oh, you are right, that is marxist. Good job.

Patronization gets you so far, you know.

 

responding to nonsense doesn't, I can tell you that.

responding to nonsense doesn't, I can tell you that.

Yep, everything that doesn't agree to your point of view is nonsense. What the hell ever. I'll just leave it at that before I go and get myself suspended. I'm not sure why I even bothered because you're so much smarter then me.

 

Edited August 21, 200916 yr by kapkomet

I'm not either.

Speaking truth to stupid?

 

Giant corporate bailouts are the hallmark of a proletariat revolution.

Giant corporate bailouts are the hallmark of a proletariat revolution.

To be fair, most of those were done by his predecessor, and he did nationalize a good chunk of the means of production.

but that's just taking the broad idea of marxism based off of its implementation by a few governments.

 

It's not just nationalizing, it's nationalizing with the intent of creating complete anti-capitalism. And nationalizing typically means more than merely the gov't becoming the major stockholder in a huge recession with mild restrictions.

 

It's just not marxism. It really isn't. Is it rooted in democratic socialism? yes, but that's a different beast than envisioned socialism of the 19th-early 20th century.

but that's just taking the broad idea of marxism based off of its implementation by a few governments.

 

It's not just nationalizing, it's nationalizing with the intent of creating complete anti-capitalism. And nationalizing typically means more than merely the gov't becoming the major stockholder in a huge recession with mild restrictions.

 

It's just not marxism. It really isn't. Is it rooted in democratic socialism? yes, but that's a different beast than envisioned socialism of the 19th-early 20th century.

At the heart of it, it's the transfer of wealth so that the burgeious did not keep it and the prolariats did. It's at it very simplistic form was the transfer of earned money once the cost was recouped of said commodity and how to distrubute those proceeds. That is such a thumbnail view, but that is at the heart of Marxism. Forget what "modifications" were made to Marxism by communists, Lenin, and so many others to throw that wrinkle in of state run everything...

 

AT ITS FOUNDATION: Marx was looking at the capitalistic opportunity of the burgeouis and didn't like what he saw, he wanted those excessed to go back to the working class. Again - thumbnail view. Tons more to it then that, OF COURSE. But keeping it at it's basic level, that does make Barack Obama a marxist by this 50,000 foot definition. It's not a "dirty word", it's a person who supports taking from the haves (burgeouis) to the have nots (prolateriats). From there, people can make what they want of it.

 

Democrat Socialism is another slant of Marxist teachings - and that pillar is closer to where we are then a "pure marxist" but remember that democrat socialism was born FROM marxist theories, which then still says to be that Obama is a marxist.

 

There's a difference between marxism and a progressive taxation policy. Obama is centrist or center left period.

At the heart of it, it's the transfer of wealth so that the burgeious did not keep it and the prolariats did. It's at it very simplistic form was the transfer of earned money once the cost was recouped of said commodity and how to distrubute those proceeds. That is such a thumbnail view, but that is at the heart of Marxism. Forget what "modifications" were made to Marxism by communists, Lenin, and so many others to throw that wrinkle in of state run everything...

 

AT ITS FOUNDATION: Marx was looking at the capitalistic opportunity of the burgeouis and didn't like what he saw, he wanted those excessed to go back to the working class. Again - thumbnail view. Tons more to it then that, OF COURSE. But keeping it at it's basic level, that does make Barack Obama a marxist by this 50,000 foot definition. It's not a "dirty word", it's a person who supports taking from the haves (burgeouis) to the have nots (prolateriats). From there, people can make what they want of it.

 

Democrat Socialism is another slant of Marxist teachings - and that pillar is closer to where we are then a "pure marxist" but remember that democrat socialism was born FROM marxist theories, which then still says to be that Obama is a marxist.

 

Then an agnostic is therefore a Christian. The heart of Marx was he saw this industrial working class as a superior class, with superior morals and ability. The bourgoisie was taking advantage of this class and would eventually be overthrown when the continued capitalism created a larger proletariat class, which would lead to a ripe time for a revolution (most of his book was about classifying when a revolution could occur) which would lead to socialism then to the end (communism!).

 

Just because in marx's socialism the workers would control production and wages does not mean, and that because the capitalists made more money and it was being taken away does not mean that progressive taxation is marxist. Ben Franklin believed in Marxism then, he advocated for progressive taxation in towns, because the landowners had more at stake, and should pay more for a police force. What a MARXIST!

 

Marxism was a complete set of ideals. Cherry picking aspects of the economic one and applying that as the HEart of marxism is self serving. I'd say next to no one is a Marxist today, not the way there were in late 19th century, not the way the Menscheviks were. I mean, when even the people that set out to accomplish marxism end up creating their own ism, how can you apply it to a president doing the slightest part of a part of an equation. If Obama nationalized every industry, said f*** the farmers, banned religion, threw out the bourgeoisie and said it was all part of a plan to achieve a world with no currency, just everyone providing for one another, then, you can say, that Obama is a Marxist. But until then, it's just foolish nonsense.

Then an agnostic is therefore a Christian. The heart of Marx was he saw this industrial working class as a superior class, with superior morals and ability. The bourgoisie was taking advantage of this class and would eventually be overthrown when the continued capitalism created a larger proletariat class, which would lead to a ripe time for a revolution (most of his book was about classifying when a revolution could occur) which would lead to socialism then to the end (communism!).

