“RIGHT YOU ARE AS YOU THINK YOU ARE … EVEN IF YOU’RE A SOCIALIST”
We believe strongly in the notion of circumstantial discernment … the idea that the same action can be either right or wrong based on the context in which it occurred.
That’s different from relativism, though. Relativism is the broader belief that right and wrong do not exist in absolute form. The guiding principle of this philosophy? “Right you are as you think you are.”
We reject that ….
In every situation, there is absolute right and absolute wrong … as well as the spectrum of human behavior lying betwixt. We either act in a manner consistent with the right, or we don’t. And while there are those who look for ways to explain away their moral failings in the present age, that does not absolve them of eternal culpability.
Anyway, we pondered a lot of this in writing recently on U.S. president Barack Obama‘s controversial visit to Cuba – especially his decision to embrace of the legacy of Che Guevara.
We were also especially interested to see whose idea it was to pose below Guevara’s mural during the Cuba trip …
(Click to play)
Yup … just call him the Photo-Opportunist-in-Chief.
Anyway, Obama followed up his overture to impressionable progressives with some interesting remarks on a subsequent trip to Argentina – the South American nation that former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford (who joined Obama’s delegation) once mistook for the Appalachian Trail.
“So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said. “Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical, and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works.”
Wow … that actually came out of the mouth of the leader of the “free world.”
We’ve come a long way from “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” haven’t we?
More to the point … has his administration “worked?” Especially for black Americans?
No. And hell no.
Of interest? Obama’s “ideological relativism” in Argentina comes at a time when the country has decided to tack toward free market reforms under new leader Mauricio Macri. In other words, the leader of the “free world” is seeking to undermine the free market both at home and abroad.
Disgraceful …
Argentina and America deserve better than this.
82 comments
This isn’t difficult.Obama was raised,educated and mentored to believe America is evil and must be destroyed from within.His now infamous ‘apology’ tours to appease Marxist /communist dictators and radical Islamist leaders are just an extension of his goal to bring this nation to its knees with mass illegal immigration and the elimination of religious /civil liberties.
He’s totally failed at destroying the USA. He’s leaving it way better than he found it.
OOPS! You should have stopped with “He has totally failed’! Then you would have been correct!
Trump is always talking about doing the job Obama couldn’t do. Could it be he wants to destroy America since Obama failed? Oh my!
Amen! You only need to read his book. people in this Country who elected and re-elected him are as dumb and feckless as he is. O is disengaged from reality due to his Communist/Muslim upbringing! The Country is in decline due to his Administration and their tendency to look down on American exceptionalism.
Shocking how disengaged and removed from reality he and his advisors are, to include Hillary!
I think Obama’s attitude has the jihadists always striving to escalate the situation, just to get his attention and engagement. They are trying to drive us into a World War and their culture of death and end-times.
Proof! http://www.infowars.com/obama-theres-little-difference-between-communism-and-capitalism/
Why did Reagan pose with a staute of Lenin? Why did GWB kiss and stroll around hand-in-hand with a Saudi crown prince?
“We’ve come a long way from “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” haven’t we?”
No shit. This website endorses a candidate that PROMISES to build a wall…..here in the USA.
Not the same. Reagan’s and Bush’s words and actions bespoke something other than their elitism, or disaffection with their homeland. The optics, and words and actions of President Obama, have people on BOTH sides of the aisle scratching their heads.
No actually Obama is just trying something different, rather than continuing what hasn’t worked for 60 years. Whether it will work or not we won’t know for some time, but by bring Cuba out of it’s isolation they may see how truly deprived they really are and demand change from within.
China is not a paragon of human rights virtue either, but we don’t isolate them from trade and such.
Talking to a lot of Republicans I get the vibe that some of these people don’t care about getting Cuba to change, they just want to punish and demonize them as long as they don’t. They don’t care that slow but steady changes now is probably a better outcome for the Cuban people in the long run, otherwise they may be stuck under this type of system for another 100 years and only get out through a bloody revolution.
You Truly are full of crap! A KoolAid drinking DUMB ASS Democrat/Communist/Socialist!
Democrats, Communists, Socialists, if you can’t tell a difference between the three then your IQ is low enough to qualify as a Trump campaign volunteer!
My another pathetic comment from South Carolina’s intelligentsia? How can a protestant be a patriot, when they have such a narrow minded attitude? Where do you park your trailer pal?
