Friday, October 17, 2008

If the shoe fits...

According to Wikipedia:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.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 which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism by nature 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.

Obama quotes:

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

A oft-used phrase by Obama (including the last debate):

"When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

Looks like we have a Robin Hood on our hands.

Picture HT: Hough


Wayne said...

The one injustice by the NY Post is the besmirching of the character of Robin Hood.

The Robin Hood mythology is squarely Christian. Hood defends the poor, not by "spreadin' the wealth," by by robbing the oppressor and living out an ethic of loyalty to his king - whose return he eagerly awaits.

Reepicheep said...

Excellent point Wayne.

I was thinking of the Kevin Costner version.

Frontier Forest said...

The big difference is “Robin could” and we can’t! Big government say, “What your’s is mine and what’s mine is fine.”

Rick Calohan said...

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

"Property is the fruit of is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
Abraham Lincoln

Commenting on a letter that Reagan had written to Richard Nixon in 1960 regarding John F. Kennedy, as quoted in the NY Times (1984-10-27). The letter to Nixon said: "Unfortunately, he is a powerful speaker with an appeal to the emotions. He leaves little doubt that his idea of the 'challenging new world' is one in which the Federal Government will grow bigger and do more and of course spend more....One last thought — shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's bold new imaginative program with its proper age? Under the tousled boyish haircut is still old Karl Marx — first launched a century ago. There is nothing new in the idea of a Government being Big Brother to us all. Hitler called his 'State Socialism' and way before him it was 'benevolent monarchy.'" Ronald Reagan

"I am convinced that America is economically conservative . . . I'm sure the American people do not want the government paid services 'at any price' . . . If we start down the road to statism it leads to socialism." – Ronald Reagan

“Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”
- Ronald Reagan in his First Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981

Jim said...

But, Tony, if you look around today, we're already have a lot of socialism. Socialist roads, socialist fire and police protection, socialist schools (a 200+ year tradition in the U.S. -- see the Northwest Ordinance), socialist utilities (in most cities), socialist mail service, socialist hospitals (in many cities), socialist mass transit systems (in many cities), etc.

Plus, the U.S. has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world ("progressive" meaning higher rates for higher incomes, not progressive as in "liberal," althought it's that, too -- see its endorsement in the Communist manifesto). And we already have significant transfers of income.

So you'll have to excuse me if I ask what's so significant about drawing the line here rather than there? The U.S. crossed the line into "socialism" decades ago, perhaps even centuries ago (if you count the socialistic schools).

Sure, we didn't call it "socialism" then, but that's what it was.

So the GOP wants a little less socialism than we have today; the Dems want a little more socialism. You say potatoe, I say potatoe. (Hmm, that doesn't quite work in print, does it?)

Michael Lockridge said...

I am unconvinced that our current bloated central government with its failed social programs and penchant for over-regulation is all that much better than the many failed socialist states throughout the world.

Personally I long for a society of optimal freedom for all and minimal government. It won't happen, but it is what I would prefer.

Ours is a great nation, and for all of the visible faults it remains great. However, I have seen few political trends that warm my heart.

Whether it is a Democratic weak socialism or the half-baked capitalism of the Republicans, it generally comes down to two flavors of vanilla.

I have long held that the person who leads should be within walking distance of my home. Strong local government with a unified support only where really needed.

Roger Mann said...

Yes, "the shoe fits." Here's an excellent article that lays out the case quite nicely:

Is Obama a socialist?