http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4K23Y7Qas&feature=related
Definition of Socialism:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]
HE WANTS TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH, THAT IS SOCIALISM….. WAKE UP
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I’m not sure…i might have to dumb myself down to the intellect of an Obama supporter to find out myself why they are.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Are you referring to McCain, or Bush?
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Clinton balanced power in his 2 terms and the economy was strong. So your using the term "Socialist" loosely.
Socialism just balances power so the fundamentals of the economy with stay even and strong.
I think people confuse Socialism w/Communism
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I’m not voting for Obama, screw him.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
It is really none of your business who I vote for. Nothing you stated makes a difference to me.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I would NEVER and thanks for posting the info
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Because the alternative is John McCain—"a troubled leader for troubled times."
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Thanks for your definition. However, you fail to mention how Obama is a socialist.
Obama wanting to return taxes on the rich to pre-Bush levels in a time of war with a large deficit does not advocate "state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."
If anything, McCain is a socialist because he’s a Republican and Bush is advocating the "state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society" by socializing the losses and buying shares of investment banks and companies like AIG.
You should really become educated before you regurgitate sound bytes you hear Limbaugh use.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I want more socialism.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
You are not entirely correct but I cannot be bothered to write a hundred pages to explain why. Socialism in not a bad thing.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
My mommy voted for the socialist by absentee ballot.
The thugs broke in into our home and made my mommy to fill in her absentee ballot, or else they threatened to rape me and my younger brother
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
why are u voting for someone like Putin / Bush again lol
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Your Republican president just approved a 700 billion dollar bailout and is now in talks to spend and additional 250 billion to buy out banks. McLame approved. Who’s socialist??
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
until you can give me proof that didn’t take 4 hours in photoshop I’ll believe you
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I would vote for Mr. Magoo before Obama
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
As a real-life socialist (not just a liberal who gets called a socialist by the right wing) I could only wish that the charges of Obama being a socialist were true. Instead, he is just another capitalist. I’ll vote for him because the supreme court justices McCain would appoint would be right-wing fanatics, but I assure you, Obama is NO socialist.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Ayres helped him write his book. He is a socialist, and a communist. And a friend who threw a great big fund raiser for Obama. Are you a liberal first and an American second? Do what’s right for the country, not what you think is right for your party.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Obama describes his plans and it fits the bill like a glove. It is socialism at its best. His supporters want the government to take over everthing. Well I dont trust the govt to run anything, so I dont want them in control of much.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I live in Canada, they’re all socialist until they get into office.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Republicans use Socialism much more than Democrats only they play it in a much larger scale with the wealthy.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I’m not voting for a Socialist. I’m voting for Barack Obama. I have many many reasons to do so, but even if I didn’t, I still would vote for him… Just to p!ss you off. Hate repels, dude. Hate repels.
Republicans love this country. They just hate 1/2 the people living in it.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Ok, so you know how to cut and paste a definition of socialism from another website. But you failed to demonstrate for me how socialism is a bad thing. I’m kind of diggin’ it, myself.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Fortunately for the proletariat the Bush/Cheney regime has begun the process when they instituted public ownership of our banking, investment and lending institutions. If the working classes unite we may get Universal Health Care in the next decade.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
shrugs
After the grand victories of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, King turned his attention to poverty, economic injustice and class inequality. King argued that those "legislative and judicial victories did very little to improve" Northern ghettos or to "penetrate the lower depths of Negro deprivation." In a frank assessment of the civil rights movement, King said the changes that came about from 1955 to 1965 "were at best surface changes" that were "limited mainly to the Negro middle class." In seeking to end black poverty, King told his staff in 1966 that blacks "are now making demands that will cost the nation something. … You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then."
King’s conclusion? "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism." He didn’t say this in the mainstream but to his black colleagues. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dyson4apr04,0,1840793.story
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. suggested that USA might have to move towards Democratic socialism,but he only said that to blacks.
Maybe we should.
I get tired of people talking about the founding fathers to support things that should stay the way they are. The thing is that the founding fathers didn’t intend on creating this nation for all people. They only created for mainly the white men. Women,Native Americans,and Blacks were left out of their plans for the nation.
USA was forced to change in the past
when all Americans became citizens
when it came to slavery being abolished
when it came to civil rights
when it came to interracial marriage bans abolished
when it came to women gaining the right to vote,and getting more rights…as well as abortion/prochoice
when it came to gay anti discrimination laws
when it came to gay marriage being legalized in 3 states
USA didn’t change on its own. It was forced to change. …because of activists/advocates making their voices being heard,protesting,speaking out against injustices, and they were accused of whining. Many people didn’t like those changes being made, and so they whined about them.
pretty ironic….when people didn’t have certain rights and complained about it,they were accused of being whiners
but when these "whiners" got their rights, the accusers ended up whining
USA has always have been forced to change
USA was based on the rebellion against Great Britain because they whined about the British government mistreatment of them, but they weren’t concerned about all Americans - especially not the Blacks,Native Americans,and women.
Therefore USA was built on not only rebellion,but dissent and protest as well as hypocrisy and selfrighteousness.
The old way of doing things aren’t necessarily the right way of doing things.
no pun…I was referring to correct. and not right as in conservative political views
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I’m voting for Obama. He is not a socialist.
Why do the weathly get huge tax cuts? Why do giant corporations get huge tax cuts? Giving the working class affordable health care and tax breaks is not socialism. I’ve heard most other arguments and they are either not convincing or fabrications of socialist theories.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Where do you people get these insane idiotic ideas about what socialism (which he doesn’t even remotely approach) is? Obama is going to spread your wealth dear. Your money is still your money to do with as you wish. Nowhere has he proposed anything that would do that.
