Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Ruled by the Few: Governed by the Minority

In my last post, I brought to light the Russian immigrants, who came to America, became citizens and members of our Republic. Most Russian immigrant flocked almost immediately to the DNC once settled in their new country, only to find out that the Democrat Party has become a very similar governing power to what they left, reflecting what todays Russia is, after the collapse of the Communist Soviet Empire.

Some have question whether the Democrat Party is like that of the current political system that governs Russia today. And that Communism, which derives itself from Socialism, is not an Oligarchy with in the modern day political spectrum, which also includes (as some say) a Republic, like the US system.

So, to clear up some confusion with some folks on where Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Democracy, Republic and Anarchy lie within the political spectrum, I will refer you to this video that really simplifies what form of governing lies with in an Oligarchy.



Now, are we headed for an Oligarchy. AKA Communism, Socialism or Social Justice Democracy?
Or are we there?

Here is my take on what has happen the last two years that leads me to firmly believe we are at the door step of a socialist society, mostly thanks to the Democrat Party.


Socialist shares the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society.
AKA: The top 1%. However the top 2%-20% own most of all Capital in our country. Democrats (and yes, Republicans, too) in power fall with in that income bracket. But the Democrats target the top 1% income bracket and use taxation to strip that 1% of their wealth for social programs.

Socialist also believe in eliminating or repressing the anarchy of capitalist production
AKA: Micro Regulation of industry

They believe in interventionism
AKA: Firing of GM's CEO

Socialists advocate complete nationalization of industry with in a capitalist society
AKA: Obamacare, Federal reserve.

Socialist believe that state control of capital within the framework of a market economy is a must.
AKA: Obama czars hold power to limit pay to executives, even if they did not get federal funds for the bailouts. Obamacare healthcare exchanges.

Socialist believe that the state should have ownership models with the free market exchange"
AKA: GM, Chrysler, Obamacare

Socialist want selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies.
AKA: Obamacare, Federal reserve banks

Social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and micro regulation of markets.
You name it, Obama and the Dems do it.

(This next one stands out the most)
Social democrats- Socialism, in their view, can be reached through the existing political system by "reforming private enterprise"
Healthcare, American Automotive manufacturing, micro Regulations of business.

Marxist-Establish a new socio-economic system through "rapid change"
Example Obamacare bill (HR 3200) introduced July 14th 2009, then sent to committee. July 17th 2009 it returned from committee and Obama called for it on his desk by Aug 4th 2009 to sign in to law.

We ARE being socialized.

3 comments:

JoeC said...

Mark once again you attempt to confuse the issue and establish your point by mixing and matching theoretical with political slang instead of empirical data.

Calling Russia communist is a joke. Nothing was Marxist aside from state run economy. It was simply a Oligarchy formed and run to benefit the few. Marxism clearly calls for the end of elitism within the society something Russia never attempted.

As for the actuality of Socialism your basically correct about what a socialist wants its your examples of socialism within our current admin that is wrong.

The auto industry was not Nationalized. You know that. Was there intervention yes, but not nationalization? Currently the government does not hold over 51 percent of either corporation. In nationalization the Government would control the industry completely.

Such as Conrail during Nixons term.


As for the regulation of markets, your kidding yourself if you believe that one single republican or conservative elected has never wanted to control the markets.

Take subsidies. Republicans and conservatives get elected in the Plain states based on support of government interventionism. One can not attack Dems on micro regulation when the right is just as guilty of it.

Mark Adams said...

“Mark once again you attempt to confuse the issue and establish your point by mixing and matching theoretical with political slang instead of empirical data.”
You, Joe, never learn, because you are pretty bulled headed. This are facts Joe, that I have researched for a number of years.
I just don't make sh*t up.

“Calling Russia communist is a joke. Nothing was Marxist aside from state run economy.”
What planet have you been on? That right there proves who don't understand the political spectrum of modern times,
And what part of ‘very similar governing power to what they left, reflecting what todays Russia is, after the collapse of the Communist Soviet Empire.’ Did you not understand?

“The auto industry was not Nationalized”
I didn’t say it was nationalized. I said “Socialist believe that the state should have ownership models with the free market exchange"
AKA: GM, Chrysler, Obamacare”
And they have invested the taxpayer money to hold 60% of GM. That’s fact, still to this day

“As for the regulation of markets, your kidding yourself”
I said MICRO Regulation of markets.
Those are also facts.

Sorry, but ALL this is what socialist believe in and what has take place since Obama showed up in the Whitehouse.

JoeC said...

Sorry i got my examples mixed up.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic because i think this is a good discussion

I didn't say you didn't use facts, i just said you mixed your theory between theoretical and real terms.

As for Communist Russia and modern Russia, its only changed its name not its actual government. Communists and nearly everyone else thinks of Russia as a place of communism, but in the end it was never anything like that. It was purely an oligarchy that provided for the elites and used the masses. The same as it does under its current so-called socialistic capitalism.

I don't believe in communism as a form of government. As a theory, as a ideal but not as a reality, because i don't believe in Man. History will show that there will be some men looking out for all, some looking to slide by, and some looking to get as much from the first two by whatever means possible. Its in our nature.

The thought that all men would lead equal lives and work for the good of all man is unrealistic.