What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- BlackBloke, on 09/30/2008, -0/+34Don't call it a comeback… he's been here for years.
- insurgente, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Marx has been resurrected in the western leftist movements. Thank God for that.
- avengingturnip, on 09/30/2008, -1/+23Did he ever really leave?
- 7papa7, on 09/30/2008, -5/+28The Socialists and Marxists have been very successful in slowly moving the country to the acceptance of Marxism, example Barak Obama is considered an acceptable candidate with his Marxist views. The people have finally come to their senses and realized where we were heading and they said NO NO NO. No matter how bad it gets, we will not accept Socialism/Marxism. We want the free market to decide what direction the country goes and not the government.
- insurgente, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Who are the socialists and Marxists in the United States? It surely aren't the neo-liberals in either of the (main) political parties.
You people are still disillusioned with the idealistic idea of an invisible hand harmonically orchestrating all aspects of life, even when the capitalist system is in crisis?
- insurgente, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Who are the socialists and Marxists in the United States? It surely aren't the neo-liberals in either of the (main) political parties.
- exgop, on 09/30/2008, -0/+30Socialism has never worked for the individual. Its only works for the state.
- pearcewg, on 09/30/2008, -1/+14If we let this happen, we deserve what we get.
- SniperSlap, on 09/30/2008, -12/+1Who cares, it'll be better than what we have now.
The problem isn't political view, it's corruption and greed. Put blame where it belongs, but don't support ideals that serve to harm the public. Yeesh, monkeys.- magecko, on 09/30/2008, -0/+13You can't really be serious? Who cares? Every "real" American cares, because Americans are not Marxists or socialists. That's not the foundation of our country.
But if you don't care, please do kindly hand over your paycheck, because I will be happy to sit on my ass and watch TV while you go to work (maybe I'll use your hard-earned money to buy myself a nice home in Chicago ... pay for an ivy-league education ... and maybe even run for the Senate) ... and, by the way, tell all your friends, too. Maybe they're as gullible as you are. - BettyLou2, on 09/30/2008, -0/+7It is easy to see how and why a certified Marxist has support without question. Like corruption doesn't exist in Marxist regimes.
- magecko, on 09/30/2008, -0/+13You can't really be serious? Who cares? Every "real" American cares, because Americans are not Marxists or socialists. That's not the foundation of our country.
- ColumbusRep, on 09/30/2008, -9/+2It's scary when Socialism is saving the Capitalist system.
- planet87, on 09/30/2008, -1/+10Socialism isn't and surely hasn't saved or system. It was socialism that got us into this mess. Fanny, Freddie, and the govt telling banks they couldn't expand if they didn't "reinvest" in the community by taking on subprime loans.
- 7papa7, on 09/30/2008, -0/+10The only reason we are in this mess is because of government intervention. Under the Clinton administration they came up with the brilliant idea that everyone deserves to own a home, even if they can't afford it, and forced NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans on to fanny mae and Freddie mac. Until they forced this socialist approach Freddie and Fannie were doing just fine. You can not legislate things like this and think they will actually work. Socialism does not work, has never worked and will never work. Now the right thing to do is take our lumps for the incompetency of government decisions, get government out of this and slowly recover. They could also deal with this very easily by suspending the mark to market nonsense that exists which gives faulty value to assets. That would put billions of dollars into the economy immediately, but it would take the control out of the hands of government and they won't be able to usher in the socialism that they want.
- rearlgrant, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1Given your statement, I guess the Bush Administration hasn't done anything about it because it's easier to blame Clinton.
Republicans, not the party of personal responsibility.
- rearlgrant, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1Given your statement, I guess the Bush Administration hasn't done anything about it because it's easier to blame Clinton.
- BettyLou2, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4It is scary when voters are too informed to understand what has happened.
- planet87, on 09/30/2008, -1/+10Socialism isn't and surely hasn't saved or system. It was socialism that got us into this mess. Fanny, Freddie, and the govt telling banks they couldn't expand if they didn't "reinvest" in the community by taking on subprime loans.
- BECoole, on 09/30/2008, -0/+12I think the reason most Chicago-type economists support some sort of bailout is that this mortgage crisis is due to Gov't regulation, not free market cycles.
- Striker101, on 10/01/2008, -0/+4yes, regulation... and manipulation
- razon1, on 10/01/2008, -0/+2Maybe so, but does that mean we should support a bailout or let it fail then remove the government from the system?
- swizzcheez, on 09/30/2008, -2/+19"It's scary when Socialism is saving the Capitalist system."
Boy, you either didn't read the article or missed its point entirely. The author is pointing out that the Bailout is akin to Marxist philosophy and that historically that it will not work and is antithetical to the American system of economics.
In other words, the author isn't saying Marxism isn't going to save us but that the Bailout will lead us to the same economic grave as Marxist states. - Nosocialism, on 09/30/2008, -2/+12The worst part about this is how no one is talking about the fact that Republicans tried to stop this back in 2004 and again in 2005. Instead they were met with Anger and hostility in the House.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Smoking_Gun_Fred ...- 7papa7, on 09/30/2008, -1/+10The democrats and the MSM want socialism. They are totally ignorant of the damage it does to a country. The MSM is not allowing it to get out. You can not bring in your agenda when it violates truth so they must bury the truth. You have several conservative talkers bringing this up but you will never see it on the main stream media. Agenda will always trump truth with liberals.
- Kirly, on 10/01/2008, -1/+1I do not believe that the dhimmicrats and the old lame stream meda are ignorant of the damage that socialism does to a country. i believe they know very well and that is exactly what they want for us. they fancy themselves the elite few leaders who woudln't suffer under a socialistic or marxist system. they are fools.
- razon1, on 10/01/2008, -0/+3There has actually been a fair amount of press on those regulation attempts in 04 & 05, but the real problem is not the need for regulation of Fannie and Freddie. The real problem is that Fannie and Freddie even exist as government backed entities. If they were not supported by the government then a true open market would not have allowed such poor business practices to bubble to the current level.
- rearlgrant, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1You mean the Republican controlled House, under Hassert...
- 7papa7, on 09/30/2008, -1/+10The democrats and the MSM want socialism. They are totally ignorant of the damage it does to a country. The MSM is not allowing it to get out. You can not bring in your agenda when it violates truth so they must bury the truth. You have several conservative talkers bringing this up but you will never see it on the main stream media. Agenda will always trump truth with liberals.
- BettyLou2, on 09/30/2008, -1/+10The democrats must have known that this would happen when you force lenders to lend money to those who do not have the means to repay it. No one can be that stupid. The question is, what were their goals? Was this a deliberate attempt to sabotage our lending institutions so they could usher in this type of Hugo Chavez nationalization? Or, are they really that ignorant? Either case, they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to manage this nation in a responsible fashion.
- DonWigler, on 09/30/2008, -1/+12We're on The Road to Serfdom.
http://books.google.com/books?id=fLovVMN6swkC&hl=e ...- scoottie, on 10/01/2008, -1/+4"Hayek argues convincingly that, while socialist ideals may be tempting, they cannot be accomplished except by means that few would approve of"
so true. i don't know many good meaning people that wouldn't want a Utopian society of the like of Star Trek where we all work towards the betterment, but even if .0000000000000000000001% of society use peoples good nature for their own gain everyone gets screwed. - brad3378, on 10/04/2008, -0/+1Holy *****!
That's a $120.00 book
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnIn ...
The title sounds appropriate.
- scoottie, on 10/01/2008, -1/+4"Hayek argues convincingly that, while socialist ideals may be tempting, they cannot be accomplished except by means that few would approve of"
- scoottie, on 10/01/2008, -3/+3Marxism in theory should be a good thing, but then you stick humans into the equation and it goes to hell in a hand basket .... a free market system is overall the better system but then again you throw in humans and you end up in the same place
- DWalla, on 10/01/2008, -1/+4I don't know if you could call it a 'good thing' in theory. Portions of the Marxist ideology may seem utopian. But a good portion of it is simply diabolical. Removing freedom of religion, children becoming the property of the state, etc. These are simply ideas of despotic regimes.
- gobber, on 10/01/2008, -1/+6Would someone please tell me where in our world today that Marxism has not gone down in flames? You cannot say China! History has reported and stated that Marxism is a complete total failure, unless you think that Cuba is a great place to live. In that case, my suggestion is to go ahead and move there. We don't need you here in the USA
- KJeffV, on 10/01/2008, -1/+4Pls put this into ltr form and send to that famous, fat film-maker.
