2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRand Paul begs for attention via comparing Bernie Sanders to Stalin and Mao
Rand Paul On Bernie Sanders: Nothing “Sexy Or Cool” About Socialism“I think it’s very important for Americans not to succumb to the notion that there’s anything sexy or cool about socialism,” the senator from Kentucky said.
“Bernie’s a socialist and ultimately socialism relies on force or implied force and it’s, you know, [it] wasn’t an accident that Stalin killed millions of people or Mao Zedong killed millions of people because you want to control the economy and you want to control ownership of things by the state. You have to forbid other people from owning parts of the economy or controlling parts of the economy.”
This seems like such a laughably weak argument to me. As if capitalism doesn't "rely on force" all the time. Red meat for the far right though. They just wouldn't be the same without it. Also he's wrong because socialism is actually very cool right now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
portlander23
(2,078 posts)
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
eta:
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)a year or two ago.
Yet he and that live tribble on his head are still here. 
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)AOR
(692 posts)As you said Cheese Sandwich...funny Rand never mentioned the millions of dead bodies littered across the globe over the last century in the name of capitalism. He can start with the Shah of Iran, Marcos, Suharto, Ian Smith, Botha, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Martinez, Trujillo, Branco, Selassie, Samoza, Pinochet, Batista and a horde of other capitalist autocrats and dictators that left a barbaric and bloody trail across the 20th century.
Let us help Rand - and anyone here who decides to use the same bullshit - on their journey to enlightenment.
"Friends Of The United States And Capitalism "
Friendly Dictators
by Dennis Bernstein and Laura Sydell
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dictators/Friendly_Dictators.html
(Snips)
"Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America. Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets and apologists for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. In any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their people in fair and open elections."
"They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism" and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US government supports them. They may be linked internationalIy to extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League, and some have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary to WWll Nazi war criminals."
"They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and US-backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the worst human rights violators in the world."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism, Fascism and World War 2
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Capitalism_Fascism_WW2.html
by Gary Sudborough
The relationship of fascism and capitalism as illustrated by the events of World War 2
(Snip)
"Most Americans know enough about the Nazi holocaust to thoroughly despise the horrible events that occurred- the torture, executions, concentration camps, forced starvation, gas chambers and the attempted extermination of the Jews. I wonder what Americans would think if they knew that the part of this Nazi terror apparatus which operated on the Russian front was incorporated into the CIA after World War 2. The Nazi SS officer was Reinhard Gehlen, and he and his group were employed by the CIA for their knowledge of the Soviet Union. The SS death squads that followed the German advance into the Soviet Union were very brutal, killing any communists and Jews they found. The CIA used Nazi war criminals like Klaus Barbie, Walter Rauff, Otto Skorzeny and others in South America to impart their knowledge of torture techniques and concentration camps to the police and militaries there. Klaus Barbie was involved in the 1980 Bolivian coup known as the "cocaine coup" that is described in former DEA agent Michael Levine's book The Big White Lie."
(Snip)
"American corporations invested heavily in Nazi Germany, and many like General Motors and Ford had factories there, which also used slave labor and produced war materials for the Nazis. US corporate investment in Germany accelerated rapidly after Hitler came to power. Investment increased 48.5% between 1929 and 1940, while declining in the rest of continental Europe. American bombers deliberately avoided hitting these US factories, and they received compensation from the American taxpayer for any damage after the war. US oil companies sold oil to the Nazis and oil on credit to the fascists in Spain."
(Snip)
"Many American capitalists were openly sympathetic to the Nazis. Henry Ford wrote a book called The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, and he is mentioned in Mein Kampf. James Mooney, the General Motors executive in charge of European operations, was awarded the Order of Merit of the Golden Eagle by Adolph Hitler. There were op-ed pieces by Nazis like Hermann Goehring in Hearst newspapers in the United States."
(Snip)
"The Nazis broke unions, lowered wages, abolished overtime pay, decreased business taxes and increased business subsidies. Their program bears a strong resemblance to the Republican agenda in this country."
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)in a recent Gallup poll 50% of Americans said they wouldn't vote for a Socialist
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)they won't know what hit 'em
Uncle Joe
(58,298 posts)A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.
(snip)
Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Part of the reason for this dissonance is confusion among the America population as to what the word “socialism” even means. Many often associate it with the authoritarian Communism of the Soviet Union instead of the social democracies of modern-day Scandinavian countries, which Sanders strongly backs.
Even though the number of voters who say they would consider voting for a socialist candidate is below an outright majority, the fact that the number of Americans who would consider voting for a socialist is at 47 percent, in a country with a long history of vicious red-baiting, seems to suggest that Americans aren’t as afraid of the word “socialist” as many on the Right would like them to be.
Meanwhile, Sanders seems to be getting through to the American people. He consistently draws the largest crowds of any candidate to his events in Iowa, and 32 percent of New Hampshire Democrats and 41 percent of Wisconsin Democrats are backing him. Sanders has more than seven months to build a solid voting bloc, before the first primaries on February 1, 2016.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18106/americans-socialism-bernie-sanders
Of course Rand Paul is just doing his best to add to the confusion, frankly because he's a stale piece of fecal material.
AOR
(692 posts)Why Socialism ? ... by Albert Einstein
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism
Albert Einstein is the world-famous physicist. This article was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949). It was subsequently published in May 1998 to commemorate the first issue of MR‘s fiftieth year.
(Snips)...
" Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
" I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. "
" The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. "
" Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. "
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and never goes out of style.
jfern
(5,204 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)