Your fellow Propeller readers consider this story to be controversial.
President Lincoln, I Want Our America Back! »
Posted By GLee 5 months ago in News
Socialism. What 'Kind'? Does it matter? Socialism is socialism. There are no degrees. There is a growing conflict between the classes (the haves and the have nots) that is being mirrored in different contexts: Plenty of auto parts suppliers have gone bust without government aid; plenty of smaller banks too. Big is good and must be protected (big car companies, big banks, big insurance companies) small is insignificant and does not need to be protected (the shareholder, the taxpayer). How un-American! How Obamian. The founding fathers went out of their way to check factions. I am not afraid of us becoming socialist - far from it. I am afraid that we are becoming increasingly unAmerican and worse yet, most Americans can't tell the difference!! We have been 'dumbed' by the media into thinking Obama's plan is some sort of 'cure all'. While keeping our country safe, President Bush grew 'Our' goverment out of porportion. Now we have have a true beast on our hands. We must find new blood who will let us be free. Who will keep 'Our' goverment in check. Vote for Freedom in '10!
Read Full Story at showcase.netins.net »
489 Views Share Story 89 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 89 (view all)
-
83%
GLee5 months ago
-
75%
UnusualSuspect5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Reply
Great words to live by...too bad Republicans don't understand that the word "people" means more than just whites...
"Socialism. What 'Kind'? Does it matter? Socialism is socialism. There are no degrees."
And Republicanism? No degrees there, either, huh... -
-
50%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GLee ... I simply don't understand why you are so opposed to our military ...
Reply
As an expression of Socialism ... our military is often described as the best in the world.
And yet ... you put them down ... as if they are evil.
Why?
Or ... are you saying ALL OTHER Government Programs are bad .... just not THE MILITARY?
Which wouldn't make sense either ... because .... the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX .... is BY FAR ... the BIGGEST RAT HOLE ... down which our Government spends tax payer money.
Look ... you are just going to have to learn critical thinking ... I mean ... if you want to be taken seriously.
.
.
Not that you WANT to be taken seriously ...
I'm just sayin.
. -
-
-
-
100%
calitennflo5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What we need is what Nature too dictates that we need, and it will not consume our time managing money. All we need is a society that has no ills becauser of the lack of money. A society that manages and only does what is necessary, as a procedure or protocol. That means we will use invoices and audits to manage our lives...and we will share ownership and repair of everything, and we will manage us the same way, and provide the necessities man Woamn and child needs. Simple...it's the way this abode is designed and the physics match!
Reply -
-
57%
MisterX5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Republican Party thinks they can carry on "family values/religious right" alone. Then, when they get into office, the Neocons go to work exercising their agenda despite what the voters think. Their strategy is so naive it would be laughable, if it didn't work so well.
Reply
-
-
80%
canadianrancher575 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I considered the introduction at the top of the page to be one that sort of shared the blame for the situation that is now present. Maybe it always was a situation of large corporations vs government but in the last few decades it seems the battle they are waging to control people is just plain killing all of us. Mom and pop stores cannot compete against large corporations and also cannot survive the burdens placed apon them by government. I've watched as your country has lost industries such as the steel industry and also watched as the heartland died and people migrated to the large centers and yet the cause seems to not to be just one thing but many things. The country that I see now is not the counrty that I admired many years ago, I still think that Americans are a great bunch of people but wonder at times when are they going to wake up and tell those who lie, cheat and steal from the American people that enough is enough.
Reply
I like the idea of a vote for freedom but I also know that just changing parties will not accomplish much, maybe it is time to quit playing the blame game and start discussing things that might turn things around.
In some of the debates about your medical problems I have begun to see people suggesting things that might make your current system work better without government becoming any more involved than it is, to me this is a good idea but one has to realize that government would still have to be involved with legislation. I wish there were a simple answer because I sort of miss the good old USA that I grew up with.-
71%
mesodude5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I like the idea of a vote for freedom but I also know that just changing parties will not accomplish much, maybe it is time to quit playing the blame game and start discussing things that might turn things around."
Reply
--After the previous administration we suffered through, I really don't see that happening anytime soon, canadianrancher. I could be all for working together to "throw the bums out" if I didn't *consistently* see examples of those on the right working against the greater good to secure power and wealth. Time and time again we see Republicans crapping all over the majority of American while they serve the privileged. You invite us to stop playing the blame game but have you not SEEN what those on the right are capable of in the name of holding onto power?