 

Just because in marx's socialism the workers would control production and wages does not mean, and that because the capitalists made more money and it was being taken away does not mean that progressive taxation is marxist. Ben Franklin believed in Marxism then, he advocated for progressive taxation in towns, because the landowners had more at stake, and should pay more for a police force. What a MARXIST!

 

Marxism was a complete set of ideals. Cherry picking aspects of the economic one and applying that as the HEart of marxism is self serving. I'd say next to no one is a Marxist today, not the way there were in late 19th century, not the way the Menscheviks were. I mean, when even the people that set out to accomplish marxism end up creating their own ism, how can you apply it to a president doing the slightest part of a part of an equation. If Obama nationalized every industry, said f*** the farmers, banned religion, threw out the bourgeoisie and said it was all part of a plan to achieve a world with no currency, just everyone providing for one another, then, you can say, that Obama is a Marxist. But until then, it's just foolish nonsense.

He's nationalized a hell of a lot, he's ruining the US currency (I would argue with intent), and he's more or less suggesting that "everying provid(es) for one another". That's his policy. I'll leave the religion out, on purpose, for now. It's not foolish nonsense, it's what he's doing. He's much more on the level of a Marxist then a Capitalist. There's no question. Put that on a political spectrum, and he's DEFINITELY well left of center on that continuum. I laugh at all these people still trying to paint this guy as a centrist. He's the furthest left president in at least modern history, if not the history of the country.

 

Two things. First wasn't he bailing out the s***ty companies that weren't making profits? I don't think cruddy companies are the target of marxist anger.

 

Second, wasn't it you who just recently argued that Obama and the Democrats were supporting expanded Health Care just to win over votes? You probably realize that a common leftist position is that capitalists and elitists enact programs like health care just to appease the lower classes and help them accept the capitalist paradigm. Now, that's not why Obama supports a public choice but get your arguments straight.

 

Obama accepts the capitalist and free trade paradigm but believes that the government needs to intervene now and again. This is a moderate position.

 

And I don't really see how Obama is any more left than Clinton.

Edited August 22, 200916 yr by KipWellsFan

Two things. First wasn't he bailing out the s***ty companies that weren't making profits? I don't think cruddy companies are the target of marxist anger.

 

Second, wasn't it you who just recently argued that Obama and the Democrats were supporting expanded Health Care just to win over votes? You probably realize that a common leftist position is that capitalists and elitists enact programs like health care just to appease the lower classes and help them accept the capitalist paradigm. Now, that's not why Obama supports a public choice but get your arguments straight.

 

Obama accepts the capitalist and free trade paradigm but believes that the government needs to intervene now and again. This is a moderate position.

 

And I don't really see how Obama is any more left than Clinton.

That's laughable.

 

And I have never once said "Marxist" in an "angry tone". It's a simple statement, without the emotional crap behind it.

 

Last, so he's pandering for votes. So what? He's still Marxist more then he's "capitalist".

You're going to have to make the argument that he's way more left than Clinton. And you gotta take into account that they were Presidents during different economic times, and most of Obama's economic people were from the Clinton administration.

let me know when GS and GM are worker-run co-ops in a true communist sense and then you can start talking about Marx. It's not even close to "Das Kapital".

let me know when GS and GM are worker-run co-ops in a true communist sense and then you can start talking about Marx. It's not even close to "Das Kapital".

Aye aye - communism and Marxism are two different things. Run a step and take a mile, please.

You're going to have to make the argument that he's way more left than Clinton. And you gotta take into account that they were Presidents during different economic times, and most of Obama's economic people were from the Clinton administration.

Huh?

Aye aye - communism and Marxism are two different things. Run a step and take a mile, please.

 

Marxism is a type of communism like a square is a type of rectangle.

let me know when GS and GM are worker-run co-ops in a true communist sense and then you can start talking about Marx. It's not even close to "Das Kapital".

Didn't the Unions get a good chunk of GM/Chrysler's ownership?

Its funny to see an argument being made that Obama is a Marxist or a Socialist, just as its funny to see people say he's not. Its not a switch. The government ALREADY redsitributes wealthy. Even the most conservative among the GOP leadership favor some degree of it. Its just a question of where on the curve everyone is. Obama is a few inches closer to Marx than Bush 43 was. But they are both still miles away from being just like him.

 

These recent revelations about the CIA torture/ "harsh interrogation" is actually going somewhere.

 

Between this, Ridge, Blackwater, some of what Sarkozy said and a lot of other information that has trickled out, its pretty much confirmed how terrible of President person a Bush was.

Edited August 24, 200916 yr by StrangeSox

These recent revelations about the CIA torture/ "harsh interrogation" is actually going somewhere.

 

Between this, Ridge, Blackwater, some of what Sarkozy said and a lot of other information that has trickled out, its pretty much confirmed how terrible of President person a Bush was.

This all comes out right before Congress comes back to vote on health care. Smokescreen, baby.

 

Edit - to say it better, this has been simmering for months - and they're going to pursue this right at the same time. Right. Nice motives.

This all comes out right before Congress comes back to vote on health care. Smokescreen, baby.

 

Edit - to say it better, this has been simmering for months - and they're going to pursue this right at the same time. Right. Nice motives.

 

Well, Obama wouldn't be able to politicize the Bush administration if the Bush Administration wasn't so awful. Obama could spread it out and still have ammo for four more years I'd imagine.

Well, Obama wouldn't be able to politicize the Bush administration if the Bush Administration wasn't so awful. Obama could spread it out and still have ammo for four more years I'd imagine.

Didn't they keep blaming the clintons for stuff all the way through the financial crisis?