Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Cartoon of the Day: Socialism Explained


51 Comments:

At 11/05/2008 10:30 AM, Anonymous Machiavelli999 said...

We have public welfare in this country. Republican's aren't against that.

We have social security in this country. Republican's aren't against that.

We have a progressive income tax system in this country. Republican's aren't against that.

What are you trying to imply? That we had a choice in this election between socialism and non-socialism and we chose socialism?

I hope this drubbing forces the Republicans to turn more towards the libertarian part of the party and away from the redneck, "social conservative" part.

 
At 11/05/2008 10:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also the "free economy" and "Bible loving" pieces should split because they are not doing themselves any favors.

 
At 11/05/2008 10:48 AM, Anonymous qt said...

The U.S. doesn't have socialism (aka government ownership of the means of production) but a mixed economy. The examples of socialism on view are Cuba, China & North Korea.

Shouldn't we be using these terms correctly?

 
At 11/05/2008 10:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't let facts get in he way of a great way to smear our new leader.

 
At 11/05/2008 11:08 AM, Blogger like such as said...

There's a chance you're taking the cartoon a little too literally. It's not "socialism in america illustrated." It wasn't a commentary of what we are, or even necessarily where we are going. It was an illustration of what, in principle, socialism is.

If you see that as a smear on our new leader, that came from you, not the cartoon.

 
At 11/05/2008 11:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

machiavelli999,

The Republicans reformed welfare during the Clinton administration.

Bush and the Republicans just tried to reform Social Security. Maybe you were sleeping.

Republicans moved the top rate from over 70 percent to 28 percent under Reagan. Cut the capital gains tax.

Yeah, those "social conservatives" are to blame. Showing up in their millions to vote for economic and personal liberty. Those bastards! Next time we'll just leave it to both of you libertarians.

 
At 11/05/2008 11:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The U.S. doesn't have socialism (aka government ownership of the means of production)

qt, are you familiar with a synthetic stock position? You can create a synthetic long stock position by selling puts and buying calls on the same stock. That position will behave like a long stock position, but you will not actually directly own any shares of stock.

Similarly, through regulation, the government can effectively own the means of production without actually directly owning the means of production. Heavily regulated industries are so controlled by the government that the nominal "owners" of businesses in those industries are nothing more than managers as all high level decisions are regulated by government. This is particularly true of the financial industry where one cannot so much as sneeze without running the decision through compliance.

So, socialism can be effected indirectly by methods other than direct ownership. It's still socialism. Our refusal to call it Socialism doesn't change what it is.

 
At 11/05/2008 11:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Private property? Just a "simplistic notion":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJyS1WJNisM

"Social conservatism" with a healthy dose of authoritarian free speech suppression:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htD_-A7pDhw

At least they're honest about their plans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

Nah, they're not socialists. Where's my check?

 
At 11/05/2008 12:33 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Socialism fails when the socialists run out of other peoples' money to spend.

 
At 11/05/2008 2:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I could have sworn this blog was about economics and finance, not politics.

Just like Fox News is unbiased...

 
At 11/05/2008 2:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ETyVBbXT58

 
At 11/05/2008 2:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I could have sworn this blog was about economics and finance, not politics."

"Just like Fox News is unbiased..."

Silly us, what could politics possibly have to do with economics?

Fox News? Hmmm:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

 
At 11/05/2008 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

lame

 
At 11/05/2008 2:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I note that the liberals here are in full tap dance mode, trying to redefine both modern liberal principles and the Democrat party plank.

Dance faster, monkeys! You aren't fooling anybody.

skh.pcola

 
At 11/05/2008 3:19 PM, Blogger matt said...

My friend e-mailed this picture to me. My response is below.
--------

Cute, but why did you send this to me and me alone? You know I read carpe diem, it's on there.

Read the first comment about this on Carpe Diem. What is your implication? That we had a choice? Honestly, the over-deification of the right to vote sickens me, as if millions of people believe we actually have a choice in the direction of our goverment. I regret to inform you that both McCain and Obama have supported socialist programs including medicare, social welfare, the $700 billion public bailout of failed private business models among other outright thefts of the public treasury which I completely reject.