Bush BARELY got into office and right wingers insisted his "victory" represented a mandated and that those on the left should just get over it, blah blah...They then sat silent while the guy they put into office burned through a budget surplus. Fyi, the irony today of Bush getting into office partly based on a "family values" platform also seems to elude cons. But I digress...Bush was re-elected after multiple instances of EXTREME failure and incompetence. How did that happen? How do cons sleep at night and post articles crying about how they want "their" country back when it was their poor judgement and blind partisanship that is largely responsible for the country being FUBAR? Who would even think that was a sane response?
Now, rather than defend Obama, let me ask some questions which no con will be able to answer: A) When has the left (including Congress) resorted to tactics along the lines of tea parties, threatening secession, encouraging domestic terrorism, plotting with the aid of industries like Big Oil or the insurance industry to smear, attack, and personally destroy those on the right *purely* for political gain? B) When have Democrats done *anything* along the lines of what Bush did to our Justice Department (just to name *one* agency)? C) When has a former Democratic President or Vice President stayed in Washington and immediately started attacking the current President and trying to scare the rest of the country? When have Democrats unabashedly provoked race wars? When have those on the left done ANY of those things? And then ask yourself again the extent to which you believe we should be sharing the blame.
-
-
71%
NoWayMan5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
never mind that Bush was a champion of corporate welfare, which is labeled "socialism" if a dem takes part in it in any way.
Reply
never mind that most of the money being given out was set aside by Bush.
GLee should be embarrassed for trying to drag Lincoln's good name anywhere near this obvious distortion of facts and truth.-
55%
nostalgia5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And who is the champion of corporate welfare now?
Reply
We are now watching as the government hands over billions and billions to their friends on Wall St and large corporations
You are watching the government and big business take control of the economy and yet not a single peep of concern
You sit by while fascism raises it's ugly head
-
-
43%
awongscreen5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Despite seeing the earth dying because of the conservative's policies and capitalist's agenda, Americans in general still do not have the courage to move the country from capitalism towards socialism. Socialism is still being treated as evil and being used as a tool of name calling by conservatives.
Reply
When will people have the guts to be proudly call themselves as socialists? Socialism is not a perfect system and will not be a cure all to the problems facing the human race. But it is a far better system than capitalism in prolonging a life supporting earth so we have more time to fix the problems.-
67%
kobzikov5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While I'm an anarchist and not a socialist, I see no shame in openly proclaiming yourself a socialist. Some of the greatest intellectuals, scientists, activists and civil rights leaders have been socialists such as Victor Hugo, Mark Twain, Bertrand Russel, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, George Orwell, Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, etc.
Reply
More importantly socialists and anarchists have been on the forefront of the struggle for greater civil rights, worker's rights, and environmental protection and unlike most Americans I'm familiar with the historical background in that regard and am immeasurably grateful for the contributions the brave individuals made so that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy liberty to much greater extent then they could.
-
-
80%
kobzikov5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This isn't News. This is nonsense.
Reply
"Socialism. What 'Kind'? Does it matter? Socialism is socialism. There are no degrees."
Disregarding the tautology, it certainly DOES matter especially if you are planning to complain about how small banks didn't get government aid and big banks did. If the 'kind' of socialism doesn't matter, then one is just as good as the other. So why would you object to big banks getting bailouts and small banks not getting any assistance? After all "socialism is socialism", right?
And saying that there are no degrees in socialism is even more absurd. First of all there are virtually no human ideologies or philosophies without degrees. Second, it implies that there is no difference between any socialist state or partially socialized state, so that would be equivalent to saying that USA with its public library system is no different then USSR with its command economy, after all there are no degrees in socialism, right? Third, it means there are no ideological differences between socialists, which implies that Leo Trotsky had no ideological differences with Joseph Stalin, John Lennon had no ideological differences with Mao Zedong, George Orwell had no ideological differences with Joseph Stalin, etc.
Oh and calling those who you disagree with unAmerican is a fallacious appeal to nationalism, and therefore can be dismissed as completely irrational. You can call your views as American as apple pie, however that doesn't make them such, nor makes them sound. -
-
75%
fjgalt5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
Reply
“For the New Intellectual” - Ayn Rand
The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.
Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.
There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism—and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy—that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all corners, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug.
When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.
"The Monument Builders" - Ayn Rand-
67%
djn3nunez35 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake.....
