Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know, by Billy Wharton.
Traffic to our Web site multiplied, e-mail inquiries increased and meetings with potential recruits to the Socialist Party yielded more new members than ever before. Socialism -- an idea with a long history -- suddenly seemed to have a bright future in 21st-century America.
Monday, March 23, 2009
"Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know."
From the Washington Post. Thanks, G:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I read this yesterday. I suspect that you will get 1001 comments as to why this is wrong and that Obama really is a Socialist. In a label driven society any attempt to actually discuss complex issues in a complex way has to be driven back to it's most basic form----labels. And if the labels do not match, it doesn't matter. Better to have an even inexact label than to actually think.
But was it the "BEST" article on whether or not he is a socialist?
VBG
It's all striving for clarity, John. That's all people are seeking.
You must pigeon hole everyone so we can be clear on where everyone stands. Complexity in thought is just a way of trying to mask your real beliefs (you're either with us, or against us, btw).
If we can't label someone before the discussion begins, how can we follow the script?
(weak satire)
And here I thought socialism was defined by who was governing, not by actual governance. I guess I'll have to read policy now, too, dammit.
At least one thing's for sure. Once he gets some of those tax rates up to where they were years ago and starts spending revenue on taxpayers, it'll be the death of capitalism.
What the heck does being healthy, smart, and able to get around have to do with the economy anyway?
(even weaker satire)
"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." American Heritage Dictionary.
Geithner on the Hill today asking for authority to seize companies that didn't even take TARP money and to regulate the pay of CEOs at private companies.
That is socialism, if not communism. If it quacks like a socialist and waddles like a socialist, then it deserves the "label."
I would draw a distinction. Geithner has no intention of keeping the companies on the US’s books for long. Acquire, stabilize, privatize. Evan Alan Greenspan’s publicly speculated for privatization of “zombie” banks. This is not socialism.
One might note here that financial institutions neither produce nor distribute goods.
Those of you who want your capitalism washed down with a good dose of old fashioned values might also note that our ancestors spent quite a bit of time thinking that profiting from merely handling money rather than producing something with it was immoral.
See the article below...the administration is seeking power to sieze insurance companies, investment companies and others such as hedge fund institutions. Where do we draw the line?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html
I love how there is always a rush to defend labels.
Post a Comment