Build a wall. Define our borders to control and monitor illegal activity and the influx of undocumented people. Is that too much to ask for a sovereign nation?
The wall will be expensive, Mexico won’t pay for it, and it won’t stop illegals from actually coming over here. Penn Jillette and John Oliver both have made strong cases against wasting money on them.
Dumb ass the former USSR had walls to keep people IN.Trump wants to build a wall to keep illegals and idiots like you OUT.
If the wall is 30 feet high there will be some Mexican businessmen selling 31-foot ladders.
On the other hand obese Americans like you probably won’t be able to haul their lard butts up that high. LMAO!!!
Yep!!!
http://imgur.com/oYKRdJ7
No article about Ted Cruz’s multiple affairs? You really missed the boat on that one, FitsNews.
He didn’t miss the boat, just the driver of the boat. Rubio instead of Cruz.
Now we understand Sanford’s endorsement: kindred spirit.
One thing is for sure: the white half of this POS can’t dance
Have you ever seen his hoops game? Embarrassing, even for a half white dude.
““So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists”
SMH. Interestingly, he almost appears to equivocate socialists & communists…rightfully so IMO.
If only we could be young, naive students sitting in his class back in his Constitutional college lecturer days and ask, “What is the difference Mr. Obama between a socialist and communist?” (I’m still not sure he was actually ever considered a “professor”)
Anyway, we always have to defer to wiki due to varying definitions, here’s “capitalism”:
“Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.”
and now Socialism:
“Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.”
and now Communism:
“In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, “common, universal”)[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.”
So basically, according to wikipedia- there is no personal right to property under either “socialism”(although citizens ownership of equity is vague) or “communism”.
Yet our Lecturer, Obama-a leader of a Constitutional Republic….doesn’t argue that one is better than the other…no…he tells them they should just do “whatever”.
I’ll end where I left off….SMH.
Capitalism and Socialism are economic models not governmental models. With the exception of third world countries ruled by military dictatorships, Theocracies, like Iran and Iraq, Theocratic Monarchies like Saudi Arabia; and Communist Dictatorships, of which I think China and North Korea may be the only ones left. most of the world has firmly chosen Democracy as their governmental model. However the economic system chosen by the government affects how the governmental model works. Why, because pure capitalist think property is more important than people and pure socialist think people are more important than property. It is the extremity with which you believe this that determines were you fall in the political spectrum.
Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism exists anywhere in the world, today. They both have been tampered because they both lead to the same evil. Rule of many by a small elite group of people. Pure Capitalism leads to Plutocracy and Pure Socialism leads to Communist Dictatorship. Both have proven capable of extreme evil.
All modern economic models fall somewhere between the two extremes. It is just a question of where you fall. The US is pretty far right of center on the spectrum. Most of the rest of the world democracies fall left of center. China is far left. Russia use to be far left, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has largely become a Plutocracy ruled by mega-wealthy Oligarchs and could probably be classified as far right at this point. Europe’s history is one of far right Plutocracy, so it is no wonder the pendulum swung so far to the left in many countries and still remains left of center in most countries, like Great Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada and Australia.
Your desire to paint Capitalism as some liberating force is misplaced. It has enslaved more people than any force in history. Just as the socialist ideas of public education and support for the sick and elderly have brought millions out of poverty and oppression. Likewise Socialist Ideas have been used to justify oppression as in the case of Stalinist Russia.
In the end extremism seems to always be the factor, be it economies or religions. I think in fairness to Obama, he was in a Communist Dictatorship nation when he was speaking. He as well as they know that system is dying and Cuba will move closer to the center of the spectrum, as have most of the old Communist Dictatorships of Europe.
What people think is not relevant. Results are. Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system in all of human history.
Socialism has almost no history of success in bringing people out of poverty. It may have produced temporary results in a society that was a previously virtual feudalism or a rigid hereditary class system or temporarily in countries that had enormous natural resources. Any modern success of socialism depends on taxing capitalism and using technology that was mostly created by capitalism. In other words, socialism can only succeed if it doesn’t hamper capitalism.
The primary requirement of capitalism is that labor is free. “In history” only in recent centuries have there been any societies based on free labor. Previously, the labor you performed, your wages, if any, and who was your employer was determined by birth and your employer. Free labor is a historically recent phenomenon. Slavery and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
“Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system in all of human history.”
That wasn’t a result of just pure capitalism. America has an ugly history of workers being put in deplorable conditions and those workers died fighting for changes to improve the system so their children wouldn’t suffer the same fate.
