lennon thinks of. what if there was no country, no possession, no loyalty, nothing to call your own. but then i ask you where is your individual identity?
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@scienceatheism Will I please remind you the country you know believe is yours by right, was siezed by force from those who like you thought they could live freely nd do what they want(Red Indians). The American way is the way of selfishness, and can only be sustained through force. You want to live free then find an island and live there, If however you decide to live in an organised society, you need to realise your very subsitence depends on others.
fixrifex 1 year ago
yeah true, im not denying the history of our country what im saying is the reason why we was even created was for freedom from the country our ancestors originate from. all native americans was degraded and raped from there land, south americans, north americans, raped by europeans. not white people only, because the spaniards was also the culprit. but thats beside the point, my people was just as oppressed as much as those we oppressed. doesnt make it right but its true..cont..
scienceatheism 1 year ago
..cont.. yes we depend on others im also not denying this fact, but what im saying is that the riches i obtain is mine and mine alone. no one should be able to tell me what i should do with it. what i speak of is freedom of success. and i choose to pay taxes its a choice, because i love my country and what it stands for. democracy and the republic to me screams freedom. life liberty and the pursuit of happiness or the pursuit of possession. john lockes philosophy...cont..
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@scienceatheism You need others to buy the goods and services you provide, meaning you cannot really claim to be free. To be truly free means to provide for your own without the need for other humans. To be an individual is far bigger than having earthly possessions, you cannot define who you are in terms of what you have, you were born naked, meaning you cannot even claim you own anything, because when you die you leave everything.
fixrifex 1 year ago
..cont.. and i understand where you are coming from with the idea of freedom, to truly be free is to live like animals basically and living like an animal isnt a bad thing but it isnt good if you want a stable society. but im loyal to 2 things and thats my life and the life of my loved ones, i help my fellow man but it isnt as important as living my life the way i want to. call me selfish i dont care, but you have to draw a line to whats selfish and whats an individual?
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@scienceatheism Then we are thinking the same. I did not call you selfish. I belive you are a decent human being who only wants to live his life, I think we all deserve that. However we live on a planet where rules have been made to favour some and not all. Really you shouldnt be told how to live your life. However how we live our lives has an impact on others and the environment. Indifference always seems a good option as long as one is not directly affected. The cost of indifference..........
fixrifex 1 year ago
didnt say you called me selfish. i was just saying. but we live on a planet full of greedy mindless pricks, that find ways to exploit others from many different means, from religion to government sometimes both in worst cases both. greed is not only the root of all evil its ugly sister is pride. you will always have "favors" if we always have pride and greed. we will never get rid of that we are humans.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@scienceatheism I checked this Ron Paul speech at tea party, copy and paste "Ron Paul speech to Tea Party uncensored ". If what he says is what you are trying to point out here then I agree with you 100%.
fixrifex 1 year ago
haha yeah im a huuuuge ron paul fan. huge. so basically most of the shit he says i agree with about 98 percent of the time.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@scienceatheism It takes a lot of humility to understand that the world does not belong to you or I or anybody else. We all die and leave everything behind. What matters is what we do of the limited time we have on earth, some prefer to pile up wealth which they will not carry to the grave others try to make life better for the human race, and other still simply do not give a damn about others. Where you fall in these categories determin who you are, that's your identity.
fixrifex 1 year ago
@scienceatheism True people have no right to tell you what to do with the works of your hands. Talking about freedom are you free not to pay taxes? The freedom to do as you will is pushing companies to outsource jobs overseas, Americans seem not to be happy with that. You cannot vie for freedom when it suits your interest and then vote and support wars when freedom seems to work against you. It is not possible to be free in organised society, unless there is sufficient space for all to be rich.
fixrifex 1 year ago
@scienceatheism I m loyal to one thing a human being. With my knowledge of the world i will never be loyal to a country or a society. I have loyalty towards any human being who has respect for life and other humans. That is what individual freedom means to me, blind adherence to nationalistic rhetoric is the true mark of a slave.
fixrifex 1 year ago
@fixrifex I'll give my take on your question. Currently the earth is physically big enough for all individuals to pursue their own self interest. The division of labor makes people social. NOT Government. Government is merely the social contract people are willing to largely accept without fighting back. Geographically, people best know what THEIR needs are. That's why independent sovereignty and decentralized governing are so important. People take care of property when it is privately owned.
66chevyo 1 year ago
It´s because of your taxes.
mumumumusikman2 1 year ago
the Federal Reserve is to blame for the devaluation of the dollar, not so-called "socialism".
the Fed is a PRIVATE bank, making any argument placing blame on "socialism" inherently hypocritical.
dunkafelic 1 year ago 20
@dunkafelic Exactly. The fact that we have a Private bank in this country that controls our monsy supply and mankes monetary policy, should direct us towards fascism not socialism. Any case that is presented for defining all of this as socialism will fail.
waterhead001 1 year ago
@waterhead001 you hit the nail on the head. we keep hearing fear-mongerers throwing the word socialism around when I've been seeing us head more and more toward fascism. look at the relationship between the bush/cheney administration and halliburton, or the fact that the entire treasury department is made up of people that worked for goldman-sachs, going back and forth between the private and public sectors, from big banks to the treasury department and back again. that's what we should fear.
dunkafelic 1 year ago
@dunkafelic WOW! Most of the time when I say that this isnt socialism I get told Im brainwashed. I was surprised you agree with me. People who claim that Obama is a socialist can't define socialism. Like Bush he is not. Obama and Bush are the same in my opinion controlled puppets by the same people: The one's you mentioned. The one's that own the banks and wall street and the corporations. This talk of socialism etc is a smoke screen while fascism has been incremented.
waterhead001 1 year ago
@waterhead001 that's ironic, because the people who really ARE brainwashed are the ones throwing the word socialism around. by far the most socialist president was FDR, and the people loved him. that's why he was elected THREE times. Obama isn't doing anything close to what FDR did, and it's too bad.
what people fail to understand is that socialism, like capitalism, is everywhere throughout the world,
our public libraries and schools, police and fire depts, post offices, etc...socialism.
dunkafelic 1 year ago
@dunkafelic Well, conservatives like to portray FDR as a socialist because of the new deal. But, I dont think he was a Marxist type socialist. I see your point. Socialism, I think is dtermined by the amount of Government ownership or control over corporate entities and the means of production. During the 20's and 30's the Republicans and the Plutocratic rich were in love with Moussolini. Their decendants seem to be in love with him and fascism too.
waterhead001 1 year ago
@waterhead001 he was Mussolini-type socialist.
coturnix19 1 year ago
@dunkafelic people in usssr just LOVED stalin, you wouldn't believe how. Btw, the cult of stalin in russia is coming back.
coturnix19 1 year ago
@coturnix19 yeah they did. does that surprise you? that's how one gains power....by winning the popularity of the people.
Hitler was VERY popular in germany at one time too.
Reagan was popular here even though he crushed millions of americans with his economic policies. he's STILL popular among the wealthy, because they gained what the less fortunate lost under his policies.
trickle-down economics is great for the rich and greedy, but it doesn't work for the economy as a whole.
dunkafelic 1 year ago
@dunkafelic you naive people.... fed can be the most private bank ever, but as long as its powers are guaranteed by the government - is a government agency from market point of view. If it walks like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, than what is it? That's right, it's a duck!
coturnix19 1 year ago
@coturnix19 The Fed is not a government agency just because it works in cooperation with the government. The Fed decides when and how much to raise the interest rates, not the government.
you wanna call a duck a duck? in that case call it what it is....fascism.
big business is taking over, so if you want someone to blame, blame Goldman-Sachs because they're making the calls from the treasury department (where they alternate positions between the white house and the bank...back and forth).
dunkafelic 1 year ago
@dunkafelic ermm.. no it doesn't. Banks like the Federal Reserve satisfies one of the Planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Regardless of labels, organisations like them are... bad.
Cleric775 1 year ago
@dunkafelic A private bank with a GOVERNMENT IMPOSED MONOPOLY on the money supply!!!!!
66chevyo 1 year ago
@66chevyo
the money supply has to be centralized, there's no other way to do it.
we saw what happens when utilities are deregulated and decentralized, so imagine what would happen if we did the same with our money supply.
a controlled and regulated monopoly is in the peoples' best interest when it comes to huge infrastructural systems such as water, electricity, and the money supply.
so yes the government had a hand in the Fed's creation and existence, but it is in no way socialism
dunkafelic 1 year ago
@66chevyo
collusion between big business, in this case big private banks (like the Fed, the World Bank and the IMF), and the government points more toward fascism than socialism. it's actually contrary to true socialism, as the citizens have no say in the decision-making process. true capitalism is much more democratic than capitalism ever could be, and fascism arises out of rampant corporate greed, combined with political corruption and collusion.
we should fear fascism, not socialism.
dunkafelic 1 year ago
@dunkafelic There's Capitalism (privately owned means of production), and Socialism (Public means of production). Ever Socialist believes their dogma is the only TRUE Socialism. The State uses force against the privately owned production of money with "Legal Tender" laws. The FED is more powerful than the Executive Branch. The FED IS the state. It's powers are "public" powers. It's production is "public". It reigns truly supreme over you and ALL privately owned production. That is Socialism.
66chevyo 1 year ago
@dunkafelic The FED does this with state power. That makes it the STATE. The FED is more powerful than the executive branch. When the state creates "legal tender" laws and monopolizes the production of money with violence. That's Socialism (public means of production). When you are ordained with state power, you are no longer a "private" citizen. Bernanke is the real leader of the U.S.. Obama is akin to the FED's General Manager. He does all the bitch work and takes all the heat. The public Czar
66chevyo 1 year ago
@dunkafelic
I apologize for bringing up a comment from so long ago
But when the fed is printing money to give to congress to pay for entitlement programs (or any spending for that matter), that creates a devaluation of the currency.
snarfels 9 months ago
@snarfels
yes of course, creating new currency and putting more money into circulation devalues the currency already in existence (inflation). it's interesting that you correlate money creation with "entitlement programs" though rather than something like, say, footing the bill for multiple wars.
dunkafelic 9 months ago
@dunkafelic
Actually i believe that would fall under " any spending for that matter".
I'm guessing you're trying to make this a left vs right thing... in any case, don't.
snarfels 9 months ago
@snarfels
actually I believe you were making it a left vs. right thing with your initial comment. I was merely bringing objectivity to your point by using an alternate example. I agreed with your point, just not with the biased, one-sided example. I find it ironic that you feel *I* was the one making it a left vs. right thing for merely trying to level out the biased statement that you made....but ok.
dunkafelic 9 months ago
@dunkafelic
I'm not a republican, and i'm against our current wars and policing of the world and our nationbuilding, if that helps.
Not right vs left.
snarfels 9 months ago
Listen to the EXTREMELY Important and Powerful Message from Dr. Charles Stanley on this subject: intouch.org Video recorded on July 4th 2010 titled – Turning The Tide…..ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!!! A Must See!!
ColoradoKittens 1 year ago
The world is already run by GE, Shell, Haliburton...government in general is somewhat just a sham.
Jordainio 1 year ago
@Jordainio Ah government is alive and well.
It's just harder to distinguish government from business. Government is just taking a leadership role in their reprehensible and unholy partnership with gigantic corporations. Yeah this is a republican talking!
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 I hear you, the problem is that...they are crossing the line in many instances. The international corporations know no boundaries and when they break a law, the fine they pay is like a business expense!
Jordainio 1 year ago
How is it that the American people are so dumb that this man is not president?
jtizz711 1 year ago
BTW I would say that the number of socialist nations that have or currently exist is precisely zero. It is utopian.
