Pravda Says US Meekly Turning Marxist

[BarrySotero]

Pravda is saying the US is turning Marxist at great speed:

"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."

The article says this was made possible by dumbing down the people:

"First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish."


There is a warning that Obama election was a nail in the coffin:

"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe"

Of Course the Chinese understand Obama is breaking US finances as well. Pravda point out Obama is becoming dictatorial:

"Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions."

There is more of course, and the rest also illustrates that the countries that have experienced Marxism have seen Obama for what he is all along (a reason they are nervous about their money).

"American capitalism gone with a whimper"

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/



However the Marxists in the US have also been pleased that Obama is a fellow traveler. I noticed a few weeks ago that Communist Party USA's leader Sam Webb was reveling in the election of Barack Obama.

"After the first 100 days I would say without hesitation or qualification that the political atmosphere, landscape, conversation and agenda compared to the previous eight years of the Bush administration have changed dramatically.

To borrow an expression of Jarvis Tyner, the executive vice chair of our party, ?What was once impossible during the Bush years has become possible, thanks to the election of Barack Obama.?


You can read Webb's speech here to see just how much Obama and CPUSA mirror each other.

http://therealbarackobama.word...-obama-administration/

The US is at the point Obama's fans will have to keep supporting him knowing that he is a Marxist and seeks to damage the country more than help it.

Indeed, the writer from Pravda warns Russians to get out of Dodge

"The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left."

America elected a communist when it was obvious Obama was a radical. The media played dead and people made Obama into what they wanted him to be - but none of it was true.

 

[fskimospy]

When Pravda says insane shit the other 364 days of the year I bet you discount them. Now that they say something that coincides with your paranoia and delusional world view you're running here to post it as fast as your little feet can fly.

Pravda was formerly a propaganda organization, now the former editors run a nationalist tabloid. Great job.

 

[Harvey]

< sarcasm >

And of course, Pravda has been my most trusted source of information and the basis of my opinions for decades. :roll:

< /sarcasm >

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Harvey
< sarcasm >

And of course, Pravda has been my most trusted source of information and the basis of my opinions for decades. :roll:

< /sarcasm >

at least it's more of a news source that you and the rest of the hacks here normally quote from.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Harvey
< sarcasm >

And of course, Pravda has been my most trusted source of information and the basis of my opinions for decades. :roll:

< /sarcasm >

at least it's more of a news source that you and the rest of the hacks here normally quote from.

Please list the sources that you consider Pravda 'more of a news source' than.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Harvey
< sarcasm >

And of course, Pravda has been my most trusted source of information and the basis of my opinions for decades. :roll:

< /sarcasm >

at least it's more of a news source that you and the rest of the hacks here normally quote from.

Please list the sources that you consider Pravda 'more of a news source' than.

+1

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Harvey
< sarcasm >

And of course, Pravda has been my most trusted source of information and the basis of my opinions for decades. :roll:

< /sarcasm >

at least it's more of a news source that you and the rest of the hacks here normally quote from.

This coming from a guy who equates an academic study to an email chain spam.

 

[MovingTarget]

Pravda can cram it with their 'wishful thinking'. Marxist criticism has its place even within our system, but these guys seem to have no handle on America's culture, economy, or educational system. For all our faults, they totally miss the mark. These guys are even worse than FOX.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

These guys are even worse than FOX.

I disagree. As political tools, they're about equally corrupt. Faux is worse because it's here, doing it to OUR communications systems, and OUR financial institutions, and OUR political institutions and US.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Pravda was formerly a propaganda organization, now the former editors run a nationalist tabloid. Great job.

Sounds like the NY Times aside from tabloid part (and they will be lucky to survive as a tabloid).

Pravda doesn't say anything that isn't readily observable to anyone who has a little knowledge of history and some sense.

Obama takes over banks and industries using underhanded tactics, he chest bumps dictators and bows to Muslim royalty while advertising his resentment for America. He has economy on suicidal trajectory and his administration is full of radicals, Marxists and Soros staffers (Van Jones, Rosa Brooks, Michelle Fluornoy etc.). North Korea and Iran are nuking it up and Obama winks at them. If you had to stake your life on picking Obama as closer to Lincoln or Chavez it would be easy pick (and Obama is worse than Chavez).

Of course there are people who live in denial of facts about their own behaviors and lives and after a while they lose the ability to see anything objectively. The lies they use to rationalize their lives become their reality. Then larger realities outside themselves must also conform and they do not pick their politics as much as their politics picks them .

So now the US has many demoralized people with no real character, and a shape-shifter like Obama comes around and makes these people feel they are some sort of special breed. Together they will remake America with "new responsibility" (Marxism). He has radical ties at every turn and sadly says Constitution is inadequate for wealth redistribution - but the sheeple still thinks hes Lincoln Jr come to take them to the promised land. If people are that stupid it's to be expected many will stay stuck in their denial even as slave holders and loyalists did. Of course it's with the slave holders and loyalists that hard core Obama believers will share a corner of history.