Reply
Taken to the extreme it is communism. However utopian it will never be realized. But to write in such absolutes is decepive about the nature of our American brand of Socialism. Don't kid yourself, were are a hybrid socialist state and Obama's policies are not all that different or overtly socialist in nature. Certainly not leading us towards a old USSR type authoritarian type state.
Oh and we've been "redistributing wealth" with the progressive tax rate and refundable tax credits for years......
-
-
80%
fjgalt5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As for Lincoln, let's see. Like Bush, he suspended habeas corpus, put people in jail indefinitely without charging them with any crimes, invaded another country, and used force against U.S. citizens.
Reply
Lincoln believed blacks were inferior but was personally opposed to slavery. He thought all blacks should be shipped back to Africa. However, his primary goal was a united union of states and he would accept it whether the U.S. were states that were all free or all slave.
One of, if not the worst, president we ever had.
His actions were no different than Milosevic of Yugoslavia.-
100%
icono15 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Please read the following;
Reply
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/alincoln.html
this is a good overview of Abe and to a degree it supports what you say about Abe. Another good source about Abe is Wikipedia.
However, comparing Abe to Milosevic is really too much of stretch; IMO Abe was opportunistic, Milosevic was despotic.
-
-
0%
skyking2p5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
America Because it is a democratic nation has swung between some level of capitalism and socialism since 1776. This swing is dictated for the most part by the voters. This past election was no exception. The voters saw the results of too much capitalism and the damage it can do to the middle class and have said, by there vote, that we need to reign in the greed and corruption that comes with pure capitalism and give the working middle class a place at the table.
Reply
Breath the fresh air of democracy !!-
100%
djn3nunez35 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Because the United States of American is a Republic, the wealthy Capitalists have subverted and minimised the influence of "We the People" So, even though the public really truly voted for change, all they got was a little change(back to the Clinton players) and alot more of the same. That is just the most recent example of why the two party system is nothing but two sides of the same coin. Nothing really changed. Oh sure we have lot of conflicts and stories to distract us with, but in the end the overall policy direction of the US will not change.
Reply
In the 220 year our Republic has existed the Federal Governement has exceeded it's constitutional limits and grown beyond the ability of 'We the People' to control or reign it in.
-
-
50%
fjgalt5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pure capitalism is something we have never had. What we have today is mostly statist regulation and control of our economy, manuipulation of the currency and its destruction of wealth through inflation, with the typical disruptions of thwarting the decisions free individuals would make.
Reply
However, there was a time when we came close to laissez-faire capitalism, during the latter half of the 19th century. Look at what happens when government interference in the economy is minimal and people are free to trade and make their own decisions.
"In every area the country grew. Population doubled from 1870 to 1900. In 1870, only one-fifth of the American people lived in cities (places with 8,000 or more); in 1900, one-third.
"From 1860 to 1900, the size of the American farm domain doubled and the capitalized value of American farms increased from $8 billions to $20 billions.
"In 1860, the capital invested in American manufacturing was $1 billion; in 1900, this had grown to $10 billions. In 1860, the value of American manufactured products came to $2 billions; in 1900, this stood at $13 billions.
"At the same time, the number of wage-earners in manufacturing grew from 1,300,000 to 5,300,000.
"During this period of unexampled expansion, the country's national income rose from $2,380 millions in 1850 to $19,360 million in 1900.
"At the same time, the real income per head of the occupied population almost doubled, that is, from $787 to $1,388."
"American Capitalism" - Louis M. Hacker [pp. 56-57]
At that time, there was no Federal Reserve, no income taxes, no sale taxes, and none of the strangling mixed-economy regulations and laws we have today.
Freedom works. In history, the countries that had freedom achieved prosperity, and the freest achieved the most.-
100%
djn3nunez35 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Robber Barons
Reply
Between 1870 and 1900 the United States became an industrialized economy--the leading industrial nation in the world. And wealth became markedly more concentrated. We think that the share of national wealth held by the richest one percent of households peaked at around 45 percent sometime around 1900.
the robber barons: they all were ruthless.
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/carnegie...
-
-
100%
chevydog5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not sure what point is being made in the intro. Nor what a vote for freedom would be.
Reply
But Lincoln's Gettysburg Address grabs me. Barring perhaps some passages from Shakespeare, I regard it as the finest piece of English prose ever written. I tear up whenever I read it.
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.