Capitalism doesn’t care if you put kids as young as 5 to work and pay them a nickel an hour. The only thing that stops that are laws forbidding it.
A child can not be free labor, therefore it can not be called capitalism. Many reforms have been made, but those reforms ended chattel labor not limiting capitalism.
It is capitalist in nature. A person who has capital purchases the labor capacity of a child for pennies per hour. It isn’t free labor, just cheap labor. There are capitalist thinkers who disagree with child labor laws so for you to say they don’t limit capitalism is kind of funny.
“Supposedly “humanitarian” child labor laws have systematically forcibly prevented children from entering the labor force, thereby privileging their adult competitors.” https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights
“It is capitalist in nature. A person who has capital purchases the labor capacity of a child for pennies per hour.”
That is not capitalism, because the child has no say or is not old enough to have a say.
You write as if Socialism/Communism and Capitalism are the only systems that ever existed and that socialism came along to replace or reform capitalism. Communism never took over a capitalist country. There was always a feudalism or caste system over thrown. There are many economic systems including slavery, feudalism, mercantilism, Monopolies, Oligopolies. To be defined capitalist requires more than private ownership of property. You have to be able to buy and sell property to any adult citizen you choose. You have to be able to negotiate your own wages and agree to your own employment.
Child labor is incompatible with capitalism, but not incompatible with socialism, since people do not have ownership of their labor. Child labor is more prevalent in communist countries than capitalist ones.
http://www.poverties.org/child-labor-in-china.html
You are redefining capitalism to be something it is not. Human rights and dignity are not capitalist concepts. Child labor has never been considered incompatible with capitalism, any more than company stores that sold people food on credit for more than they made.
Each side their definitions, I come back to which system actually delivers prosperity.
Capitalism won’t work if their is not a fair and functional legal system that protects labor and property. There , of course, are public goods, such as the environment, roads, and utilities that free competition will not provide. Capitalism is not anarchy.
“There , of course, are public goods, such as the environment, roads, and utilities that free competition will not provide.”
Electric companies started privately…there were also private roads at one time and the environment can be protected by private property…but I digress…carry on.
If you don’t think the people running these factories and mines did not consider themselves capitalist you are nuts.
http://www.demilked.com/usa-child-labour-lewis-hines/
Stalin, Mao, and Hitler called themselves socialist. What is your point?
To your point the old Soviet Union was a “Republic” and China as well…lol
Obviously you missed my point all together. Stalin and Mao were Communist, extreme socialists. Just like the people running those factories were Plutocrats, extreme capitalist. Pure capitalism and pure socialism lead to the same evil. Domination of many by a few elite. Prosperity and social justice lie between the extremes.
Correction widespread prosperity and social justice lie between the extremes. The ruling elite do just fine at either extreme.
Agreed, but let’s not give pimps, slavers or cronies (protected from competition) the title of capitalist merely because they own capital. Feudal lords owned property, that does not make them capitalist.
A pure capitalist would have no problem having five year olds working 40 hour shifts in cotton mills for a dollar a day.
I don’t care what they call it, that is not capitalism if it involves forced labor or those not old enough or free enough to make their own choices. The gulags of the Soviet Union and the communes where employees were not allowed to quit is more akin to slavery than any true capitalist country.
You do not have to force people who are starving. Force implies physical force. I am offering you a dollar a day. That is enough to buy you food. If you do not want to work for me you can starve. That is pure capitalism. In the early part of the 20th century 5 year olds worked in cotton mills. They did so to help support their family, who would starve without the money. Those same people were not educated so they could not break out of that system. That is capitalism.
” that is not capitalism if it involves forced labor”
Excellent, you’ve nailed the crux of the issue.
No one is talking about forced labor. That is a total red herring. You are redefining capitalism to be more than it is or ever was. Telling a starving man or child you will let him work for food but if he does not wish to he can starve is Capitalism. It is not forced labor as in physical force.
“No one is talking about forced labor. ”
Not from what I read:
“A child can not be free labor”
That was BT’s orignal comment.
“Telling a starving man or child you will let him work for food but if he does not wish to he can starve is Capitalism.”
That, I agree with. While we can all feel sad that a man or child has found themselves in a position of starvation(though by the argument, they can eat if they desire)- it doesn’t make the notion of stealing from the potential employer or anyone else a justification for the theft.
In other words, if I steal $10 from you and give it to a bum down the street, it doesn’t not make me a thief.
