B_Nick4444
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Posts
- 6,849
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 106
- Points
- 193
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
you do realize you're quoting definitions from 19th century economics and ideologues stuck in the 19th century
economics, economic structures, and political structures have changed a bit since then
economics, economic structures, and political structures have changed a bit since then
Nothing nothing in the above meets the definition......
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The socialist party's website lists it all here Socialist Party USA.
Oh sure the author says socialism but nothing he has written conforms to the definition. More than anything he basically wants to end to government regulation and more personal choice. Regulation is not socialism.
It's a ephitat being thrown at Obama like Goldwater threw at Johnson and has no proof behind it. If any proof exists it's George Bush's nationalizing banks. Now THAT is a step towards socialism.
"Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "I think it's hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks."
And this from Bruce Carruthers, a sociology professor at Northwestern University: "Obama is like a center-liberal Democrat, and he is certainly not looking to overthrow capitalism. My goodness, he wouldn't have the support of someone like The Wizard of Omaha, Warren Buffet, if he truly was going to overthrow capitalism."
Socialists say Barack Obama is not -- chicagotribune.com