I used to think it's funny that you and others view me as some liberal, but truthfully it's beginning to make me upset. The ethos of libertarianism is anything but liberal, and is in actuality far more conservative than any Republican mantra that's been espoused the past decade. Excepting Ron Paul and a few select others, there is no small-government Republican. There is nobody supporting proper free-market deregulation. No bid contracts, entitlements, government-owned mortgages, the FHA, tax subsities for specific industries, anything called a "farm bill". All of this is ludicrous and wrong, and all of this needs to end. Where was my candidate to vote for that?

I am just as sad and scared as you are in the choice our country made yesterday, but it frightens me even more that the 'opposition' fails to understand what they need to oppose.

 
At 11/05/2008 3:33 PM, Blogger DB said...

"I could have sworn this blog was about economics and finance, not politics."

Prime example of how ill-informed our electorate is. And we wonder why we have the poor government that we do. Man that H.L. Mencken was a helluva prophet.

 
At 11/05/2008 3:33 PM, Blogger DB said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11/05/2008 3:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Economics and finance alone have nothing to do with politics. When you sit down to learn about economics in school, politics should not be brought up. If the author wishes to insight politics in every post he should rename his blog.

 
At 11/05/2008 3:59 PM, Blogger Mark J. Perry said...

Economics has nothing to do with politics? Here's the connection, it's called Public Choice Economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

 
At 11/05/2008 4:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please, direct me to your blog when we get to the Public Choice Ecomomics Chapter.

 
At 11/05/2008 5:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most economics is normative (what ought to be) based on the positive information learned. Every subject within economics relates. Every chapters should relate to policy.

 
At 11/05/2008 5:48 PM, Blogger 1 said...

"Don't let facts get in he way of a great way to smear our new leader"...

Hmmm, what facts would those be?

How the terminally stupid finally put a pinko parasite in the White House?

"I could have sworn this blog was about economics and finance, not politics"...

What do you care? You don't know anything about economics anyway...

Its all about economics though...

"When you sit down to learn about economics in school, politics should not be brought up"...

Oh yeah! On what planet is this alledgedly happening?

EDUCATE YOURSELF

 
At 11/05/2008 11:11 PM, Blogger Arman said...

"The examples of socialism on view are Cuba, China & North Korea."
That is COMMUNISM.

"Shouldn't we be using these terms correctly?"
ah... YEAH!

 
At 11/06/2008 12:27 AM, Blogger Maxima10 said...

I see Mark Perry is a bitter loser, the American public has spoken. They had enough of George W,. Bush and the right wing trickle down economic theory.

Most people have only felt a trickle of someone peeing on their head.

The near economic meltdown and Iraq war was more than enough of the failed republican policies.

 
At 11/06/2008 8:44 AM, Blogger Thomas Blair said...

Anon 10:54

Don't let facts get in he way of a great way to smear our new leader.

Your leader. Don't speak for me. Absent the use of violence against me, I subjugate myself to no one.

 
At 11/06/2008 10:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Most people have only felt a trickle of someone peeing on their head."

You're a f__king idiot. I assume you are either regurgitating some leftist propaganda, or you are one of those who are pissed off b/c you have actually been getting paid what you are worth. Get a clue.

 
At 11/06/2008 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Similarly, through regulation, the government can effectively own the means of production without actually directly owning the means of production."

I think this perfectly describes the situation in California where the regulatory agencies "own" the large privately held electric utilities. It provides a convenient foil whenever customers are unhappy about their rates or service, the utilities, not the state government, are blamed.

 
At 11/06/2008 10:52 AM, Blogger Maxima10 said...

"You're a f__king idiot. I assume you are either regurgitating some leftist propaganda, or you are one of those who are pissed off b/c you have actually been getting paid what you are worth. Get a clue."