- ericcarroll, on 10/01/2008, -1/+4I asked someone the other day: 'Why is it that so many Cubans prefer Miami (America) to Cuba?'
- insurgente, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Cuba is not Marxist, yet Cuba is better than Miami.
- Striker101, on 10/01/2008, -0/+4Marxism is alive and well right here in America. Oh do we wish it would go down in flames, but then there is Obama and McCain
- insurgente, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Obama is a neo-liberal, McCain is a neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism is the antithesis of Marxism.
- insurgente, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1The People's Republic of China is not Marxist. Cuba is not Marxist. The Soviet Union was not Marxist. Yet, does it matter? You don't know the slightest thing of what Marxism is.
Oh, and I'm not in the United States, thank ***** God.
- buddywlkr3, on 10/01/2008, -1/+7I agree with some of the earlier commenters that we already have many of the trapping of Marx's philosophy, brought to us courtesy of the Democratic party. And their present presidential candidate is by far the most Marxist leaning of any of them. Yes, he would love to see credit centralized in a government controlled entity (the direction that the Democrats were pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Another point of Marx was the heavily graduated income tax -- income redistribution -- so that the rich and hard working members of society will be penalized to give to those who have less (what Obama calls "fairness"). It would be very easy to just run down the list of Obama's programs and compare them to Marxist teachings and you would see the clear connection.
- rearlgrant, on 10/01/2008, -4/+1When a party shows you who they are, believe them.
Republicans -- claiming socialists in the democratic ranks for 60 years. How well has that served the good of the country? Has any politician in the Democratic party been found to be a closet member of the Socialist or Communist party. Again, Republicans can't face up to reality.
Every day on digg some Republithug claims Democrats are card carrying Socialists wishing to impose some fearful tyranny on these poor "patriots" (sarcasim there...). Besides never being able to show such a card, they run their party and our government like the plutocrats in the Kremlin. Republican behavior in Congress and the White House and Sarah Palin's behavior as a Republican governor demonstrates that.
As you watch the world crumble, try taking your Armageddon with this sprinkling of irony: Over the last three decades, business has got virtually everything it wanted, and its doomsday scenario from the 1970s has come true because of it. The regulators have indeed killed the regulated--not by intrusive meddling but by doing nothing, by taking a nap while the financial sector puffed up the bubble and blew itself to pieces."
And well deserved is the death of voluntary enforcment. Efficient markets regulated themselves -- bad practices or tainted products drive away consumers; therefore firms have an incentive to behave. How has that worked for you Republicans here. How's your real income and purchasing power now?
Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 21/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.
President Bush along with a Republican Congress, passed the Patriot Act, and drafted Section 8 of Paulson's bailout bill -- what do those have in common? Provisions that eliminate Congress and the Courts from the ruling process. Such provisions have appeared in most bills proposed or passed by Republicans in control of Congress (as but one example, The Military Commissions Act, a right-wing favorite, essentially purported to bar courts from reviewing the President's decisions about who to detain and further barred judicial review of the Congressional scheme, and similar "court-stripping provisions" have long been a right-wing favorite in all sorts of contexts). No Democratic bill has a court jurisdiction stripping practice, and as of now, there are 80 such laws on the books, all Republican sponsored.
Oooo, but now with visions of a Muslim, terrorist-sympathizing, socialist President Obama are haunting them in their feverish nightmares the Right is suddenly deeply fearful once again of vesting vast power in the Federal Government and the Executive.
And Paulson's bailout plan, pure socialism for billionares.
A European journalist was once asking me, "How come you don't have socialist parties in the US?" And I said, "Look, we do have people that read Marx, quote Marx, and use Marx's theory, but they're right-wingers.
When fascisim comes to the US, it will draped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- C.S. Lewis
Democrats see the best public servant as one who is qualified and competent. Republicans see the best public servant as a party loyalist. The Republican party's behavior from Nixon through McCain shows this to be true.
The "liberals are communists" shtick has no evidence what so ever. But Republicans as Marxists/Socialists/Communists has plenty of evidence to back it up. - insurgente, on 10/09/2008, -2/+1Just what the ***** are you people talking about? Try actually reading ***** Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Negri, Žižek, Castoriadis, Lukács before you start talking about Marxism.
***** off and burn in hell.
Sincerely yours, an autonomist Marxist.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is