Look… the United States pays a great deal in taxes and most of it is going to pay for a war nobody wants while the people at home suffer with little or no health care, lackluster (at best) education, more and more of the middle class being forced into the "poor" class, and a whole host of other problems that trickle down economics is not helping.
I’m a Canadian living in the US. I moved here in April of this year.
So… let me explain whats going on in Canada just to give you a reference point.
In Canada, there is a 5% Goods and Services tax on everything you buy (and its going down a percent almost every year at this point). We were all mad when it started but it was started to pay off our national debt. And its succeeding to the point that every person that contributes gets a check every three months with some money returning to us.
But thats not all. Alberta (where I grew up) is the only province that doesn’t have a sales tax so we got lucky. Instead, Alberta has legalized gambling. Which means that the gvt taxes those gambling profits and the Alberta gvt has gone from the most indebted Province in Canada to having its Provincial debt completely paid. Its making so much money from the taxes levied against gambling that Alberta is now doing something its never done before… giving totally free health care paid by that gambling revenue.
But wait… you say… that takes away your right to choose. Actually it doesn’t. Every Province in Canada does exactly the same thing. We have a choice on who we see for a doctor. Everyone is taken care of. No one is refused because they can’t pay for it.
And then there’s the Income tax that we all pay… there is a personal deduction that has gone up recently. The Poverty line has massively increased. Last I looked, it was $21, 000 for Alberta, and $9600 for Canada. What this means is that you can make up to that amount. During the year you pay into it, more than likely you will get money back. Last year, I received over a $1000 back.
But how much did I really pay per paycheck? 15% in my tax bracket on Federal taxes.
Thats right, 15%. And thats actually down two percent from the 90’s even though my wage increased.
So tell me… why in hell do I got so little taken from my taxes and yet I got my health care covered?
You people are so worried about about tax increases that you aren’t thinking straight.
Its really very simple… STOP SENDING ALL YOUR MONEY OVERSEAS TO WAR. Canada still has an army, granted its not the best in the world, but our people are taken care of first.
Yeah, its socialist but we actually get to keep more of our wages than YOU do. How do I know? Because I’m living in the US with an American husband and I see his paychecks (I should be starting a new job myself sometime this week). I know how much you people pay on your taxes.
If Canada can charge so little for taxes, yet our health care is covered, and our education is covered (unless its a private school or for college level) and we have one of the best educational systems in the world (yes even much better than the US, whether you people like to talk yourselves up or not). Our poor and downtrodden are taken care of (with limits of course. The only way you’d be able to remain on welfare in Canada is with legitimate medical reasons. Unemployment has an absolute maximum of two years, regardless, and if you don’t show any inclination to find a job within six months, they’ll boot you).
Yet we pay less taxes than you.
What does this have to do with anything, you say? You people keep talking about Obama as though he’s the end of the world when he isn’t. Obama isn’t "spreading your wealth", he’s giving you things you need in order to function as a society. And, given enough time and changes, he may even be able to start lowing your taxes.
Think about it with an open mind instead of obsessing over the fear tactics that the Republicans want you to.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
So we can all quit working and let Obama spread the wealth. It is going to be so great. A leisure society where the govt takes care of all our needs. Im not sure where the funding will come from but, who cares. Let our new savior worry about that.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Because socialism isn’t all that bad. Yes, parts of it are. We need the most educated minds in America to form a nearly perfect hybrid of socialism and capitalism.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
So Bush, who proposed the bailouts, and McCain, who voted yes the same way Obama and Biden did on them, aren’t socialist by some crazy label sticking magic?
Looks like you’re going socialist, by your view, either way.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
My votes for Obama, in short, because "loss of leadership capable of intellectual initiative in domestic and foreign affairs are allies on which the communists count to bring opportunity knocking to their door" said the U.S. Supreme Court.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Exactly my friend.
I am a Sociology graduate. Let me educate you:
Socialism wasn’t considered a bad thing when it was first developed. The idea of socialism that Karl Marx spoke of, was a more equal society where the rich and elite were not treated with the privileges that subjugate and subordinate the middle and lower class citizens.
The terms "Socialism" and "Socialist" were completely taken out of context when they were applied to the government regimes of Germany during the mid 1860’s. One of the concepts of Socialism is that if the government doesn’t do what is necessary to help the people, the people should revolt against government. This is only one tenant of the original idea of Socialism, but it was the only tenant that Germany embraced, followed by the Russians in the 1800’s. Don’t mistake Socialism with Communism.
This use of only parts of the original idea of Socialism is what makes people think that socialism is a terrible thing. I can go on and on about how Americans have that whole idea of Socialism misconstrued, but that’s not the point.
My point is, look at your own definition you posted: isn’t that exactly what both candidates are attempting to do? or at least say they are going to do. They both say the middle class needs more, that the wealthy have too much, that the common people are not getting what they deserve. That through tax breaks for the middle class, we will have more income coming into the home, thus putting us all on a more even financial playing field.
your definition even said that there is a considerable disagreement about the extent to which this goal can be achieved, right? Well, both candidates have different views on how their goals are to get achieved. Truth be told, there are many of the original socialist ideas that are a part of our nation. The industrial revolution was significantly based on the ideas of the original socialism theories.
I hope this debunks a lot of what people are saying about "socialist" this and "socialism" that. Many people don’t even know what socialism is, let alone it’s history. Neither Barack Obama or John McCain are socialist. In fact, look up the term egalitarian and see what it means. You might be suprised.
Educate yourself on things before you condem ideas and place false labels on people.