This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Abstraction · 61-69, M
In the American definition of 'socialist', yes, where the definition was changed completely to mean anything left of the Republican party. By that measure any country that has a decent health system that the poor can access, for example, is socialist. (Almost all the genuinely democratic countries highest on the Human Development Index.)
Martin Luther King represents the types of Christians who do less pharisaical, holier-than-thou moralising and get out and do something real and practical for the down-and-out, call for justice, truth, compassion. That's my kind of scene, big time. Agree with you @Guitarman123
Martin Luther King represents the types of Christians who do less pharisaical, holier-than-thou moralising and get out and do something real and practical for the down-and-out, call for justice, truth, compassion. That's my kind of scene, big time. Agree with you @Guitarman123
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@Abstraction Umm no. We have statements he made and statements from people who were close to him and he was definitely not an American liberal. He is on record making anti capitalist statements that leave no room for misunderstanding.
Funny thing, he was setup to be murdered shortly after that point. But I am sure it is a coincidence. Not like the US government was murdering leftists.....oh wait.
Funny thing, he was setup to be murdered shortly after that point. But I am sure it is a coincidence. Not like the US government was murdering leftists.....oh wait.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@Abstraction In this statement he makes it clear he is of the revolutaionary camp too.
We must recognize that we can't solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power... this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together... you can't really get rid of one without getting rid of the others... the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order."
- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.
We must recognize that we can't solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power... this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together... you can't really get rid of one without getting rid of the others... the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order."
- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I didn't suggest he was an American liberal. He was a critic of capitalism - which I am - but I'm not a socialist. I know he saw the class struggle and the struggle against racism as connected. I'm not socialist but agree with him on these. I also know he rejected marxism, unless you're aware that changed. So we might be on slightly different definitions, or you may be aware of things I haven't heard. Interested if you have sources.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Thanks! You were ahead of me.
Again, I agree with him wholeheartedly but don't want traditional classic socialism which pointed to, for example, government control of means of production, no choice for consumers, over-heavy central planning, etc. But do agree with many of the core values. I'm sure we're probably not far apart.
Again, I agree with him wholeheartedly but don't want traditional classic socialism which pointed to, for example, government control of means of production, no choice for consumers, over-heavy central planning, etc. But do agree with many of the core values. I'm sure we're probably not far apart.
Guitarman123 · 31-35, M
@Abstraction socialism at its core is workers owning the means of production as well as free education and healthcare
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@Abstraction First off if you read what he said it seems he agrees with 99% of marxist thought. His positions make that very clear. My guess is his issue with marxism as it was presented during the cold war is in the US they made a huge deal about it being nominally atheist.
And with his flavor of Protestantism I am not sure if he would have disagreed with alot of the why the CPSU was against the Orthodox Church.
Keep in mind his exposure to marxism was tied to anti soviet propaganda.
And your impressions of marxism appears to be based on soviet propaganda too because all you presented here are cold war cliches not real serious critiques.
Case in point. It is funny you think you have choice as a consumer when every product in your supermarket is owned by 3 companies and Wal-mart is the largest centrally planned economy in the world. The difference is you have zero input in the process unless you are on the board of directors.
And with his flavor of Protestantism I am not sure if he would have disagreed with alot of the why the CPSU was against the Orthodox Church.
Keep in mind his exposure to marxism was tied to anti soviet propaganda.
And your impressions of marxism appears to be based on soviet propaganda too because all you presented here are cold war cliches not real serious critiques.
Case in point. It is funny you think you have choice as a consumer when every product in your supermarket is owned by 3 companies and Wal-mart is the largest centrally planned economy in the world. The difference is you have zero input in the process unless you are on the board of directors.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Thanks for your points. Sounds like we mostly disagree on definition of socialism. It's a broad church - you might be more current than me or simply using it differently. However I fundamentally reject the US use of the term which was deliberately used as a tool of political manipulation.
No, what's really funny is that you keep jumping to conclusions about what I think. Do you think I defend capitalism? That'd be wrong for a start. I'm fully aware of and oppose the monopolies present in capitalism.
@Guitarman123 Free education and healthcare are not limited to socialism. Australia is not a socialist country but has both. In fact most of the countries leading the Human Development Index are not socialist and do the same.
No, what's really funny is that you keep jumping to conclusions about what I think. Do you think I defend capitalism? That'd be wrong for a start. I'm fully aware of and oppose the monopolies present in capitalism.
@Guitarman123 Free education and healthcare are not limited to socialism. Australia is not a socialist country but has both. In fact most of the countries leading the Human Development Index are not socialist and do the same.
Guitarman123 · 31-35, M
@Abstraction not limited. But without a socialist outlook, their would be no free healthcare or education. Also the basic rights workers now take for granted wouldn't exist
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@Abstraction Sorry but it is just factual. Most of what people understood as socialism in his day was basically made up by US propaganda.
Even you seem to have internalized that because the definition you gave is nothing but anti soviet nonsense.
I am not jumping to conclusions. I am pointing out some very obvious flaws in your reasoning based on your statements.
And your point about healthcare seems to suggest you bought into the Reaganite idea that socialism = government does stuff.
Even you seem to have internalized that because the definition you gave is nothing but anti soviet nonsense.
I am not jumping to conclusions. I am pointing out some very obvious flaws in your reasoning based on your statements.
And your point about healthcare seems to suggest you bought into the Reaganite idea that socialism = government does stuff.