*******************************

More leftist propaganda

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/06/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm?eref=ib_topstories

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment insurance last week was higher than economists expected, and the number continuing to collect benefits shot to a 25-year high.

 
At 11/06/2008 11:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I'm going to trademark "failed Bush economic policies".

Nobody who uses the phrase actually know what they mean by it and, indeed, are the most ignorant on the subject of economics. These are the same twits who think that "trickle down" is an economic theory.

 
At 11/06/2008 11:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

arman says,

"That is COMMUNISM."

"Shouldn't we be using these terms correctly?"

Obama supporters don't seem confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCMcv1VF4uQ

I don't know, can you be a little bit pregnant?

 
At 11/06/2008 11:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon says,

"Also the "free economy" and "Bible loving" pieces should split because they are not doing themselves any favors."

Yeah, what would a "bible lover" know about economic freedom:

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

This guy is just a rube. Not as smart as you, obviously.

 
At 11/06/2008 11:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

maxima10,

Are you fimiliar with the concept of cause and effect?

If so, examine the cause, it will lead right back to your leftist friends.

First, you light the fuse and then you complain when the bomb goes off.

Typical leftist.

 
At 11/06/2008 11:46 AM, Blogger Arman said...

"Obama supporters don't seem confused:"

Communists are always confused. That comes from the lies of Marx. Where a few confused Communists might turn up is absolutely no indication of anything.
The word socialism is almost always used as a simile of democracy. Communism is anti democratic even though it touts itself as being "socialistic". Much of right wing hype spouts anti-socialism being in reality anti-democratic.

 
At 11/06/2008 12:30 PM, Blogger stevedp86 said...

Bush provided tax cuts across the board. Obama is PROPOSING more tax cuts for the middle class (extension of Bush's tax cuts), but with a upper class tax hike.

Bush's economic policy brought us an economic boon until recently, but his policies did not lead to the current crisis.

Bush's biggest problem was the debt and deficit he ran up from the war, but unless Obama couples his tax cuts with fiscal restraint, I don't see the difference??

 
At 11/06/2008 12:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Much of right wing hype spouts anti-socialism being in reality anti-democratic."


“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816


Heh, genius, socialism is always anti-democratic if democracy means anything other than "mob rule".

Socialism always involves using the coercive power of the state to confiscate the wealth of the individual.

The majority voting to confiscate the property of the minority does not constitute democracy. At least not by any American understanding.

Once the left has established that the individual has no lasting moral claim to produce of his labor, we all become little more than serfs.

 
At 11/06/2008 12:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama is PROPOSING more tax cuts for the middle class ..."

No, what Obama is proposing is "tax credits" for people who do not currently pay taxes - in other words welfare.

It's one thing to tax people to provide for the maintenance of the government, it's another to confiscate their wealth and pass it out to others, like a party favor, in order to secure their political allegiance.

 
At 11/06/2008 2:00 PM, Blogger Arman said...

”Heh, genius, socialism is always anti-democratic if democracy means anything other than "mob rule".”
So what is your definition of democracy?
”Socialism always involves using the coercive power of the state to confiscate the wealth of the individual.”
That is government which is a symptom of society. Government does not equal socialism.
”The majority voting to confiscate the property of the minority does not constitute democracy.”
Please stop saying what you don't mean by "democracy" and try and explain what you do mean.

”Once the left has established that the individual has no lasting moral claim to produce of his labor, we all become little more than serfs.”“
Fear mongering is never progressive.

 
At 11/06/2008 3:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The majority voting to confiscate the property of the minority does not constitute democracy. At least not by any American understanding

It most certainly does. The founding fathers understood this. Thomas Jefferson called democracy "mob rule". Democracy is not mentioned in our constitution and was not the goal of our government. This country is a republic for that reason and that's why we elect using an electerol college instead of by popular vote.

democracy is the goal of communism, not countries that value liberty.

It always irks me when Bush yaps about "spreading democracy".

 
At 11/06/2008 5:02 PM, Blogger Arman said...

