|
Margo
|
The wonder of seeing an acknowledgedly socialistic organization such as NAACP supporting private property rights is explained by the fact 'minorities' are impacted. Otherwise they'd scarcely care.
Mind you, I agree that cities and counties taking land for developers is unconstitutional - eminent domain is for PUBLIC use - but unlike NAACP I don't care what color the owners are.
|
|
John
|
The article argues that eminent domain has had a disproportionate impact on minorities. It also cites the Kelo vs City of New London Supreme Court decision as the preeminent example of this type of abuse of eminent domain. Am I mistaken, or was Susette Kelo, in fact, white? As a matter of fact, weren't all of the "holdouts" in the Kelo case against New London white? Why would you cite a case in which all of the victims of eminent domain were white as an example of the disproportionate effect of eminent domain on minorities? I'm confused.
|
|
Savant
AOL
|
Margo wrote: The wonder of seeing an acknowledgedly socialistic organization such as NAACP supporting private property rights is explained by the fact 'minorities' are impacted. Otherwise they'd scarcely care.
Mind you, I agree that cities and counties taking land for developers is unconstitutional - eminent domain is for PUBLIC use - but unlike NAACP I don't care what color the owners are. For me, socialism is not a curse word as it is for you. But you need to study the history and ideas of socialism and of the NAACP before you refer to that civil rights organization--one of the most moderate---as socialist. It's remarkable that the USA is about the ONLY industrialized nation where people know so little about ideas and political philosophies. Some Americans even see the Democratic Party as socialist....sophomoric errors that would make one a laughingstock in any other technically advanced country but the USA.
|
|
tyree
|
The history is off by a decade or so. Before WWII FDR "encouraged" tens of thousands of blacks to leave their land in the south to work in factories in the north. Ruining peoples lives so they can help them is something socialists seem to revel in.
Socialism may not be a curse word to you, Savant, but those of us who remember Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Che and Castro know what happens when you put the good of the many in front of the good of the few.
|
|
Gloom and Doom
|
Thanks to our Gods on high (Supreme Court) they made the situation worse than it was. Those who had property taken should be adequately compensated. However, the slums, blight, decayed neighborhoods, crack houses, junk, trash, rats etc., do pose a potential public health hazard and should be torn down and cleaned up. However, I have to agree that selling the condemned or seized properties to major developers simply to increase tax revenues is improper. I'm quite surprised there have been no stand offs and killings about this yet. I know there would be if they tried to take my home.
|
|
Libertius
|
Savant wrote: <quoted text>
For me, socialism is not a curse word as it is for you. But you need to study the history and ideas of socialism and of the NAACP before you refer to that civil rights organization--one of the most moderate---as socialist.
It's remarkable that the USA is about the ONLY industrialized nation where people know so little about ideas and political philosophies.
Some Americans even see the Democratic Party as socialist....sophomoric errors that would make one a laughingstock in any other technically advanced country but the USA. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...it is a socialist organization. Stating that today's Democratic Party is not of any significant socialist leaning is like saying today's Republican Party acts to curtail the size of the federal government. I suggest it is you who are unable to see what is directly before you. The fact that "socialist" is not a curse word to you goes a long way to explain your view. Not incidentally, most other "technically advanced" countries are largely socialist. They may not agree to the "socialist" adjective, but that is only to make themselves look better in the eyes of the U.S. There was an undeniable socialist undercurrent - that government knows better to do with land than the people - in the Kelo decision, clearly evident in the statement within the majority opinion - NOT the "court ruling:- that public use can include nearly any claim of some sort of public benefit. The Court on many occasions has justified such abherrent decisions on the faulty doctrine of most liberal interpretation, when in fact the plain language should have been followed as written.
|
|
Libertius
|
John wrote: The article argues that eminent domain has had a disproportionate impact on minorities. It also cites the Kelo vs City of New London Supreme Court decision as the preeminent example of this type of abuse of eminent domain. Am I mistaken, or was Susette Kelo, in fact, white? As a matter of fact, weren't all of the "holdouts" in the Kelo case against New London white? Why would you cite a case in which all of the victims of eminent domain were white as an example of the disproportionate effect of eminent domain on minorities? I'm confused. Perhaps a poor example, but about the best we can hope a journalist to do. If you haven't, read Justice Thomas's opinion. He addresses minorities - and everything else about the Kelo case - most eloquently.
|
|
Savant
AOL
|
tyree wrote: The history is off by a decade or so. Before WWII FDR "encouraged" tens of thousands of blacks to leave their land in the south to work in factories in the north. Ruining peoples lives so they can help them is something socialists seem to revel in.
