MexicanWarlord420
Active Member
public option =/= communist
Michael Moore on Hannity
- Thread starter RickWhite
- Start date
Green Cross
Well-Known Member
The founders of the free world recognized that free speech and freedom of protest were paramount...
Communists have historically tried to control, radio television, religion, or manipulate it for their cause.
You may be able to rewrite history in the public schools, but not in the real world.
Peddle your propaganda elsewhere comrade
Yeah, a government administered health insurance plan in which enrollment is completely optional is EXACTLY the same thing as communism. Give me a fucking break.
Now obviously a plan such as this COULD lead to private insurers going out of business and leave consumers with fewer options. This sort of thing could then lead to a single payer health care system which is socialist in nature. However, socialism and communism are not even remotely close to being the same thing. I agree that a "public option" is a slippery slope toward a socialist policy, but it is not communism. If you think it is, I suggest you turn off Beck and learn the 101 level basics of political theory.
**EDIT** I realize now that you were saying that the public option is not equal to communism, I misunderstood your point. Instead consider the above as a reply to those who think a public option is communistic in nature.
To say that Communism is Socialism's older brother is the same as saying that anarchy is Libertarianism's older brother. It's true only in an incredibly over-simplified sense. In both examples, they share the same side of the political spectrum but there are a vast number of differences.
fitch303
Well-Known Member
Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).
The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.
Obviously, before it can be achieved, production must reach undreamed of heights—to satisfy everyone’s needs there must be the greatest of plenty of everything. In addition, there must have developed a change in the attitude of people toward work—instead of working because they have to, people will work because they want to, both out of a sense of responsibility to society and because work satisfies a felt need in their own lives.
Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.
It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.
Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties? Yes, there are.
The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.
The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.
The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.
Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.
There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.
Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.
More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).
The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.
Obviously, before it can be achieved, production must reach undreamed of heights—to satisfy everyone’s needs there must be the greatest of plenty of everything. In addition, there must have developed a change in the attitude of people toward work—instead of working because they have to, people will work because they want to, both out of a sense of responsibility to society and because work satisfies a felt need in their own lives.
Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.
It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.
Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties? Yes, there are.
The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.
The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.
The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.
Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.
There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.
Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.
More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.
MexicanWarlord420
Active Member
*straps on tinfoil hat*The founders of the free world recognized that free speech and freedom of protest were paramount...
Communists have historically tried to control, radio television, religion, or manipulate it for their cause.
You may be able to rewrite history in the public schools, but not in the real world.
Peddle your propaganda elsewhere comrade
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
First, that isn't the entire interview. The first and most obvious thing was when Hannity was telling Moore that Capitalism is what enabled him to make his new crockumentary denouncing it, and if he made his new film in Cuba they would kill him. Moore responds by saying "lets talk about the people we are killing." As if that has anything to do with the subject.
Moore like most who think like him are masters in the art of insidious and under handed argument. He makes up facts as he goes along and he changes the subject whenever he can't answer a question.
Generally in a legitimate debate, you start with certain conclusions and premises and you debate their merits in order to establish a claim. What guys like Moore do is just reply to everything with sophistry and logical fallacies as demonstrated above or they make the conversation into a game in which they can come up with a smart ass reply to everything. Nearly all of these answers are non-sequiter meaning the conclusion does not follow the logic of the premise. Or, they are just silly childish answers in general.
For instance.
Hannity:
Don't you think some of the borrowers bear some responsibility for borrowing more than they could afford to repay?
Moore:
No, not at all. They were duped by the banks.
Now I have seen some real bad finance offers with cars and such that only a fool would enter into. But foolishly entering into a bad loan situation is nobodies fault but the fool who agrees to it. Plus, it is unreasonable to suggest that people don't know what they are doing when they make 30K / year and they buy a $300K home. But, to guys like this the answer isn't supposed to make sense - like the Chewbaca defense.
What he doesn't do is answer a single question with an honest and logical answer.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Here are some good links on this disgusting pig.
http://www.moorewatch.com/
http://www.mooreexposed.com/
http://www.moorewatch.com/
http://www.mooreexposed.com/
I bolded that particular area of your post because that's what I'm addressing here...
You are absolutely, 100% spot on in your assertions. That being said, Hannity does the exact same thing on a regular basis. To deny that is to deny reality which makes your arguments null and void. Now you haven't denied that Hannity does the exact same thing, but if you do, your argument holds no water.
The thing that struck me when I watched that interview was that here are two guys spewing bullshit from different sides of the aisle. Both lack credibility. That wasn't what bothered me. What bothered me was that I feel like there is a large majority of people out there who can correctly see the bullshit and dishonest tactics at work by one of these men, but not the other. That's downright scary. If you take off the partisan blinders and actually listen to what is being said and the countless fallacies that permeate both of these guy's logic, you'll see that the whole thing was nothing more than a partisan circle-jerk by two grade A bullshit vendors.
He didn't cheat anyone, he bet against the dollar and won. If the middle class makes a trillion dollars off its investments, well then I guess the super elite only have 94.9% of the world wealth. Not like it varies wildly.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
I have seen Hannity take things out of context in order to sensationalize things. He no doubt does this for ratings and I wish he wouldn't, but I understand why he does - he has a show to do.
However, that is much different than what Moore and people like him do. In fact Hannity though an exaggerator at times does always make very logical arguments. Granted they may be sensationalized but they are at least logical. When he points out that every world leader thought the were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was in violation of dozens of UN resolutions he is 100% correct. It's not quite an apples to apples comparison.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Well, every world leader did follow our intelligence... It's not like they all had people on the ground doing independent investigations into what Sadaam was doing. They all trusted our intel, that turned out to be wrong. That's exactly the kind of shit Hannity pulls, and he knows exactly what he's doing when he does it. He doesn't expect his audience to know that, he expects them to just believe what he's saying, then when he makes the point you were talking about, how all the world leaders totally agreed with what we were doing, so we're not the only ones to blame for a botched invasion, it makes it seem like it was just a mistake and hey, accidents happen...
He's lying to his audience by not telling them the full truth. Is Moore immune to this? Fuck no, of course not. He does the exact same things.
tnrtinr
Well-Known Member
I just saw two people with two different talking points. Hannity is trying to errode Moore with a "gotcha journalism" style of interviewing and Moore is trying to steer Hannity to see the bigger "capitalism is bad" picture. When interviewer ask overly leading questions or are attempting to set up that gotcha moment you will see interviewees squirm and answer in non-sequitur or answer with a question. They are never going to answer each other with an "honest" answer.
What you fail to see is that when Hannity asked:
"Don't you think some of the borrowers bear some responsibility for borrowing more than they could afford to repay?"
He is focused on minutia and is missing the big picture that Moore is attempting to paint.
Moore was pointing out that the small percentage of sub-prime defaults do not cause the damage to the economy and ensuing WORLDWIDE credit crisis. There were much bigger things going on to cause the damage to the economy than most people know.
The easy answer is "YES" but it really isn't that simple. The fact of the matter is that people were taken advantage of, duped and flat out lied to. The mortgage market was out of control and there were guys that were saying anything to get people to sign. Brokers were literally loaning money to retarded / disabled people KNOWING that they could NOT make the payments but they wanted the commission / bonus / points for themselves. People that could afford the payments and never thought to ask / nor did anyone take the time to explain what an ARM was and that their payments would triple in two years. That being said, there are people that are LOADED that have no idea what they are signing to when they scribble their name on the dotted line (they just have the money to cover the bills).
Neither of them answer honestly. You think Hannity would EVER concede that American capitalism may have shortcomings? Just like you think Moore would ever admit that he pours it on a little thick to sell movie tickets?
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Where on Earth would you get such a silly notion? You think Putin was following our intelligence? Absolute nonsense. And by the way many of the Democrats saw the EXACT same intelligence as Bush and they supported the war.
Anyway, back to the point. This thread isn't about Hannity or Iraq. It is about that disgusting pig Moore and what a hypocrite and a liar he is.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Good post.