--Che Guevara
--Karl Marx
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt
--Barack Obama
"Socialists are very concerned about the injustice and social ills in the world today—hunger, poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, disease, war, the exploitation of workers, the oppression of nations, races, women, and gays, the destruction of the environment, and the threat of nuclear annihilation. Socialists obviously don't have a monopoly on compassion, however. What distinguishes socialists from other socially concerned people is that socialists do not view these problems as normal, natural, eternal, or an inherent feature of the human condition. They believe that these problems are historically and socially created and that they can be solved by human beings through conscious, organized political struggle and change."Another quiz: What is The Global Poverty Act? And who is promoting it?
"Socialist Action argues that the problems of exploitation and oppression in the world today can ultimately be solved by first replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system. The chief means of production should be socialized, that is, taken out of the private hands of the capitalists and put under public ownership, that is, government ownership."
"The Global Poverty Act" would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of the GNP of the United States into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for food to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations. The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation. The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.’s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to "banning small arms and light weapons" but many other collective acts. In other words, the very act of voluntary charity would then be under the control of government ownership.
Whenever I hear words like "collective" and "global" I think 'socialism.' And do you know from
when I hear these ideas the most lately? From the answer to our quiz: Barack Obama. If you want a Socialist in the office of President of the United States, then vote for Barack.PS: And one clarification: individual salvation does not depend on collective socialism. It depends on Jesus Christ. Using messianic words to further personal political ambitions betrays a poverty of the soul.
3 comments:
What he said is not that different than what Jesus taught. Collective is not a dirty word. We cannot just always pursue our own interest and the rest of the country be damned. The speech in its entirety is quite moving.
Tom DeLay called Obama a Marxist today. Hmmm.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/05/delay-obama-marxist/
Another example:
[Obama] wants to create something called a "Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund" and invest $10 billion a year in emerging energy technologies. Now the private VC industry is already pouring billions into alternative energy, but Obama thinks that's not enough and wants Uncle Sam to get in on the action at taxpayer expense. Interestingly, a new study by the University of British Columbia looked at the performance of the Canadian government's venture capital efforts. It found that government venture capital isn't nearly as successful as private venture capital.
Or this:
Vivian Norris de Montaigu wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-norris-de-montaigu/obama-is-an-expats-dream_b_105074.html
"Obama is an Expat's Dream Come True: The Son of a Global Citizen"
You're going to hear that a lot more as he campaigns: government can and should solve our problems, and we are all global citizens striving for the same thing.
I think that Jesus taught things that were much different that what Barack Obama is teaching. While I am sure Obama's speech was moving, he is an outstanding rhetorician and an interesting speaker, I would rather retain our national sovereignty, let the market decide, and refrain from "collective" or "global citizenship".
Interesting concept, one pushed mightily by Milton Friedman et al. However if you will lay aside politics for a moment and think economies, I don't think you will find any examples where the true unadulterated market system has performed the way they said it would. Capitalism is based on the grand idea that each of us, while acting in our own self interest, will ultimately act in such a way that the whole group's best interests are met best. Whether you consider other countries (i.e. Chile, Poland, Hungary) or other markets (i.e. airlines) history shows us that as we DE-regulate economies, they perform spectactualarly for a few and horribly for most. Which is not to say that socialism is a better system, just a friendly reminder that captilism without boundaries or regulation is equally evil.
There is a cost to everything we do. Often the private cost is measured in dollars while the small incremental cost to the economy or the environment or the culture is a real cost but not one we bear.
I hate politics but I love economics. Would recommend a summer of reading, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, Naomi Klein et al before eschewing the ideas so offhandedly.
Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment