I was under the impression it was Novaja Gazeta one should read if one want’s to read something independent.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I am not an Obama supporter, but I feel compelled to say that Pravda does not represent “the Russians” or the general views of most of us. It is a mostly defunct paper run by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.[/quote]
I just don’t understand how it can be run by the Communist party if they seem to be against communism?
[/quote]
The paper as a whole is very much pro communist. The articles in Russian are almost universally pro-communist. The articles in English are targeted mostly towards Americans who are almost always anti-communist (that whole cold war business still has a lot of Americans turned off to communism)so they tone down the communist message to get more ratings and views online. The English version is mostly concerned with being critical of America without being overtly anti-American (basically when liberals are in power they run conservative articles critical of liberals and when conservatives are in power they run liberal articles critical of conservatives), but it is first and foremost a propaganda machine for the Communist Party just like it was in the Soviet Union as well as a means of generating income for the Communist Party, this means reaching the most people.
If you look on the English Pravda site, you will see many articles on America and American politics, but of you look at most Russian news outlets, you will find very few. This is because America is not all that important to most of us, beyond treaties and policies that directly involve Russia (it is much more important to me since I live here). Most of the news outlets focus on Russia, just like most American outlets focus on America and American issues, not Russia. By running more articles on American politics, they draw in more viewers, which translates to more money from advertising. [/quote]
Thank you very much for this insight.
I do recognize common sense, and this makes a lot of sense.
I am curious; what was your impression of the media here in America compared to your experience from the Russians?
That question would go for the Manly Texan, as well. 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
…In other words, they can “afford a safety net” because they haven’t eroded the savings and productivity of their citizenry…
[/quote]
Or is it because oil is $100+ a barrel?[/quote]
And/or what about their military?
Obama hasn’t been good, but calling him a Communist or Socialist means you don’t understand the term much. The big corporate banks and corporate interests have done very well under him. They wouldn’t if he was a true Socialist. The government has greatly grown, but if Obama’s a Communist then Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 and Clinton are Communists as well.
It’s actually demeaning to those who suffered and continue to suffer under these regimes to compare what we have to what they have went through. Here’s a good hint: In a true Communist country you wouldn’t be allowed to make this thread. You probably own your own car, your own house, your own TV, your own computer, etc. If Obama’s a Communist he sucks at it.
We can point out Obama’s myriad of flaws without the false language.
The point still stands. Obama is a poor President. Not a Communist or Socialist.
And it’s already been pointed out that the newspaper is hardly the voice of Russia.
[quote]H factor wrote:
You probably own your own car, your own house, your own TV, your own computer, etc.
[/quote]
A lot of people in America own the illusion of their “own car, home, etc”.
When repossession and debt are the reality of many Americans and increasing taxes so the stronger carry the weak without a plan to strengthen the weak and end the support, can any of us truly say we own anything but a state of codependency and therefore social weakness?
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
You probably own your own car, your own house, your own TV, your own computer, etc.
[/quote]
A lot of people in America own the illusion of their “own car, home, etc”.
When repossession and debt are the reality of many Americans and increasing taxes so the stronger carry the weak without a plan to strengthen the weak and end the support, can any of us truly say we own anything but a state of codependency and therefore social weakness?
[/quote]
The people who have bought on credit and can’t pay it off never owned anything to begin with. The government doesn’t own my car, I do. The government doesn’t own this computer, I do. I’m not arguing that things are peachy keen by any means, but we aren’t living in a Communist country, far from it. Those who call Obama a Communist clearly don’t understand the term nor have any idea what it was like for those who lived under such circumstances.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
can any of us truly say we own anything but a state of codependency and therefore social weakness?[/quote]
Speak for yourself. Both cars and my motorcycle owned outright. Rent a house. No credit card debt. No loans.
And I can’t believed that someone actually used a Communist newspaper as a credible news source. In the 50’s you would have been at the minimum laughed off the board and at most gone on the FBI watch list. I’ts the propaganda machine of the Communists and nothing more.
james
[quote]H factor wrote:
Those who call Obama a Communist clearly don’t understand the term nor have any idea what it was like for those who lived under such circumstances. [/quote]
I think that people just use it for the shock effect that it creates. It’s great drama.
james
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Norway. [/quote]
Where in Norway are you going? I’ve spent some time there as a tourist dressed in green. It’s a fantastic country (albeit cold!) and truly is the land of the runway model.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Those who call Obama a Communist clearly don’t understand the term nor have any idea what it was like for those who lived under such circumstances. [/quote]
I think that people just use it for the shock effect that it creates. It’s great drama.
james
[/quote]
This.
It isn’t grounded in reality. It’s comparable to the “this guy’s like Hitler” line that’s thrown around the Beltway a half dozen times a year, often at Republicans.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Here’s a good hint: In a true Communist country you wouldn’t be allowed to make this thread. [/quote]
Planks of the Communist Manifesto:
- Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Not quite abolition, but you cannot acquire it without being taxed heavily, and in very many instances cannot use it as you would wish except subject to strong regulation.
-
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
-
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Not abolition, but very heavy taxation which in practice, for example with family farms and ranches, will cause loss of ownership.
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Not emigrants and rebels, but for example, individuals falling afoul of “Zero Tolerance” or of taxes.
- Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
A little more sophisticated with the Fed, but basically along the same lines.
-
Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
-
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
-
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
-
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
-
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
So if we define “Communist” according to degree of agreement with Marx’s planks of Communism, then Obama does disagree on agriculture and on population redistribution. But other than this, it certainly could be argued that his policies, and those of very many current politicians, are in essence more sophisticated means of accomplishing the exact same objectives. It’s hard to see fundamental disagreement of Obama to most of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.
It would seem arbitrary to limit the term “Communist” to specific brutal practices of particular dictatorships. Why not go back to the source for the fundamental meaning? Most likely Obama’s professors did teach him direct from Marx, or at least one would hope so, it would be poor scholarship not to.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
You probably own your own car, your own house, your own TV, your own computer, etc.
[/quote]
A lot of people in America own the illusion of their “own car, home, etc”.
When repossession and debt are the reality of many Americans and increasing taxes so the stronger carry the weak without a plan to strengthen the weak and end the support, can any of us truly say we own anything but a state of codependency and therefore social weakness?
[/quote]
This is a good argument about the weakness of the post-recession economy but it does not stand as evidence of Obama’s alleged socialist or communist bent (though I’m not sure that’s what you intended anyway).
The simple fact is that the President has since the early days of his term surrounded himself with capitalists and establishment economic advisers. It’s difficult to argue that even the bailouts approached something like nationalization when they were begged-for by the very capitalists who were running the auto industry and spearheaded by a Wall Street executive.
He likes spending and he wants taxes to rise some on the rich. This makes him a Democrat, not a Marxist. I’ve yet to hear him propose the abolition of private property.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Speak for yourself. Both cars and my motorcycle owned outright. Rent a house. No credit card debt. No loans.
[/quote]
If something happens to you and you can’t pay the IRS, they confiscate “your” cars and “your” motorcycle and they can also put their hands in your pocket and help themselves to your bank account.
And if you live in California, you have to pay high property taxes on ANYTHING you “own”. If you don’t pay it, they take it away from you.
As for the “I can’t believe you posted this article as a credible news source…” statement, get out of your emotional reactive state and go back to the first page and try again for reading and comprehension.
Besides have you not your own authority to read something regardless of source and make your own decisions?
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
So if we define “Communist” according to degree of agreement with Marx’s planks of Communism, then Obama does disagree on agriculture and on population redistribution. But other than this, it certainly could be argued that his policies, and those of very many current politicians, are in essence more sophisticated means of accomplishing the exact same objectives. It’s hard to see fundamental disagreement of Obama to most of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.
It would seem arbitrary to limit the term “Communist” to specific brutal practices of particular dictatorships. Why not go back to the source for the fundamental meaning? Most likely Obama’s professors did teach him direct from Marx, or at least one would hope so, it would be poor scholarship not to.[/quote]
Do you think Ronald Reagan was a Communist? Because if Barack Obama fits that then so does Ronald Reagan and the other Presidents I mentioned. I don’t really care if you want to call Obama a Communist. You can. Like I said if he is he’s pretty damn bad at it. But if Obama’s a Communist then so is Ronald Reagan based on your criteria. You do realize taxes have been lower under him than under Reagan right?
As for your IRS post above…this was also true under “conservative” hero Ronald Reagan.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
You probably own your own car, your own house, your own TV, your own computer, etc.
[/quote]
A lot of people in America own the illusion of their “own car, home, etc”.
When repossession and debt are the reality of many Americans and increasing taxes so the stronger carry the weak without a plan to strengthen the weak and end the support, can any of us truly say we own anything but a state of codependency and therefore social weakness?
[/quote]
This is a good argument about the weakness of the post-recession economy but it does not stand as evidence of Obama’s alleged socialist or communist bent (though I’m not sure that’s what you intended anyway).
The simple fact is that the President has since the early days of his term surrounded himself with capitalists and establishment economic advisers. It’s difficult to argue that even the bailouts approached something like nationalization when they were begged-for by the very capitalists who were running the auto industry and spearheaded by a Wall Street executive.
He likes spending and he wants taxes to rise some on the rich. This makes him a Democrat, not a Marxist. I’ve yet to hear him propose the abolition of private property.[/quote]
Fair enough. ( no I did not intend to promote Obama as a communist but to invite a discussion on the similarities and what this means for “freedom” ).
I for one, think Obama is a Demagogue.
Though some believe he is fundamentally Marxist.
If the core beliefs achieve the same end does the name and the means matter?
That is what I was hoping for in this discussion.
( And most certainly not whether the newspaper was from a “higher authority source”.)
Planks of the Communist Manifesto:
- Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
I can’t read minds, and even more cannot when a person has already died, but my impression is that Reagan was more protective of private property than Obama is. Do you disagree?
The fact that Reagan also had taxation doesn’t change the point, as all governments tax. So clearly taxation itself doesn’t prove that a government is in the Communist direction, else the term would be meaningless. Reagan worked toward decreasing taxes; Obama does not seem to have that sort of inclination.
- A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Reagan’s taxes were nowhere near as “progessive” as Obama’s. Obama wants the majority of his voters to pay essentially zero income tax, and the productive to pay very high tax. Obama takes the already-extreme graduation of the Bush tax code to a level never before seen. Do you disagree that Obama’s tax concepts are much more in line with Marx’s than Reagan’s were? That is, much more graduated, higher rates for high earners than for low earners.
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Was Reagan in favor of high inheritance taxes? Obama is.
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
There was probably no difference in tax confiscation policies.
- Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
I don’t know Reagan’s stance on banking. He never did do anything like Obama’s “stimulus” though. Certainly in practice no difference with regard to the Fed.
-
Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
-
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
-
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
-
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
I’d said that 6-9 didn’t really apply to Obama.
- Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Reagan wanted less Federal involvement in education, Obama wanted more.
Do you yourself think Reagan wanted, or acted to achieve, the directions Obama does of extreme “progressiveness” in tax rate, death taxes, and overall government control of the economy? By the above criteria, do you actually find Reagan more in the Communist direction? That seems novel.
You can tax the rich all you want, there are not enough of them to make a dent into the problem.
You either tax everyone, cut massive entitlements, or both.
If you want to see how “taxing everyone” turns out, we in California just had an election based on this very idea.
Prop 30 - taxed those making over $250k/year or more.
Prop 38 - taxed everyone who made $7k/year or more.
Results ?..
Prop 30 passed by 53%
Prop 38 failed by 75%
It seems that people stick to the motto of “tax everyone else but me.”
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I am not an Obama supporter, but I feel compelled to say that Pravda does not represent “the Russians” or the general views of most of us. It is a mostly defunct paper run by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. It is a shadow of what it was when I was a kid. It is not even considered a reliable or major news source anymore. Try the Moscow Times if you don’t speak Russian. If you do, a couple of the better news agencies are http://www.mk.ru/ and kommersant.ru. They are two of the best and are more representative of the general views of the Russian population.
The author of this piece does bring up some good points, though I am not sure if he is Russian. Especially when he quotes Putin. Despite his flaws, Putin does generally know what he is talking about.[/quote]
I agree homey ain’t no dummy, but I tend not to believe “Pravda” is anymore truth than it was during communism. It seems to have gone the way of tabloid, which is what I would tend to think any news paper nobody trusted would turn into.
Yes, the article had some good points, but it ran it a bit of a sensationalist tint.
That being said, having a Russian paper call you a bunch of commies should give anyone pause for concern.
You don’t have to be terribly smart to know that trying to shove a good bit of the economy under the government seat is more about a power grab than economic health. Considering that such a move has, never, ever, ever, ever, ever worked in the history of the world, you’d have to be a two bit idiot to think it’d work now. We didn’t need Putin to tell us that. We need Putin to tell that to the ‘independent’ voters who don’t know and don’t give a fuck between 4 year cycles.
If I were a candidate for president, I would run all my ads during American Idol, Jersey Shore Honey Boo Boo, there’s where your idiot swing voters are. I’d put my face right in their shows. Then they’d know which box to check because they’d be so familiar with me, they’d think I was the president all along.