I am not going back into your insane argument that taxation is theft.
Then run away.
Are you suggesting that in socialist countries, healthy adults are given food without any work required? Is it better to only have the government as an employer than multiple private capitalists? Which system places the employee in a weaker possition? What countries have the highest poverty rates? What countries do laborers choose to immigrate to?
Nothing I have said could lead to that conclusion. I am not a communist. I believe in controlled capitalism. As for who has the highest poverty rates, I would assume third world dictatorships where people are work in sweatshops for capitalists for slave wages. That said there are plenty of countries more socialist than the US were the poverty level is much lower than in the US. Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway, to name a few.
Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway
What industries are socialized in those countries. Maybe only mass transit, education and healthcare. These are predominantly capitalist countries.
What are you talking about? I said those countries were more socialist than the US. I think I made it clear I am not a socialist. Nor did I say these were totally socialist countries. All of those countries have free education through the college level, have universal health care, retirement pensions, and programs to protect the disabled.
Cuba will do what China has done and loosen their grip on the economy, but I doubt they will until we end the embargo.
“Your desire to paint Capitalism as some liberating force is misplaced.”
No, it’s really not.
“Just as the socialist ideas of public education and support for the sick and elderly have brought millions out of poverty and oppression.”
Let’s really get to the root of what has enabled “public education and support for the sick”, that is the free market. (whether you desire to call it “capitalism” or not is up to you)
Without the free market, meaning productive people engaged in voluntary trade- there would be no money for socialists to confiscate for said programs.
And that is that.
We will have to agree to disagree. I believe pure capitalism leads to tyranny as surely as pure socialism. Its just a question of who the tyrant is. Public education is not a free market concept. Supporting the sick and the old and the impoverished is not free market concept.
No one is demonizing controlled capitalism. We all know that capitalism works very well in its controlled form. I think history has shown the trick to a truly happy and prosperous society is to achieve an optimal balance between capitalism and social justice. I don’t think pure capitalist give a crap about whether people are happy.
“No one is demonizing controlled capitalism.”
Who gets to “control” is in your world? Who is your “tyrant”?
“Public education is not a free market concept. Supporting the sick and the old and the impoverished is not free market concept.”
Which doesn’t address my original argument, which is without productive people operating in a free market there is no money with which to fund socialism(public education and socialized health care).
“Why, because pure capitalist think property is more important than people and pure socialist think people are more important than property.”
People value capitalism because it provide a way for the to take care of people. If you do not allow people their right in owning things, then you do not value them.
In a democratic nation the people control. Government by the consent of the governed. In a country with a proper balance there is no tyrant.
You do not have to have happy people to have productive people. You do not even have to have educated people to have productive people, so long as they are trained to do what you want them to do.
“In a democratic nation the people control. Government by the consent of the governed. In a country with a proper balance there is no tyrant.”
Logically speaking we are in disagreement.
For example, if 6 people in a room of 10 vote to take money form the other 4, that is tyranny. The 6 who voted to do so are thieves. The word “democracy” doesn’t absolve them of the theft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
You should go and live in the wilderness. The world you want is there, but in a society where people must live together and interact there must be rules. Your system does not exist, never has and never will. No one has ever defined theft as you have. Why don’t you not just sell everything and move to an island and live by yourself. You are then totally free.
“You should go and live in the wilderness. ”
“Why don’t you not just sell everything and move to an island and live by yourself. ”
See, that’s typical. When the logic of your ilk breaks down you go with the personal assaults/insults.
You have no concept of where just “rules” might come from, let alone voluntary acceptance of them. No background in common law, no understanding of why the “social contract” theory came about, etc.
You probably think the Middle Ages were really “dark”. Good luck to you, you seem to be the anti-social one.
See that is typical. When someone disagrees with you you go with a personal assault. You know nothing about me. I simply believe your system of anarchy has never worked and never will. I believe absent democracy, and the rule of law tampered by protected rights, the rich and powerful will always oppress the poor and weak.
Your system just accepts that as the natural state and moves on.
You’re the one that started with the whole “go live by yourself” thing.
“You know nothing about me.”
That isn’t true, we’ve been dialogueing(word?) for some time now.
“I believe absent democracy, and the rule of law tampered by protected rights, the rich and powerful will always oppress the poor and weak.”
I have demonstrated one weakness in democracy(codified theft), but beyond that we get a daily lesson on how the “rich and powerful” abuse the poor and weak using the hybrid government. (but this happens with all governments around the world)
The rich and powerful have no power of the poor and weak without a standing arm(which the government now provides on various levels, from an actual army, to the IRS, or it’s various appendages).
I understand your concerns for the poor and weak and feel them myself. We just disagree on the largest cause of said oppression.
“Your system just accepts that as the natural state and moves on.”
Wrong, my “system” is simply a desire for voluntary interaction on all levels between man. I don’t see any system by which one man is able to compel another by force as ever virtuous.
The rich and the powerful will always have armies, be they private or public. Absent rules the powerful dominate the weak. That is actually the natural order. That is the order civilization fights to end. I suggested you live by yourself or at most in some place with a few like minded people, because that is the only place the system you want will ever exist. You live where you do because you benefit from civilization.
“You live where you do because you benefit from civilization.”
You equate civilization with government, a false equivalency. I’m here for a variety of reasons, not all necessarily of my own choosing.
Often people extolling the virtues of “social democracy” cry out for the US to be more like Nordic countries, yet they don’t seem to move there.
There are legitimate reasons why I suppose, but that has nothing to do with their arguments. (follow?)
“The rich and the powerful will always have armies, be they private or public.”
So are you agreeing with me that the rich control the US gov’t armies?
No, I equate our civilization with our Government and our economic system. You live here because you benefit from living here. I admit that I think if the US moved slightly further to the left from its current position, we would have a happier, more successful general population.
No i do not believe the rich fully control the US government or its armies at this time. That said, we are rapidly moving in that direction. Citizens United has made that more a possibility than anytime since the days of the robber barons.
“No i do not believe the rich fully control the US government or its armies at this time. That said, we are rapidly moving in that direction. ”
Well I guess I disagree. I’d say the signs that the rich control most aspects of the US government are quite evident, well to me anyway.
By that evidence, that’s why I find this notion you have that a government controlled by rich people(which is always going to eventually be the case, as you noted) is going to suddenly take money from itself to help the poor people as, well, laughable.
” You live here because you benefit from living here.”
Well of course. But let’s say I have a choice between being covered in fleas or being dipped in shit and covered in flies, and I choose the fleas…that doesn’t mean I like being covered in fleas.
“I admit that I think if the US moved slightly further to the left from its current position, we would have a happier, more successful general population.”
But why wonder then?! (and thank you for being honest)
Your utopia awaits in migrating to a Nordic country!
:)
I have no way of earning a living there. I enjoy living in a civilized country. But I must have an income source to enjoy civilization. I would not be happy on an island with no government, nor would I be happy in a country with a government I liked if I had no income or job. I benefit from our civilization. I live here because I benefit from living here.
The libertarian world you describe sounds like the world of Mad Max to me.
“The libertarian world you describe sounds like the world of Mad Max to me.”
That’s simply because you misunderstand it. The basis of libertarianism is nothing more than the non-aggression principle.
When you operate on the basis of the NAP you realize that the only way to consistently not do harm to others is to live on a voluntary basis of exchange and interaction with your follow man. That means not taking his stuff, not attacking him, etc. et al.
In my lifetime, I thought I would never see a US President that was worse than Jimmie Carter.
Obama has set a new standard for that judgement.
GWB takes that honor.
Seriously, GWB was a catastrophe. This is nothing in comparison. This is nothing even without comparison.
Republicans just need to shut up and let McCarthyism die out already, then we could be smoking Cuban cigars together.
My another stupid remark from the Chesterfield County kid!
Sit, Fred, Sit.
Obama nigger. Obama bad. Trump white. Trump good.
Pogo, that you?
No.He is in my office signing some paperwork.
This idiot shows his true beliefs and core!
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/25/obama-downplays-difference-between-capitalism-communism-video/
OMG – Obama had his picture taken. OMG – it’s the end of the world. And in Argentina of all places, home country to the hot Maria of the low country. OMG – head for the bunkers.
You people are just as nuts as Trump!!!!
“You just decide what works.” in referring to socialism or capitalism. Makes me wonder if he knows the difference.
I’m willing to bet he knows a lot more than you.
Buck Farack
Fuckin’ Cockroach
Typical Obama diplomacy. We all hear one thing about normalizing relations with this communist country, but when their leader speaks it’s the same old tired propaganda. Obama is a total failure. I think the whole plan was designed so Obama could kiss yet another dictators butt! Obama bucket list – kiss every US enemy butt in the world!