"It always irks me when Bush yaps about "spreading democracy""
It is lying propaganda of the right. Democratic capitalism is an oxymoron. You seem bright enough to comprehend this, but most right wingers are entirely taken in by the propaganda.

"democracy is the goal of communism"
And you seem to be confused by communist propaganda. The communist revolution is fueled by reaction against autocracy and authoritarianism, but the communist reality is just as autocratic and authoritarian and more so than the regimes they replace. The communist preach power to the "comrades", but their real goal is power to the hierarchy of the communist party.

 
At 11/06/2008 6:28 PM, Blogger 1 said...

Look at what maxima considers a credible source: "NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment insurance last week was higher than economists expected, and the number continuing to collect benefits shot to a 25-year high"...

CNN!?!? a.k.a. commie news network...

What's next? Economics lessons from Krugman?

"Most people have only felt a trickle of someone peeing on their head"...

Oh just wait, the urination you think you were experiencing will feel like a walk in the hot, dry desert...

Now that you've used, 'trickle down', can "voodoo economics' be far behind?

"Bush's biggest problem was the debt and deficit he ran up from the war, but unless Obama couples his tax cuts with fiscal restraint, I don't see the difference??"...

So stevedp86 you're saying that the billions of dollars wasted monthly pandering to parasites sucking up the socialist nanny state safety net programs weren't part of the problem?

Those Constitutionally questionable programs are 'The' problem...

 
At 11/06/2008 7:02 PM, Blogger 1 said...

"Democratic capitalism is an oxymoron'...

Hmmm, only to a left winger like you arman...

Then again your grip American history of government extortion, has always been a bit spotty if your comments are anything to go by...

Anti-Socialism = Racism??

 
At 11/06/2008 9:02 PM, Blogger Arman said...

Democratic capitalism is an oxymoron. If you disagree with that statement, then I want to know what your definition of democracy is?

"Then again your grip American history of government extortion,"
Your grip on my philosophy is nonexistent. Government direct expenses should be constitutionally restricted to 10%. Government redistribution again should be constitutionally restricted to 10%.

Anti-socialism is anti-democratic. Propaganda designed to conceal agenda cannot be help but be to our detriment.

 
At 11/07/2008 4:06 AM, Blogger 1 said...

arman apparently dictionary challenged asks: "If you disagree with that statement, then I want to know what your definition of democracy is?"...

Just what it says in Merriam-Webster...

"Your grip on my philosophy is nonexistent. Government direct expenses should be constitutionally restricted to 10%. Government redistribution again should be constitutionally restricted to 10%."...

Thank you for proving my point of your very tenuous grip on reality...

What part of the Constitution mandates any of the silliness you suggest?

"Anti-socialism is anti-democratic. Propaganda designed to conceal agenda cannot be help but be to our detriment"...

ROFLMAO!

Out, Vile Socialist!

 
At 11/07/2008 9:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And you seem to be confused by communist propaganda.

That wasn't propaganda. Apparently, you've never read Karl Marx's work. I'm from the Soviet Union. So, I have first hand knowledge of both the realities and propaganda of Communism. The reality of communism is that it doesn't work. At all. To hold on to power, Lenin switched from pursuing the installation of Marxian communism to autocratic rule - especially since the vast majority of the country didn't want communism even in theory. Unlike tens of thousands of American intelligentsia (I lived in college towns most of my life in America, so don't bother trying to disabuse me of my observation).

but most right wingers are entirely taken in by the propaganda.

I wouldn't throw stones as the left wingers live in glass houses. The propaganda they buy into is that government is better at solving problems than individuals and that socialism actually achieves its stated goal. And, of course, they buy into democracy. Of course, no leftist is willing to call it socialism or marxism anymore because then they would have to reconcile with the disastrous records of the tests of those theories.

Most Americans live such a cushy life (thanks to economic liberalization) that they can afford to be not that bright and not that informed. Most Americans don't know that they don't live in a democracy but in a republic and most Americans don't know that this was done on purpose so that the minority couldn't be subjugated by the majority. The moment we forget the limits of the government and that it is the goal of every member of the government to shake off those limits, we will become serfs to the state. I'm afraid we have already passed that point.