I do not deny there exist several political structures designed to achieve a socialist state but the means always disqualify it from socialism.
What we commoly call socialist is actually corporatism. Most of the world is corporatist aka fascist.
Fascism is far WORSE than socialism.
mongoose704 1 year ago
If everyone knows that health care isn't free, how come Obama and everyone else, even SCHOOLS, call it FREE health care?
Because many believe IT IS FREE. Others to make you BELIEVE it is. It is the younger people that fall for it. They are the most impressionable age group and polticians and schools will tell them that it is really free. They won't tell you that the property and wealth of others is being illegally seized to pay for it. They won't tell you it is a form of slavery.
mongoose704 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But socialism cannot exist. There are no sociliats nations. Socialism is utopian.
What we see today in Europe, Asia and America is something far worse than socialism. What we see today is the partnership between government and government licensed and protected billionaire corporations.
It is called corporatism. Given America's nationalist foreign policy, we can safely call us Fascist.
mongoose704 1 year ago
Obama is more of a corporatist. In fact we embrace corporatism (a partnership between government and business) because if anything goes wrong, the government can blame the company for not managing some number properly.
Socialism (government management of the means of production) will eventually fail politically everywhere because in a crisis there is nobody for government to blame but itself.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 Socialism and corporatism are opposites.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Comment removed
mongoose704 1 year ago
I read Marx back in college. I read Mein Kampf and did a report on it. Know your enemy I always say. I am interested in the history of the former Soviet Union from Nicholas to the fall of the Soviet State. I oppose war unless in self defense of a direct attack. I believe government's role is to protect civil and economic liberty. I oppose economic anarchy but I feel government has intervened too much into our economy and am for open and competitive markets.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 For these points, I respect you, I'm guessing you studied history. A subject I too love. I am, what many would call a "conditional pacifist" In that, I'd never be the one attacking first. Perhaps it's not a case of the Government interfering too much, more a case of when they do interfere, they do it badly? Up until 2 days ago before that prick David Cameron took over my country, we had a Socialist governement.
rimfa123 1 year ago
@mongoose704 cont. government that regularly inteferes with our economy, and although in we have economic problems, we're not doing too badly. For all the crap you Americans have given it, our healthcare system does work, and it works bloody well too. If I feel under the weather I can just book an appointment woth my GP and within a few days see him/her, and not have to worry about bills I can't pay or expensive insurance.
rimfa123 1 year ago
@rimfa123 Your health care isn't free. It is being payed for with the property and wealth of others. I get health care in America when I need it as well. Over 50% of health care is financed by our government. You might not be paying for it at the office, but if you are working you are being taxed for it. Your government borrows to pay for it.
There isn't one place on the planet where health care is "free." The term "free health care" is propaganda.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 Oh come on, now you're just being pedantic, everyone knows taxes pay for healthcare.
rimfa123 1 year ago
@rimfa123 Pointing out that health care must be paid for when everyone (including you claims it is free) is hardly trivial.
stealing another's wealth and property to force them to provide services to another isn't trivial either.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 To be honest, I don't think anyone is actually stupid enough to think healthcare is paid for out of thin air. I would never go so far as asking people that work to give a minute amount of their income to people that work but haven't got the intelliegnce or cultural capital to earn as much. Of course, like you I'm guessing, I'd draw the line at lazy people whom refuse to actually contribute anything to society. And that comes from someone with a middle class background.
rimfa123 1 year ago
Comment removed
mongoose704 1 year ago
@rimfa123 Never underestimate the ignorance and stupidity of people 8^)
Yes I have encountered people that actually believe it is free. That is verified by the fact that politicians, who are masters in the art of deception, always refer to it as "free." Propaganda is used because it works.
But in a sense it is paid for by MONEY CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR. Alas in the end, the government only has a printing press.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 Are you a zeitgeister?
CrazyKing570 1 year ago
@CrazyKing570 Nope.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 lol good for you pal.. I'm happy for ya..
CrazyKing570 1 year ago
The worst form of socialism is National Socialism ala the NAZI party. Marxist-Leninist Socialism is a close second.
Democratic socialism? I find I have a bit in common with them. They are usually anti-war and pro civil liberty which is precisely where I stand. We disagree on the issue of economic liberty and the government's role in it.
BTW Obama isn't a socialist. He is worse. He is a corporatist (which is soft fascism.)
mongoose704 1 year ago
I can actually post a link to where you can find a book written by Robert Servive called "comrades" if you read even the first two chapters, you would realise what a show of yourself you're making.
rimfa123 1 year ago
@mongoose704 BRW, scienctific studies conducted MANY years ago displayed that the size of a human brain has absolutely no effect on their intelliegence, "pea-brain" not only was that mature, it was creative, and I can tell you now, it had me crying with laughter! You know what they say? "It's easy to condemn, without looking in the mirror".
rimfa123 1 year ago
@rimfa123 Okay you actually made me crack a grin. You're getting closer!
mongoose704 1 year ago
@rimfa123
And yes, I figured you were the type to laugh at your own jokes. I guess you do have McCoy's "singular wit" after all.
mongoose704 1 year ago
True socialism cannot exist in its pure form. The closest we can come to it is through the brutality of totalitarian, terrorist socialism of the type Lenin, Salin and Demorats embrace.
mongoose704 1 year ago
If anyone wants to learn a thing or two about Socialism, I highly recommend a documentary "The Soviet Story" by Edvins Snore.
This will blow your mind, guaranteed.
ppsychol 1 year ago
Last time I checked, it's called inflation, not inflationism... anyway, Marx's ideology is morally and economically flawed, and Chuck Norris would have chopped his head off with a round house kick.
Chuck Norris > Karl Marx
mana2432 1 year ago
@mana2432
hehehehehehe!
mongoose704 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let us all help to speed the day when this wonderful earth and its rich resources are held in common for the benefit of all humanity.
majorMcpharter 1 year ago
Let us all help to speed the day when this wonderful earth and its rich resources are held in common for the benefit of all humanity.
majorMcpharter 1 year ago
Ron Paul you are clueless,Nationalisation of the means of production= State run Capitalism,the workers remain wage slaves forced to sell their labour power to the state employer in return for a Wage/salary.
majorMcpharter 1 year ago
Ron Paul you are clueless,Nationalisation of the means of production= State run Capitalism,the workers remain wage slaves forced to sell their labour power to the state employer in return for a Wage/salary.
majorMcpharter 1 year ago
"The USSR was just state run capitalism."
More fallacious propaganda. Simple critical thinking debunks this claim.
"State run" and "capitalism" are mutually exclusive terms.
State run means socialist/communist and precludes a free market system.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704
Capitalism does not have to be free market.
Capitalism comes from capital-ism. A system in which capital is owned by someone. In the USSR the capital was owned by the government. So a select few owned the capital.
Socialism means workers control the means of production. Collective ownership, and not state ownership.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
I believe I said socialism was collective property ownership.
Chuck Norris > Commies!
mongoose704 1 year ago
Hitler was a socialist.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704
Hitler was a capitalist right winged reactionary.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Shitler was a brownshirted commie pinko. Chuck Norris would've stuffed a Texas sized boot up his goosestepping ass with one swift roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris > Shitler
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 Hitler wasnt a communist
Jasonthegaiface 1 year ago
@Jasonthegaiface Read The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy LOL Hitler was a Fascist that took over the controle of business, Took over the controle of the main Auto company (V.W.) .Demonised the aponants of his social agenda with the ideal of creating a blind fallowing population, He had the IDEALS of a one world nation, Nationalisation of Health care, and an indroctrination of the youth that comunity should be above personal gain and accomplishment, Now just replace the V.W. with G.M. and who's name comes up ?
flmcon 1 year ago
@flmcon
You mean? Obama is a right winged reactionary just like Hitler???
