« Checked out KC Library lately? | Main | In praise of train travel »

April 07, 2009

Socialism just first step

As I understand it, socialism is primarily financial (take money from A to give to B so they are made equal). In Marxist doctrine it is the intermediate step to communism, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution is eliminated.

If the central planners of the Obama administration are successful in nationalizing the auto industry, health care and energy production and in the disarmament of the peasants, it should be fairly clear where we will end up.

If we, the people, don’t act now to rein in this government, I fear that we will look back fondly on the time when we thought Obama was just a socialist.

Jim Barber



How about this beaut.


Smarter Than You

Our favorite corn cracker writes "why no one takes you seriously on here." That just hurts! It does pose the question of why Jimmy seem intent on on responding to non serious posts?

Maybe it's because you've been so consistently wrong on the issues. Maybe it's your annoying habit of just outright creating accusations to respond to. Maybe it's a cry for help.

Would a full adoption of the Obama doctrine result a more more Socialist America? No doubt. Note I say more socialist because we have some socialist entitlements currently. And guess what, we can't afford them! Pay for the current entitlements then maybe we can consider expansion.


"Glenn Beck" was mentioned below. I listen to him every once in a while.

The man is off his rocker. When he was on CNN they had him on a short leash. Now that he's moved to Faux, he's a wild man. He's a raving, rightwing, Republican lunatic.

"Obama wants to take all your guns away!!"

"Obama, the American Nazi, is preparing concentration camps for us all!!"

"It's Armageddon and Obama is the anti-Christ!!!"

Seriously, it's time for Beck's relatives to finally do an intervention and get Glenn back in the hospital where he belongs. You'll all be lucky if he's "only" drinking again.

And Bible-thumping Dobson girl, Michelle Bachmann, isn't much better than Beck. She's just as nuts but, from Minnesota, we expected better. Is she the best that Lake Wobegon can send to Washington?


I saw a cartoon on a blog the other day. That copy disappeared but it's also here ...


"Planned economy or planned destruction?"

"Plan of action for US: Spend, spend, spend under the guise of recovery - bust the government - blame the capitalists for the failure - junk the Constitution and declare a dictatorship."

It's from, of course, the Chicago Tribune and 1934.

Funny stuff.

It's nice to see Hoover still has some fans here, all these years later. Sorry, I'm a Roosevelt man. Hoover was just as wrong 75 years ago as "he" is today.

Back to the future.



Your hubris is matched only by your density. Your habit of making comments about what others say without actually reading and understanding what they say is why no one takes you seriously on here. Keep at it, though. I'm sure your "smarts" are impressing some other knuckledragger out there.

Smarter Than You

Actually, Jimmers, my name is Smarter Than You, which admittedly isn't that high of a bar.

I'm amazed that I have to hear from my more progressive friends what certain personalities are "saying." No wonder their ratings are so high.

Bottom line; you're attacking arguments nobody on this blog has made. It must be a nice form of paranoia where you get to create the question and provide the answer at the same time.

Mr. Davies was right, paranoia's a destroyer!


Only when they are the lesser-the much lesser in this case-of two mistaskes.


"Obama makes no bones about the fact that he is in favor of the redistribution of both income and wealth."


You vote for candidates who are also in favor of redistribution of wealth, so this point really is moot with you.


"Relax, nobody said you, or our “P.R.esident” are fascists."

Given that you're "smarter" than all of us, it's surprising how often you're dead wrong on the things you babble about. You apparently haven't been paying attention. The "F word" is being used quite often in rightwing circles to describe the Obama Administration, from Glenn Beck to Eric Cantor to Michelle Bachmann, Granted, it's mostly the extra-crispy insane right wing extremists that are saying it, but they are counted as the "mainstream" of the Republican party by their followers.


Perhaps we should all think about definitions. A democracy, a representative republic, a totalitarian state all represent types of political systems. Capitalism, socialism and communism are types of economic systems. Fascist Italy was a State with a totalitarian political system and a socialistic economic system. Obama makes no bones about the fact that he is in favor of the redistribution of both income and wealth. This can be done under any of the political systems. It is harder to see how it can be done under an economic system that can be regarded as a capitalistic system.


Hey Jim,

Last week I got to add "facist" to my long list of attributes as described here along with sexist,anti-Jew, Obama's buddy, Christian bashing, N-word lover, racist,Asian hating, liberal, America hater, mysoginist and guilt ridden honky.

What a kooky place!

Smarter Than You

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Oops, my bad. I fell asleep during Jimmy’s diatribe about fascism.

One poster said it’s a short trip from socialism to fascism and we get the whole “fascism’s bad, and we’re not for it” defense. Relax, nobody said you, or our “P.R.esident” are fascists. The point was that as the government becomes more powerful and more of the masses suckle at Washington’s teet, it becomes easier to fascism to take hold.


Fascism is just a new scare tactic by the Right, since "Socialism" didn't work out despite their constant repetition of it. They obviously don't even know what it means, and don't care to know.

E.B. White wrote this for the New Yorker in the 1940s. I think it's still applies today:

"We are sorry to see this misuse of the word “Fascist.” If we recall matters, a Fascist is a member of the Fascist party or a believer in Fascist ideals. These are: a nation founded on bloodlines, political expansion by surprise and war, murder or detention of unbelievers, transcendence of state over individual, obedience to one leader, contempt for parliamentary forms, plus some miscellaneous gymnastics for the young and a general feeling of elation. It seems to us that there are many New Deal Democrats who do not subscribe to such a program, also many aspiring Republicans. Other millions of Americans are non-subscribers. It’s too bad to emasculate the word “Fascist” by using it on persons whose only offense is that they vote the wrong ticket. The word should be saved for use in cases where it applies, as it does to members of our Ku Klux Klan, for instance, whose beliefs and practices are identical with Fascism."

Stifled Freedom

Gary said it best. A move from socialism to fascism is not a big stretch. The converse is also true. If you dont want both then you better not push for either one.

Stifled Freedom

"Again, Please tell me where Republicans have ever stopped private enterprise."

They haven't. That hasn't been my argument all along. Why do you keep asking the irrelevent question?

I criticize the Republicans for regulating (and relentless attempting to regulate) my lifestyle by saying its not the norm. Doing so is pushing the US toward fascism.

However, on the flip side, the Republicans are screaming, today, about the creep of socialism. Fascism is larger form of socialism. It includes both.

Actually China, despite all its strong criticisms by the right, is exactly what they are obliviously pushing here. China controls individual freedom, but allows free enterprise.


Well Marc, let's face it, the Fairness Doctrine is sour grapes on the part of Democrats who are attempting to combat the success of conservative AM talk radio. While every conservative loves to make NBC/ABC/CNN/NPR into these bastions of liberal media, the reality is they are much more to the center than most conservatives like to think (for liberal media, I suggest conservatives listen to Union Labor Forum or Democracy Now on 90.1 or any Pacifica station for that matter, then come back and explain where MSM stands on the political spectrum). Since AM talk is much more politically slanted than network MSM, Dems are thinking it would be easier to apply the fairness doctrine to those outlets than more vaguely left leaning outlets like network news.

Now while I am against this approach and the doctrine in general for the reasons you stated, I still don't see it as censorship. I put it in the same league as the failed Bush proposal to increase the percentage of media outlets a company can own in any given market (you may recall the left crying censorship on that one). Not a good thing but not exact censorship.


"...it just requires equal time for opposing viewpoints."


I think we differ on this one. When originally enacted, the number of media outlets were limited and the government sought to prevent a monopoly of opinion from being able to dominate the public discourse. Since this is obviously no longer the case, I see any resurgence of the Fairness Doctrine as an attempt to silence one side of the debate by those on the other side.

My take, in this era of many outlets and choices, is that if the government wants to limit the content of airwaves leased to private entities for their exclusive use, they should quit leasing them to private entities and instead promote them as open access.



I think you misunderstood Joe's point. When stating that "Fascism is a militaristic state that controls ones individual freedoms AND a total loss of private enterprise.", Joe seemed to be pointing out that each side of the fight advocates their own 1/2 of the equation. Each side rails against the other's contribution to the whole when they are "doing their part" on the other half of the equation.


I had a feeling you wee going to come back with the Fairness Doctrine. While I find the Fairness doctrine sort of silly in light of all the media option that are now available, I certainly don't see it as censorship. It's more about equal time. How does the Fairness Doctrine promote censorship? Can you offer a balanced explaination on that (i.e not that of the Heritage Foundation)? The way I see it, the doctrine does not supress existing voices, it just requires equal time for opposing viewpoints.


and the amazing thing is that the Obama adminsitration's DOJ has issued an amicus brief agreeing with the Patriot Act.
Government can not make everyone wealthy or productive hwever they can make veryone dependent and poor. History proves it.
The funny thing is those that sacrifice are the middle class not the "poor", the so called "poor" have nothing (so they claim) to sacrifice. The wealthy have excess so do not really sacrifice. Maybe Hollywood stars, entertainers and athletes should all pay a Priviledge Tax of an additional 50% of their income for good of all humanity.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright