Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Let's Talk Socialism
I have taken note of the various lefties scurrying amongst us in the blogosphere, CNN, and on MSNBC, smugly chortling about those stupid Republicans who call Barack Obama a socialist. Republicans don’t even know what socialism is! Barack Obama is not a socialist! You can’t say that, not because it is not true, but because it sounds like a bad thing. This whole backlash against “labels” just makes me shake my head. A banana is a banana because it is a banana.* A socialist is a socialist because he is a socialist.
Socialism does not require a wholesale nationalization of business. That is the end goal (and a step in the Marxist progression to collectivization, I might add).
Dancing over to Wikipedia, you find a rather concise and accurate definition of socialism (it’s at least what this stupid Republican learned socialism meant)
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls 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.
I am wondering which one of Barack Obama’s past, present, and proposed future policies do not fit this definition. He wants to de facto nationalize the health care system. He told the most famous Joe on the planet he wants to “spread the wealth around”. He is proposing a trillion dollars in new social spending. And he has promised to increase taxes on everyone making more than $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 per year to pay for it all.
Yeah, Barack Obama sounds like a hell of a capitalist.
Whatever you want to say, the more the government taxes the means of production, the more socialistic that government is. Taxation creates part-ownership. Taxing capital gives the government a stake in that capital. Taxing income gives the government control over you, your time and what you produce.
Look at this way. What is the result of a 100% tax rate? What should be the most obvious answer is that a 100% tax rate means complete government owenship, which in terms of an economy, would be what we call nationalization. Any tax rate is at its core a socialistic act once the tax revenues exceed what is required to fund the common good (the actual common good – national defense, roads, police protection, and so forth – not the perversion the term has become). Once you move past that point, you are moving further from the free market and closer to socialism.
What kinds of things does Barack Obama want to do? His party wants to reduce national defense expenditures and increase entitlements. His goal is an egalitarianism of results. He has proposed not a single policy whose intent is to help create wealth; from his own mouth, he wants to “spread the wealth around”.
So, the argument that Barack Obama is not a socialist is ridiculous. He says so himself. He associates himself repeatedly with those who are (Ayers, Wright, etc.), and he takes money from those who support that world view. His proposed policies certainly were not what Adam Smith was dreaming of in 1776.
What we know is that “socialist” is a bad word – that’s why those on the Left balk at it being used to describe Barack Obama. And, it should be. It’s very syllables echo backwardness and the styming of progress. But that is what he is, and what he ought to be called.
* of course, in a socialist economy, it is also more likely you will have “Yes, we have no bananas today” on endless auto-repeat
October 31st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Point of comparison, how is Obama more socialist than Bill Clinton?
October 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
When those who produce, (and the Gov. produces nothing), have no incentive to produce, because the fruits of their labor is taken from them, everyone will be without, or at best, a lot less….. You FEED goose that provides the golden eggs,(jobs, taxes, GDP growth, etc,), you don’t strangle it!….
Nothing BO has proposed does anything but strangle the goose. He has not said one thing that promotes growth in anything, except handouts.
Show me ANY point in this CHANGE rhetoric that is ANYTHING but handouts and entitlements. Show me any point he has made that will grow America in ANY way. BO has done an exceptional job in dumbing down his followers to believe that there will always be someone to take from, and he will make sure they get a share of the pie, someone else’s pie. Use what God gave you, and understand that if you eat the seeds, no one can grow a crop, and we all starve.
Anyone know their history, where has the Gov. taken more and more control of a society, and the standard of living done anything but decline?
Looks like “1984″ is
arriving a bit late, isn’t it? Maybe it should be BBB , “Big Brother Barack”, another version of “The One”.
Another note, the mall owners, where I have a store, have sent out notices to all the malls they own or manage, to increase security for next wed., in order to be ready for any problems, whether BO wins or loses. Isn’t that a sad state of affairs?
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:49 am
I agree, and disagree. Obamas plan to redistribute downward is flawed, to put it mildly.
Yet the entire tax system is flawed and is a drag on all means of production.
My first choice for president had proposed modernizing our tax system. He was attacked from all sides; although now people are taking a second look and saying it’s workable. Mike Huckabee had a fair tax that was as it was called, fair.
I still would like to vote my conscience, and write his name in. In my heart I believe he would have won this election, but he came up a hair short in South Carolina, and thus lost the nomination. If things don’t fly on Tuesday Hucks the one in 2012.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:34 am
A fair tax sounds great to anyone who actually pays taxes, but the 40 per cent who do not pay, and would get a check from BO, would not think so, and that check buys a lot of votes that will never be given up. Power, not ethics, is the name of the game.
Interesting note, a friend owns a business that makes specialty milled metal parts for various industries. They recently went to an industry show in Chicago, no one was placing orders, comments were that they were waiting to see the Nov 4th results, anticipating hard times if BO wins the election, and they wanted to be very liquid, with much lower inventories, expecting cutbacks in business and employees in order to weather the days to come. In their industry, they need special mixes in the metals for specific parts in their business, they are having more problems than they have seen before getting this product from inventories across the country. They have said no one is pouring any inventory in metals, except by special order only. The comment she made was, the business cards she picked up will just go into the trash can if BO wins Tues.
This is not the exception in small business today, it’s the norm. Know any Realtors or car salesmen finding it easier buying groceries lately. A $500 check from BO won’t buy much groceries or send your kid to college, only a good economy will do this, and increased tax burdens on any size business will not help here. How much air travel, bar business, hotel, restaurant business is business related? Watch the economy when this is crippled.
If you work in any of these,or others that will be impacted by reduced business expenses, better start updating your resume……