Obama’s New Attack Ad = Obama hearts Marxism

Actually socialism would be the calling for nationalization of oil (like Maxine Waters). Marxism would be calling for nationalization of all industries.

Almost, but not quite, Fit Fit. Nationalization is flat out Communism, which is a higher stage of socialism. Socialism – aka Marxism – is a necessary stage to Communism, tho may not restructure the government to accommodate, as Venezula is busy doing taking over all industry in the State’s name.

Per Marxmail.org in their FAQs

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.

~~~

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).

Mata note: Socialism is not necessarily equal pay across the board. Skilled workers still draw more pay than unskilled workers.

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.

~~~

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.

Part of understand Socialism/Marxism is understanding what they consider personal property.

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.

Marxists use socialism as their definition interchangably, but draw the distinction between Marxist socialism and communism. From the Youth for Int’l Socialism site:

In Marxist terms, socialism is generally regarded as the period of transition between capitalism and communism – the transition to a system in which we can truly have “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. So genuine Marxists can be interchangeably called socialists so long as they have as their goal the abolishment of capitalism and the establishment of genuine worker controlled, democratic socialism.

Maxine certainly advocates Communism via socialism. BHO’s dances dangerously close by advocating just how much profit a business is allowed to make with “windfall taxes” propositions on his select businesses and industries. Perhaps you can forgive that since it will still be privately owned and operated. But if it ends up little more than a non-profit enterprise, it is little better than a state owned institution, as most, or all profits, are seized by the State to redistribute as they see fit.

Needless to say, dictating to the free market just how wealthy you may become is the total antithesis to our capitalist framework.

I suggest you step back and look at the larger tableau of a $6 billion profit at Chevron” next to a jobless rate hitting a 4 year high.

Where you get to the company’s profit, as tied to a jobless rating, is baffling, Doug. In fact, your resentment at profit is also baffling, and seriously misguided.

The company isn’t responsible for employing the nation. Actually, of late, that’s the govt’s job. They employ about 1000 in their San Ramon headquarters, and about 65,000 employees world wide. Heaven knows if they could expand US business endeavors, they’d employ a lot more. But hang, they pulled out of Alaska themselves in the early 1990s, frustrated at spinning their wheels with a reluctant federal govt. Those job losses lie squarely on the shoulders of a PC Congress.

As far as the unemployment rates, perhaps you need to be reminded that today’s rates are not all that all fired different from the past.

U.S. unemployment rate average, 1982-1993: 7.1%
U.S. unemployment rate average, 1994-2005: 5.2%

This makes today’s rate, despite having the economic set backs from 911 and forward thru the subprime mess, Iraq & Afghanistan wars, and high oil prices, not much higher than during the Clinton “prosperity” years. You are, again, premature in your chicken little dance.

The point many wish to ignore is that the “gouging at the pump” is a pile of crap, as Chevron, BP and Shell (and we’re dealing with the smaller private companies and not the state owned giants here) are all losing their shirts at the pump. Chevron, in particular, is making their money from foreign nations, for exploration in foreign locations, as they do their exploration and production activities in Canada , Angola , Australia , Indonesia , the United Kingdom portion of the North Sea and the South China Sea

As is usual for anti-oil media, they quote gross profits. And unless Chevron has a Exploration and Production headquartered out of the US, they are likely paying a hefty tax on their profits, received from foreign revenue and services. That’s a perk for the US feds.

According to a 2007 financial statement they paid approx 42% in tax rate on their income before taxes *just for that quarter*. ($32,167,000 income after expenses, $13,479,000 in taxes).

The US has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. 42% is not chump change. All Chevron would have to do to save a boatload of cash is move their headquarters, and leave the US in the cold for that tax revenue. Afterall, they are making their profit on foreign business activities, and losing the most cash in US refined gas products.

Oil is not the highest profit structure industry. They are behind pharmaceuticals and banking. Yet the public demonization by the DNC, who enjoy the lobby money and special interests of the two higher revenue industries, is distinctly less for their prime supporters.

Most of this conversation for you is about how much they make. I am not bothered by profit. Most especially in that industry, as it takes big bucks to generate not only add’l oil resources, but also alternative energies. And the energy companies are engaging in that endeavor. Power is their business.

And true to this energy goal is Chevron Energy Solutions. In fact, in a 2006 BBC article, Chevron was spending $300mil annually to support development of new alternative energy technology.

The below excerpts are from an Oct 2007 article appearing in Alternative Energy News. Evidently they “get” something that the American public doesn’t…. because the media and DNC Congress have a hair up their butt to demonize oil companies.

Chevron Energy Solutions is a subsidiary of the Chevron Corporation, and is entirely owned by the company. The mission of Chevron Energy Solutions is to “to help clients use less energy and pay less for energy, and ensure reliable, high-quality power for critical operations.” So in pursuit of this mission, the Chevron subsidiary promotes alternative energy as a means for improving energy use in facility infrastructure. In other words, they seek to promote energy efficient technologies in public institutions and businesses. They accomplish this through the employment of projects and research in areas other than fossil fuels. Solar electric and stationary fuel cell technologies are among these projects.

As a group of engineers, project managers, energy managers and analysts, Chevron Energy Solutions harnesses the power and professionalism of the eco-friendly industries – all in its quest to promote alternative energy and technology. This Chevron subsidiary seeks to not only conserve natural resources in energy production, but to reduce greenhouse gases as well. This is accomplished through the reduction in demand for electricity that would otherwise be produced by fossil-fuel power plants.

Chevron Energy Solutions has also developed and commercialized advanced energy technologies. These technologies include fuel cells, as mentioned earlier. They also include photovoltaics and advanced batteries. The company has also claimed it is active in hydrogen fuel research and development efforts as well. In fact, Chevron is investing $300 million dollars each year into alternative fuel sources.

~~~

Chevron is often suspected of resisting alternative and renewable energy technologies. However the reality is that even Chevron is embracing the development of alternative energy. Remember that as the environmental revolution rolls on our energy resources will continue to evolve. So we must not overlook all of those who seek to develop alternatives to petroleum-based energy resources: even the petroleum-based companies themselves.

Now maybe you want the government to seize their profits just to fund what they are already doing… spending profits on R&D for alternative energies. It is a rich free market endeavor, afterall.

I prefer the private companies risk their own cash to do that R&D. That way if their efforts don’t pan out, it’s their money down the drain, and not the US taxpayers’.

If we have Western European socialism, most Americans would be better off.

ROTFLMAO!!!! There is simply nothing to say to someone that is this out of touch with Euro standards of living, taxes, petrol prices, economy, etal, but BWA HAHAHAHAHAH.