Socialism may not be a curse word to you, Savant, but those of us who remember Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Che and Castro know what happens when you put the good of the many in front of the good of the few. First of all, Nazi Germany was a capitalist totalitarian state which sent socialists to the concentration camps. Secondly, anyone who isn't a political illiterate knows that socialism is not equated with Stalinism and the like. Has anyone here heard about Sweden? Have anyone here even heard of Rosa Luxemburg, a socialist who OPPOSED the terroristid tactics of Lenin's Bolsheviks? Has anyone even heard that Albert Einstein, Michael Harrington, Eugene V. Debs and Martin Luther King, Jr--all of whom were opposed to Soviet and Maoist regimes--were nonetheless democractic socialists. In Europe these distinctions would be child's place, though in America it seems like rocket science. At any rate, anyone who calls the NAACP socialist is a moron. Case closed. W.E.B. Du Bois and others were expelled from that organization largely BECAUSE of socialistic tendencies.
|
|
|
|
Savant
AOL
|
Libertius wrote: <quoted text>
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...it is a socialist organization. Stating that today's Democratic Party is not of any significant socialist leaning is like saying today's Republican Party acts to curtail the size of the federal government.
I suggest it is you who are unable to see what is directly before you. The fact that "socialist" is not a curse word to you goes a long way to explain your view. Not incidentally, most other "technically advanced" countries are largely socialist. They may not agree to the "socialist" adjective, but that is only to make themselves look better in the eyes of the U.S.
There was an undeniable socialist undercurrent - that government knows better to do with land than the people - in the Kelo decision, clearly evident in the statement within the majority opinion - NOT the "court ruling:- that public use can include nearly any claim of some sort of public benefit. The Court on many occasions has justified such abherrent decisions on the faulty doctrine of most liberal interpretation, when in fact the plain language should have been followed as written. Perhaps, you don't know what a duck looks like. Go to any other Western industrialized country and speak to a person of even average intelligence and poltical literacy with the claim that the Democratic Party (controlled by corporate money) is socialist, and they'd laugh you out of town. And go tell the people in capitalist countries like France, Germany, England that they're really socialist but are trying to conceal it to look better in American eyes. They'd laugh and put a dunce cap on your head. Most Europeans understand by "socialist" a cooperative society governed by ordinary working class people. Believe me: I've been to Europe and observed Americans get laughed at for simplistic ideas such as you're proposing.
|
|
Margo
|
Savant wrote: <quoted text>
First of all, Nazi Germany was a capitalist totalitarian state which sent socialists to the concentration camps. They sent Communists to concentration camps. Have you forgotten that the full name of the Nazi party was 'National Socialist' party? Have you also forgotten the government control of the economy? Nazis may have opposed Communism but they sure weren't capitalists! Secondly, anyone who isn't a political illiterate knows that socialism is not equated with Stalinism and the like. Has anyone here heard about Sweden? Have anyone here even heard of Rosa Luxemburg, a socialist who OPPOSED the terroristid tactics of Lenin's Bolsheviks? Has anyone even heard that Albert Einstein, Michael Harrington, Eugene V. Debs and Martin Luther King, Jr--all of whom were opposed to Soviet and Maoist regimes--were nonetheless democractic socialists. Can anybody give me a 'democratic socialist' state that is NOT regulated to death with a massive tax burden and high unemployment - including Sweden which I understand is having trouble Middle Eastern immigrants into their perfect society.
|
|
Savant
AOL
|
Margo wrote: <quoted text>
They sent Communists to concentration camps. Have you forgotten that the full name of the Nazi party was 'National Socialist' party? Have you also forgotten the government control of the economy? Nazis may have opposed Communism but they sure weren't capitalists!
<quoted text>
Can anybody give me a 'democratic socialist' state that is NOT regulated to death with a massive tax burden and high unemployment - including Sweden which I understand is having trouble Middle Eastern immigrants into their perfect society. The important thing is not what the Nazis called themselves. The called themselves national socialists because they knew many Germans were socialist in orientation. Stalinist governments called themselves people's "republics" or peoples "democracies." But I don't confuse them with democracies, and likewise do not confuse with socialist an anti-socialist, totalitarian capitalist regime like that of Adolph Hitler. Germany remained capitalist throughout the time of the third Reich, heavily funded by large German (and some American) companies, many of which competed for govenment contracts for supplying of concentration camps. Businessmen often saw them as a way of controlling commonists, trade unionists and others. By the way, Sweden's unemployement rate is less than half our own, it's literacy far higher, it's crime rate practically negligible compared to ours, its health care far better, and it's level of tolerance and civil liberties have even been rated higher than ours. Even those who are unemployed there commonly live higher quality lives than many fully employed American workers. If you want to make an argument against socialism it doesn't help to consider Sweden as an negative example.
|
|
thinker
|
Du Bois, the founder of the NAACP, was a socialist for a time, he always considered himself a socialist. Its on the NAACP web page. I believe he is also listed on the Socialist parties web site on a list of famous people. The Democrat party has a history and traditions of being the party with Unions, and similar organizations makes the view legitimate. There are various historical records that show ties between socialist and the Democratic party. Which doesn't say they are socialist or ever were, but shows the tendency. Socialism, probably has some good points. However, the US is founded on individual rights and liberties. What we have seen is the impact that Savant wrote: <quoted text>
For me, socialism is not a curse word as it is for you. But you need to study the history and ideas of socialism and of the NAACP before you refer to that civil rights organization--one of the most moderate---as socialist.
It's remarkable that the USA is about the ONLY industrialized nation where people know so little about ideas and political philosophies.
Some Americans even see the Democratic Party as socialist....sophomoric errors that would make one a laughingstock in any other technically advanced country but the USA.
|
|
thinker
|
The Nazi party is/was considered a socialist party. The party started within the German Worker party. Most German voters were either for the communist or socialist party at the time. Socialist countries do not necessarily forgo capitalism altogether. Germany was fascist, whatever other traits it had, that was really the strongest trait of the government. Savant wrote: <quoted text>
The important thing is not what the Nazis called themselves. The called themselves national socialists because they knew many Germans were socialist in orientation.
Stalinist governments called themselves people's "republics" or peoples "democracies."
But I don't confuse them with democracies, and likewise do not confuse with socialist an anti-socialist, totalitarian capitalist regime like that of Adolph Hitler. Germany remained capitalist throughout the time of the third Reich, heavily funded by large German (and some American) companies, many of which competed for govenment contracts for supplying of concentration camps. Businessmen often saw them as a way of controlling commonists, trade unionists and others.
By the way, Sweden's unemployement rate is less than half our own, it's literacy far higher, it's crime rate practically negligible compared to ours, its health care far better, and it's level of tolerance and civil liberties have even been rated higher than ours.
Even those who are unemployed there commonly live higher quality lives than many fully employed American workers. If you want to make an argument against socialism it doesn't help to consider Sweden as an negative example.
|
|
thinker
|
The difference is between pure socialism and socialism in its various forms as it actually exists. Savant wrote: <quoted text>
Perhaps, you don't know what a duck looks like. Go to any other Western industrialized country and speak to a person of even average intelligence and poltical literacy with the claim that the Democratic Party (controlled by corporate money) is socialist, and they'd laugh you out of town.
And go tell the people in capitalist countries like France, Germany, England that they're really socialist but are trying to conceal it to look better in American eyes.
They'd laugh and put a dunce cap on your head. Most Europeans understand by "socialist" a cooperative society governed by ordinary working class people.
Believe me: I've been to Europe and observed Americans get laughed at for simplistic ideas such as you're proposing.
|
|
Savant
AOL
|
thinker wrote: Du Bois, the founder of the NAACP, was a socialist for a time, he always considered himself a socialist. Its on the NAACP web page. I believe he is also listed on the Socialist parties web site on a list of famous people.
The Democrat party has a history and traditions of being the party with Unions, and similar organizations makes the view legitimate. There are various historical records that show ties between socialist and the Democratic party. Which doesn't say they are socialist or ever were, but shows the tendency.
Socialism, probably has some good points. However, the US is founded on individual rights and liberties. What we have seen is the impact that
<quoted text> Du Bois was not the only socialist among the founders of the NAACP. But the NAACP was never socialist. And Du Bois and others were either expelled or found it advisable to leave on account of their socialist beliefs. Similarly, there were socialists involved in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. There's now increasing evidence (from his own words and writings) that Dr. King regarded himself as a democratic socialist (apparently an admirer of Swedish social democracy). But the civil rights movement wss not socialist. Socialists have helped pioneer the women's movement and the labor movement; and Wendell Phillips, one of the most renowned abolitionists, was a socialist. Yet the the anti-Slavery movement, the women's movement and the labor movements were not socialist. And one learns that even our Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist. We Americans owe more to socialists than most of us realize for our legacy of democratic rights and liberties.
|
|
Savant
AOL
|
Margo wrote: <quoted text>
They sent Communists to concentration camps. Have you forgotten that the full name of the Nazi party was 'National Socialist' party? Have you also forgotten the government control of the economy? Nazis may have opposed Communism but they sure weren't capitalists!
<quoted text>
Can anybody give me a 'democratic socialist' state that is NOT regulated to death with a massive tax burden and high unemployment - including Sweden which I understand is having trouble Middle Eastern immigrants into their perfect society. By the way, the issue of immigration--Middle Eastern or other--is hardly peculiar to Sweden. Most of Europe as well as America has a growing number of immigrants from poorer countries. Indeed, the economic crisis which has produced this flood of immigrants is due to global economic crises which are the products of global capitalism. Without a more equitable and democratic ecnomic order at home and abroad, no country can escape this crisis. And there will continue to be an inundation of the richer countries by immigrants from poorer ones.
|
|
thinker
|
Socialism is not necessarily worse then other forms of government in my view. As you said, many in the NAACP and the civil rights movement in general were involved with socialism. The movements themselves were not totally socialistic, however those that believed we should move towards a Socialistic form of government did use those movements as a means to achieve their goal. The United States was founded on individual rights and responsibilities. In many ways today we trend towards a Socialistic Democracy. As you said, there seems to be a lack of education on what our form of government is, what it was originally founded as, and other forms of government. Myself, I do not wish to go towards a Socialistic Democracy, the rights of individuals what allows a person to make their own choices. The choices and actions of the individual is what an individual should be judged on, not on whatever group they are put into. It seems foolish to define a society as the various and overlapping groups it is made up of, and then use that as some concept of what rights need to be protected for who, who groups have input into laws etc. The governments obligation is to all citizens, no matter which groups they are in. Whether they are majority or minority, because the majority and the minority are equal, and the only purpose for a government is its citizens. Savant wrote: <quoted text>
Du Bois was not the only socialist among the founders of the NAACP. But the NAACP was never socialist. And Du Bois and others were either expelled or found it advisable to leave on account of their socialist beliefs.
Similarly, there were socialists involved in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. There's now increasing evidence (from his own words and writings) that Dr. King regarded himself as a democratic socialist (apparently an admirer of Swedish social democracy). But the civil rights movement wss not socialist.
Socialists have helped pioneer the women's movement and the labor movement; and Wendell Phillips, one of the most renowned abolitionists, was a socialist.
Yet the the anti-Slavery movement, the women's movement and the labor movements were not socialist.
And one learns that even our Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.
We Americans owe more to socialists than most of us realize for our legacy of democratic rights and liberties.
|
|
Margo
|
Savant wrote: <quoted text>
By the way, the issue of immigration--Middle Eastern or other--is hardly peculiar to Sweden. Most of Europe as well as America has a growing number of immigrants from poorer countries. Indeed, the economic crisis which has produced this flood of immigrants is due to global economic crises which are the products of global capitalism. Riiight. And it's got nothing whatsoever to do with greedy dictators taking their people for all their worth and crushing them with taxes and regulations. Nothing at all... Socialism is nothing more then taking from Peter to pay Paul thus empowering the central government at the expense of the individual. I don't like that.
|
|
George
|
Savant wrote: <quoted text>
Perhaps, you don't know what a duck looks like. Go to any other Western industrialized country and speak to a person of even average intelligence and poltical literacy with the claim that the Democratic Party (controlled by corporate money) is socialist, and they'd laugh you out of town.
And go tell the people in capitalist countries like France, Germany, England that they're really socialist but are trying to conceal it to look better in American eyes.
They'd laugh and put a dunce cap on your head. Most Europeans understand by "socialist" a cooperative society governed by ordinary working class people.
Believe me: I've been to Europe and observed Americans get laughed at for simplistic ideas such as you're proposing. I'll remember that while feigning the placement of vast importance in the opinions of Europeans.
|
|
Savant
AOL
|
Margo wrote: <quoted text>
Riiight. And it's got nothing whatsoever to do with greedy dictators taking their people for all their worth and crushing them with taxes and regulations. Nothing at all...
Socialism is nothing more then taking from Peter to pay Paul thus empowering the central government at the expense of the individual. I don't like that. Actually, immigration has more to do with the condition of the global economy than "greedy dictators" or socialism. Most immigrants coming to Europe and America are fleeing poverty and do not come from countries that even claim to be socialist. Moreover, it is capitalism that takes from the masses to give to the classes; and it is global capitalism that created this disastrous world economy which gives rise to the immigration problems, and to problems of homelessness, poverty, hunger, foreclosures and numerous other calamities in America. And a central government is enabling capitalists to do that also. And we pay out the nose.
|
Judge it!
81°F
Most Popular