But wait they are not the same!
Hitler was made president by a conservative.
And Obama won an election.
So they are not the same!
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Actually he was appointed Chancellor, not President, by Hindenburg whose state of mind was seriously in question. He was old and extremely fatigued, likely in the stages of alzheimers or dimentia. Hitler was never President. He was given dictatorial authority in the Enabling Act by the Reichstag which was surrounded by armed, marching stormtroopers.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 So it wasn't conservtive ideology that caused Hindenburg to appoint Hitler. He actually had hoped to be able to contain Hitler by naming him Chancellor. In the prior Presidential election Hitler actually forced a runoff election and was a serious political threat and had clout. Hindenburg had no respect, love, admiration for Hitler or his ideology. He made the mistake, like so many did, of underestimating Hitler.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704
Prime minister / president, IDC.
What you say about Hindenburg is just silly. He was very well aware of risks of making Hitler Reichskanzler. He was pursuaded by Von Papen, a conservative.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
To CONTAIN Hitler, not because they agreed with him ideologically.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
No what you say is silly and unsupported in historical text.
Yes there is a difference between the position of President and Chancellor in the Weimar Republic. If you knew history, you would know that.
mongoose704 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mongoose704
Hitler was a capitalist right winged reactionary.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
Orwell reminds us that deception and debasing language is inherent to socialism. Today socialists and communists change the meaning of "socialism" to exclude all bad examples of their system like Stalin, Lenin and the USSR. Furthermore they now claim those are all examples of capitalism. Socialists and commies have always been trying to tell us 2+2=5, debasing language, or that it really said all pigs are created equal. Sanitizing socialism is like sanitizing Nazism.
mongoose704 1 year ago
I see alot of people talking about how communism is good. And indeed it is for those in power! If you are not the one in power then you have no say over anything including your own life! You know kinda like America is getting closer and closer, and I'm sad to say it. It is going to take alot more people like me who want to restore this nation to her former glory. And it will probably take violence, because the government is already doing whatever they'd like and completely ignoring all of us!!!
cenochs 1 year ago
@cenochs Socialism and communism are brutal, tyrannical, elitist systems that are inherently undemocratic.
You cannot have socialism or communism without collective property ownership and that only way those can be collectivized is through brutality, tyranny and terrorism.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@cenochs However I will say that most Americans are given only a sunshine view of socialism from their propaganda pushers. Most people here that claim to be socialist have no idea what socialism is. In fact, most of them are actually welfare statists which is different than socialism (no collective ownership of property or the means of production.)
mongoose704 1 year ago
Communism doesn't have leaders.
You are not talking about communism.
Communism is a CLASSLESS STATELESS society.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Tell that to the millions of Ukrainians starved to death by the hands of stalin! classless my ass!
cenochs 1 year ago
Your ass! Haha! So funny!
Marxist communism is a classless stateless society. This is obviously not the ideology that Stalin followed. Instead Stalin had his own ideology, which we call Stalinism.
Also watch?v=h_Qu5XHZBGs.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Ok but it was based on or supposed to be communism! Kinda like cuba.
cenochs 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy And didn't marx speak of exterminating the lower class? So in that case I guess there would only be 1 class, the upper class!
cenochs 1 year ago
The other way around.
The lowest class is the working class. The highest class is the bourgeoisie.
What makes the bourgeoisie the highest class? It is oppression. The bourgeoisie controls the means of production, and no one else is allowed to use them without having to give the product as payment.
If the workers control the means of production, there is no more oppression.
Also I think you understood Marx wrong, you might be well off by reading some of his works.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy No thanx!
cenochs 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Anyway the point is it sounds nice the working class being in control, but communism doesn't work.
cenochs 1 year ago
Why not?
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
Exactly. Collective property ownership is impossible thus socialism is impossible.
There are two methods to achieve a system that is close to collectivbe proparty ownership.
The corporate-bureacratic model. The preferred method of Democratic Socialists
Or the Marxist Leninist model whereby the State owns it but claims themselves as representatives of the collective. The preferred method of totalitarians.
mongoose704 1 year ago
I do agree that Marx's vision was a classless, stateless society.
But Lenin saw Marx in err and that collective property ownership, the final state of true Marxism, would never come about without the creation of a selected, elite class who are given total power to terrorize and brutalize the public into surrendering their possessions to the collective. He also saw the folly of collective property ownership.
Name one Marxist society that has existed? 0! It cannot exist!
mongoose704 1 year ago
BTW to speak of Communism as a political movement that mirrors Marxist Leninism and Stalinism is absolutely correct. The word "communist" in the work of Marx was a metaphor of a marxist society, not a party or political movement. Torotsky used the word Communist as a name of their political movement. Thus it is accurate to call the Soviet system and the resulting terror, COMMUNIST.
Communist replaced Bolshevik and thats what communism as a political movement stands for.
mongoose704 1 year ago
And let's face it: Accordng to Marx, socialism IS collective property ownership which cannot and will not ever exist...
without the creation of an all powerful terrorist State to take ownership of said property to represent on behalf of the proletariat as collectivism..
through the tactic of brutality and terrorism. "There is no socialism without terror."
mongoose704 1 year ago
Please let Ron run again!!!!
deannashm 1 year ago
Yeah the socilaist nutlickers love to debase the English language and academia so they can change the definition of socialism to eliminate any negativity.
Taking Stalin, The USSR and Lenin out of socialism is like taking Hitler out of Nazism.
mongoose704 1 year ago 6
The Ussr was not socialist in the real meaning of the word. The main element of socialism is that the workers are in control of production-economic democracy. This was simply not the case in the USSR. I support true socialism, but i detest the USSR
shifty1367 1 year ago
Why do you support something that cannot and will never exist which is collective property ownership?
I oppose all attempts to realize an unrealistic system. Lenin was horrifically correct when he said there can be no socialism without an elite government head state with total power to terrorize the individuals into giving up their possessions to the collective.
Socialism as a politcal movement cannot be seperated form the horrific and barbaric brutality of lenin and stalin.
mongoose704 1 year ago
The USSR and is not SOCIALISM get this into your small head. I am a member of a socialistic party in my country i know what i am. And i am not a USSR supporter.
Seleucus1Nicator 1 year ago
@mongoose704 Well im not sure if lenin did ever say that, i doubt if he ever did he said it in public. and even if he did say it, so what? he was a barbaric totalitarian, and i dont no about you, but i tend not to take my advice from mass murderers??
and socialism is and will be the natural progression of how people live with each other. yes its being kept down by an extremly powerful elite, but their power is fragile, and when they fall we will live as one^^
shifty1367 1 year ago
@shifty1367
But Lenin was a realist, and was absolutely correct in noting Karl Marx's great error that the bourgeoisie have not nor will they ever willingly give up their property to the collective (and by definition socialism IS collective property ownership and does not exist without it) without a small select elite given total power to terrorize the public. Name one society where there is collective property ownership? The closest thing to that is a corporation.
mongoose704 1 year ago
In terms of the true definition of socialism, Marxist Leninism was the closest at achieving true socialism (that doesn't mean it was a good thing.)
The rest of the so-called examples of socialism throughout the world are actually more capitalist.
The truth is socialism cannot exist in a pure form.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704
I disagree.
Marxism-Leninism was very far away from achieving socialism, when talking about the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union was just state-run capitalism.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
Marx did argue that it would be a natural progression....
but part of that progression would be violent revolution by the proletariat. He was also very clear that the final state would be ANTI-DEMOCRATIC: "Pure communism."
And that is socialism. It has been sanitized and revised by propagandists and apologists over the years but history records what socialism truly is and will always be.
Now I find a lot of people that call themselves socialists who are really welfare statists.
mongoose704 1 year ago