 
At 11/07/2008 10:27 AM, Blogger Arman said...

"Lenin switched from pursuing the installation of Marxian communism to autocratic rule"
rotflmao
So Lenin was a good man following a good policy and then switched???
Again, you are confused by Marxist lies.

"government is better at solving problems than individuals
That sounds to me like an anti-democratic notion... that authoritarianism is better than mob rule.

"no leftist is willing to call it socialism or marxism anymore"
And I tell you that socialism and communism are opposite philosophies (if you can even call socialism a philosophy) regardless Marx's claims to the contrary. My complaint is that the words are used as synonyms when they are not.

"they can afford to be not that bright and not that informed."
Insulting to the general population and promotional of authoritative and autocratic government.

The moment we forget the limits of the government and that it is the goal of every member of the government to shake off those limits,
Your meaning here is very unclear.

we will become serfs to the state.
Again, fear mongering is not progressive.

 
At 11/07/2008 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Lenin was a good man following a good policy and then switched???

Do you enjoy building these straw men or do you just have poor reading comprehension skills? Let me try again: Lenin implemented Marxian economics during the revolution. The economy collapsed so fully that he was "forced" to conscript labour on pain of death. He then quickly abandoned all pretense of implementing communism to hold on to power.

Communism, even in theory, is immoral, insane and nauseating. You're preaching to the choir, sparky. Go wag your finger at American

that authoritarianism is better than mob rule.

Not much difference. Subjugation is subjugation.

And I tell you that socialism and communism are opposite philosophies

You'll have to explain to me how you arrived at that conclusion. Merely telling me it is so is not convincing.

Insulting to the general population and promotional of authoritative and autocratic government.

Go get, em, straw man slayer! My don't you look cute with your plastic sword and that sheet tied into a cape!

Your meaning here is very unclear.

the government cannot create wealth. The government cannot create jobs. It cannot make people equal. It cannot create equal outcomes. It cannot cure social ills like racism. It cannot remake man into a kinder gentler version of self interested man. The government cannot give you the house and lifestyle that you desire (unless you desire slavery - that the government can do because it is actually very efficient with the use of force). Clear?

 
At 11/07/2008 3:27 PM, Blogger Arman said...

Do you enjoy building these straw men
I'm just enjoying burning your straw.


He then quickly abandoned all pretense of implementing communism to hold on to power.
Communism, even in theory, is immoral, insane and nauseating.

So you're saying he abandoned an insane system in favor of a sane system.
Look, what I am saying is that Lenin installed Communism, and was always going to install communism, and communism is about what Lenin installed. It is NOT socially consciousness. It is NOT about individual power and liberty over elitists. It is about the power of the hierarchy of the Communist party. The tag of socialism to Communism is a lie. It always has been and it always will be.

Not much difference. Subjugation is subjugation.
So you promote no government. Basically what Communists promised. Trouble is, power vacuum will always be filled. Do you really want no democracy in your government?

Clear?
No. Understanding limitations is one thing. What do you mean by "it is the goal of every member of the government to shake off those limits," You seem to be saying that it is to be our goal to defy or deny reality.

 
At 11/07/2008 6:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, so it's poor reading and general comprehension skills. No point in continuing.

 
At 11/08/2008 4:46 AM, Blogger Arman said...

No point in continuing.
Too bad. You seem to be a lot brighter than most right wingers in that at least you realize that democracy is not what the right is pushing.

 
At 11/11/2008 2:52 PM, Blogger DB said...

"Okay, so it's poor reading and general comprehension skills. No point in continuing"

Anon,
I've made this point before with arman but with the same results. Don't bother wasting any more of your time.
db

 
At 11/12/2008 4:38 AM, Blogger Arman said...

Don't bother wasting any more of your time.
I think the guy quite a bit brighter than you; hardly in need of your advice, but you just have to take a swing at me without really talking to me. Rather rude.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home