 

[sandorski]

Batboy is Editor in Chief of Pravda

 

[techs]

Pravda versus FoxNews.
Now there's a debate.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

These guys are even worse than FOX.

I disagree. As political tools, they're about equally corrupt. Faux is worse because it's here, doing it to OUR communications systems, and OUR financial institutions, and OUR political institutions and US.

And MSNBC is far worse than Fox.

But you know what? Fox does not run the government. Fox does not create law. Fox does not judge people in the legal system.

It's probably time to talk to your doctor about medication for your anger problems.

 

[OrByte]

ew what a stinky thread.

Someone forgot to take out the trash!

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: OrByte
ew what a stinky thread.

Someone forgot to take out the trash!

It's a real Losar.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

These guys are even worse than FOX.

I disagree. As political tools, they're about equally corrupt. Faux is worse because it's here, doing it to OUR communications systems, and OUR financial institutions, and OUR political institutions and US.

And MSNBC is far worse than Fox.

But you know what? Fox does not run the government. Fox does not create law. Fox does not judge people in the legal system.

Neither does MSNBC or Pravda.

 

[StageLeft]

Unfortunately the pro-obamas are generally of such a partisan nature that they will quick scoff at the notion without even wondering if it has an inkling of merit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Unfortunately the pro-obamas are generally of such a partisan nature that they will quick scoff at the notion without even wondering if it has an inkling of merit.

What was your opinion of yesterday's Pravda headline article, Skoorb?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Unfortunately the anti-obamas are generally of such a partisan nature that they will quick scoff at the notion without even wondering if it has an inkling of merit.

two way street there buddy, fixed.

 

[Adn4n]

Lol I wanted the head of GM to step down, he's doing my will.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Unfortunately the pro-obamas are generally of such a partisan nature that they will quick scoff at the notion without even wondering if it has an inkling of merit.

I started a thread awhile back asking if Mr Obama was a Socialist. It became clear that the people who were calling him a socialist did not know what that meant and were parroting talking points.

Lets define Marxism:

American - Heritage Dictionary

The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

Answers.com

Marx·ism (märkszm) KEY

NOUN:

The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

It was Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who formulated the original ideas, concepts, and theories which became the foundations of a doctrine which has since come to be known as Marxism, but which they themselves designated as ?scientific socialism?. The relationship between Marxism and socialism is a problematical one, but there can be no doubt that Marx and Engels saw many of their contemporary socialists as ?utopian? in the sense of being insufficiently objective in their understanding of how capitalist society was actually developing. Marx and Engels devoted their lives to the analysis of historical forces which they considered to be moving inexorably towards the eventual collapse of the capitalist system and a revolutionary crisis which would bring about a socialist transition and (eventually) full communism. They gave particularly close attention to economic processes and structures, which they saw as the key ?material? factors in shaping social structure and class relations, and also the state and the distribution of political power.

Yet within the various schools of Marxist thought which have emerged in the last century or so there is no agreement as to how much weight should be attached to economic factors in explaining and predicting broader patterns of social and political change. Marx and Engels have been seen by some as economic determinists, but other interpretations have stressed the mutual interrelationships of economic and other socio-political factors. This dispute has become central to Marxism- Leninism, which has inevitably sought to analyse and explain the actual processes of revolutions which have occurred throughout the world (starting with the 1917 Russian Revolution) under the auspices of Marxist movements and political parties, and has become entangled in arguments over the importance of political leadership and the use of revolutionary state power in creating a socialist (and communist) society. Marx and Engels themselves did not produce any detailed analysis of such issues, and this is one of the reasons why twentieth-century Marxists such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro added their own distinctive perspectives to the development of Marxist revolutionary strategy. The fact that many self-proclaimed Marxist revolutions have in fact led to the strengthening of state power and (frequently) the rule of one-party dictatorial regimes, rather than a society based on human freedom and the ?withering away? of the state, has also stimulated much disagreement over the relative merits of different Marxist strategies. Some Marxists deny the claims of such dictatorial regimes to be Marxist, and this has led to a persistent search for more democratic and pluralist strategies of change, for example in Eurocommunism and also within some traditions of social democracy.

Marxism may also be seen as a distinctive approach to the analysis of society, especially in terms of historical processes of change, which has had a dramatic impact on numerous fields of study within the social sciences and the humanities. There is hardly any area of socio-economic, political, or cultural investigation which has not been scrutinized by the techniques of Marxist analysis. In particular this has involved historical materialist methodology rooted in the belief that the structure of society and human relations in all their forms are the product of material conditions and circumstances rather than of ideas, thought, or consciousness. This raises the problem of ?determinism? in Marxism, since an emphasis on material forces of economic production and the social relations of production (i.e. class relations) inevitably suggests that these are the key factors which have shaped, and which continue to shape, the process of historical change. In particular these systems of thought, including political belief systems and cultural ?products? such as art and literature, are basically expressions of the class interests and socio-economic world-views of certain distinctive groups in society. Thus Marxism's analysis of capitalist societies focuses attention on issues of power and domination from the perspective not only of overt political supremacy but also through the supremacy gained from domination in the class structure (which is seen to be linked to political position) and domination in the realms of ideas, values, and cultural norms.

The Marxist analysis of capitalism and the conditions under which capitalism enters periods of economic crisis that eventually lead to social and political revolution is exceedingly complex and is essentially economic in its orientation. As capitalism has continued to develop and change its character since the death of Marx and Engels, numerous Marxist thinkers, from Lenin onwards, have added important theoretical dimensions, relating Marxism, for example, to new conditions of global economic production, imperialism, and colonialism, and the changing position of the working class, or proletariat, which has always been seen by Marxists as the most severely exploited class of capitalist society, and as the main agent of the eventual overthrow of capitalism. In the last century the working class of capitalist societies has undergone such a profound transformation that the ?classical Marxism? of Marx and Engels cannot be applied without sweeping changes of emphasis. Equally, Marxism has often been politically successful in peasant-based less developed societies rather than in the more developed industrial societies of the West. It may be, as some Marxists have suggested, that the focus of class exploitation has merely shifted to the Third World, but if this is so, then critical shifts in emphasis in Marxist thought would seem to be necessary. Marxist thought in the Third World has focused on imperialism, colonialism, and post-colonialism.

The Marxist critique of capitalism places particular emphasis on the role of the institution of private property (of capital resources and land) as the basis of class exploitation and the dependency of employed workers on a privileged group of owners. And it follows that the vision of a future communist society embraces the idea of replacing private property by common ownership in the interests of all and exercised by some form of direct workers' control. Marx and Engels did not produce any detailed blueprints for the precise mode of organization of a future post-revolutionary society, and did indeed criticize all such blueprints as ?utopian?. Marxist regimes have engaged in such a wide variety of practical experiments, and Marxist political parties have put forward so many different strategies, that it is impossible to identify one single agreed approach. In the end Marx and Engels believed that the tasks of socialist and communist construction must await the necessary conditions of historical change, and this raises the whole issue of how quickly or slowly capitalism would be transformed into socialism and communism, and also the question of whether such a transformation could be accomplished in individual countries or must become a genuinely worldwide movement. ?socialism in one country? has become the actual strategy pursued by many Marxist regimes (including the Soviet Union under Stalin), but if capitalism has become a system of global economic power, it is perhaps questionable whether a single country can ever achieve the goals indicated by Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The collapse of many Marxist regimes in the late 1980s and early 1990s?including the disintegration of the Soviet Union?has cast further doubt on the capability of such regimes to survive in an interdependent world dominated by capitalist countries. ?Marxism is dead? became a common slogan of political commentary during these years. But it seems almost certain, as capitalism continues to experience severe economic crises, and as environmental problems pose increasing threats for the very survival of the human race, that there will continue to be a significant measure of political space for Marxist ideas.

Wikipedia has a good discussion on Marxism too.

Mr Obama took actions that everyone* is uncomfortable with. Using tax dollars to help secure the US financial system and other sectors goes against the American ethos of self reliance.

(*Most of this forum membership grew up during the Reagan era which had\has the tenet that "the Federal government is the problem".)

I started a thread awhile back asking what the Federal government should do in response to the economic crisis. Most people were Neo-Hooverian and thought that the Federal government should do nothing and allow the market to take care of everything.

What would have been or would be consequences of doing nothing? I thought the US was on the verge of an economic collaspe\contraction on the scale of 1929 Depression. Without increased Federal government spending I thought it would take decades for the US economy to recover. Look at what happened to Japan in the 1990's and the fact that country has not completely recovered.

The GOP advocates making the Bush tax cuts permenant, further cutting of the tax rates for the wealthiest, and cutting spending that benefits everyone else. This is the classic Reagan solution.


Do I think Mr Obama is a Marxist and the US is becoming a Marxist proletariat state? I do not think so. Around 70% of the US wealth is owned by 10% of the population* (link) and considering the resistance against raising the tax rates by 3% on the wealthiest this breakdown is not going to change. I do not see a revolution overturning the current system happening in the near or far future. And I do not see Mr Obama advocating this revolution.

 

[techs]

Quite frankly, the desperation of the right wing zealots has reached new levels when they are quoting Pravda in support of their failed ideology.
I guess it was either Pravda or The Onion.
Both have as much validity.

btw I wonder how Pravda views the nationalizaton of the Russian oil industry??

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: techs
Quite frankly, the desperation of the right wing zealots has reached new levels when they are quoting Pravda in support of their failed ideology.
I guess it was either Pravda or The Onion.
Both have as much validity.

btw I wonder how Pravda views the nationalizaton of the Russian oil industry??

Yeah, this has got to be a new low...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Unfortunately the pro-obamas are generally of such a partisan nature that they will quick scoff at the notion without even wondering if it has an inkling of merit.

Not at all. I considered it for the 4 seconds it took to realize how moronic the idea sounded, then I moved on to other things.