What socialism ultimately achieves is that it equalizes everyone in misery.
More importantly, by entering the Democratic Party, Sanders broke with the socialist principle of independent working - class political action.1 He became the «sheepdog» herding progressives, who had the option of voting for the Green ticket of Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka in the general election, back into a party run by the billionaire class he professes to oppose.2 Nevertheless, the broad liberal to radical American left is now discussing
what socialism is and debating whether the Left should be inside or outside the Democratic Party — or both inside and outside.
I suggest you learn
what socialism is, and about modern Russia.
If to all the enormous power that the state has anyway you add the power to run the economy, which is
what socialism empirically means, the tendency toward creating some sort of totalitarianism becomes extremely strong.
Bloom knew exactly
what socialism was and how to move a mob with peer pressure.
If you guys think Obama is Socialist, you don't know
what socialism is.
That kind of progress is
what socialism, communism or dictatorships are all about.
Not exact matches
«
What democratic
socialism is about,» Sanders declared, is «that it is immoral and wrong that the top one - tenth of 1 percent in this country... own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.»
Wikipedia has good definitions for those discussing
Socialism, Marxism, etc. for instance this was under Marxism to distinguish
what part the Germans Marx & Engels from Russian Leninism.
What, are you suggesting
socialism now?
So to truly apply the mindset of Madison today means to admit
what he couldn't quite see: that just as air is to the regrettable existence of fire, and as liberty is to the regrettable existence of faction, so is modern republican government to the regrettable existence of various at - bottom - suicidal democratic mindsets: progressivism, democratic
socialism, militant secularism, and libertarianism.
You don't even have a clue
what «
socialism» means.
For instance, when the Catechism rejects both
socialism and capitalism it leaves open the question of
what «reasonable regulation» is.
Unlike Marx and others who tried to turn
socialism into a science and thought they knew
what would happen, Rorty's religion is radically open to, adamantly insistent upon, the new — making possible a life of «pure, joyous hope.»
James Nuechterlein replies: If Mr. Segermark has his way, the word
socialism will no longer mean
what it has always meant» public ownership and control of the means of production» but something along the lines of «left - wing programs I do not like.»
Not the socially conservative, servant of feel good capitalism that is so prevalent in the U. S. And let's look at it this way, if that mysoginist, drug addicted coward, Rush Limbaugh thinks
what the Pope is doing is
socialism, then the Pope must be doing something right.
One can not answer the question of
what constitutes the just society by pointing to
socialism as such, while among capitalist societies there are varying approximations of justice.
«It's sad because this Pope makes it very clear he doesn't know
what he's talking about when it comes to capitalism and
socialism and so forth,» Limbaugh said.
Moreover, these notions are supported by
what one might call a prejudice in favor of the collective fostered by
socialism.
I want only to show
what a mistake it is to confuse Christianity and
socialism; they are not the same thing.
Social Christianity (which on the whole is simple
socialism), the Bekenntnis Kirche (which, once Hitlerism was defeated, merely aligned itself with anti-Hitlerism, thus with
what might be called socio - communism), the ideas of Reinhold Niebuhr (which, while solidly thought out, affected neither church nor society)-- all have failed.
But it is of critical importance to the choice between capitalism and
socialism, and it is directly relevant to
what he has to say about sin.
What have conservatives offered as an alternative to
socialism?
when the churches become advocates for the poor and needy, which will soon overwhelm them, and advocate
what amounts to
socialism they will be crushed by the fascists.
Berry's idea that we need a planetary
socialism — indeed, an ultimate universal
socialism — is based on Aquinas's statement that because the divine goodness «could not be adequately represented by one creature alone, he [God] produced many and diverse creatures, that
what was wanting to one in the representation of the divine might be supplied by another.»
Limbaugh believes that very clear Pope Francis doesn't know
what he's talking about when it comes to capitalism and
socialism.
If the actions of Christ and his early followers are
what people like Rush call communism,
socialism and Marxism, then Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ and the early Christians were the greatest Marxists!
What is
socialism about going back to Bill clinton tax rate that created 23 million jobs?
Others revel in the mindfields or
what can be better disseminated as being spiritual
socialisms while they are ever stayed put in their ownliness brain - yards of spiritualized individualisms!
We remember the old question, «
What is the difference between capitalism and
socialism?»
«It's sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn't know
what he's talking about when it comes to capitalism and
socialism and so forth.»
'' «It's sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn't know
what he's talking about when it comes to capitalism and
socialism...»
If that isn't the core of marxisim,
socialism, and communism, then
what is it.
What is the reality of socialism, and what are its advantages and disadvanta
What is the reality of
socialism, and
what are its advantages and disadvanta
what are its advantages and disadvantages?
But
what do we mean by these two terms, capitalism and
socialism?
Socialism is the economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the state, which decides through central planning
what is to be produced and how it is to be distributed.
At this time Niebuhr was driven into the mild
socialism of the «Social Gospel,» but he soon began to do battle against
what he called its naivete (its lack of understanding of the depths of sin in individual and society).
Whether or not he is has nothing to do with his unblinking recognition of
what he calls the human tragedy of «the system of real
socialism.»
Toward my belief system, religion is a personal belief and should not be a sociable consideration... Anyone's beliefs upon religious conjuring séances should be held personally and not be centered by any
socialism of the religiously clairvoyant which tends to conjure their weekly seminary séances upon the weakly enamored folks ever forsaking the doctrines oaths... Emotionalisms are where religious circles are deemed rented and the renters pay steeply for a yarn's worth... Therefore keeps one's faith separated from religious teamsters who take and never give their folded flocks any causally rational explanations as to why there are reportedly many more of God's many sons then
what Christendom so portends there to be...
Toward my belief system, religion is a personal belief and should not be a sociable consideration... Anyone's beliefs upon religious conjuring séances should be held personally and not be centered by any
socialism of the religiously clairvoyant which tends to conjure their weekly seminary séances upon the weakly enamored folks ever forsaking the doctrines oaths... Emotionalisms are where religious circles are deemed rented and the renters pay steeply for a yarn's worth... Therefore keep one's faith separated from religious teamsters who take and never give their folded flocks any causally rational explanations as to why there are reportedly many more of God's many sons then
what Christendom so potentially claims there to be...
This is no longer Adam Smith's capitalism, but
what I. F. Stone calls «private
socialism» — the public takes much or most of the risk; private entrepreneurs take the whole profit.
What the left finds distasteful and dangerous about evangelicalism is not just its conservative biblical hermeneutic, but more importantly, its anti-Communism, opposition to
socialism, and — conversely — its free market and pro-business orientation.
In
what sense is Tillich's
socialism «religious»?
And another one says, «You know,
what China could use now is a bit of
socialism.»
What happens has to do with Israel or the church, and not the state or capitalism or
socialism.
In interwar Poland the Zionist movement, itself divided into
what were almost literally warring factions, was probably the third strongest political tendency in Polish Jewry, behind Bund
Socialism and the strictly Orthodox Agudas Israel.
On the other hand, memories are short, as witness a young author who apparently sees nothing terribly problematic in advocating
what might aptly be described as national
socialism or socialist nationalism, albeit with benign intentions.
Eliminating
what so many today feel is the unfair advantage of capitalism is truly just a wish to eliminate capitalism and replace it with some type of pseudo democratic
socialism.
More serious is
what Bellamy referred to as its «abusive tone about God and religion,» namely the undeniable atheism and materialism that characterized not all kinds of
socialism but particularly the most influential strand, Marxism.
What really has this T vs. G trial begotten
socialism and governing bodies?