Obama: “Make sure your child can speak Spanish”

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 9, 2008, 3:39 pm

I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about we need to have English-only. They want to pass a law, we want just … we want English-only.

Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But … understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English—they’ll learn English—you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language

You know, it’s embarrassing … when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say is “Merci beaucoup.” Right?

It's beginning. A bigger government telling you how to raise your children. Not only telling, but preparing to mandate. We're fucked.

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » July 9, 2008, 3:42 pm

Because it's obviously ruined Europe

Time to panic!

Post by **Sylvus** » July 9, 2008, 3:43 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: It's beginning. A bigger government telling you how to raise your children. Not only telling, but preparing to mandate. We're fucked.

You're such a fucking retard.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » July 9, 2008, 3:44 pm

No, my child should not have to learn another language to accommodate lazy fucking immigrants. If my child WANTS to learn spanish/mandarin/whatever, I will fully support them doing so, but only because they WANT to.

If I were going to move to ANY other country, I would not do so until I spoke the language, period. I expect that from anyone else and will never, ever, accept any excuses/reasons why I should think any differently.

Glad we could have this discussion

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » July 9, 2008, 3:45 pm

MY CHILD WILL NOT LEARN MATH!

miir · Post by **miir** » July 9, 2008, 3:49 pm

Spanish is a cool language.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 9, 2008, 3:50 pm

Wait, doesn't the Government already decree that children must learn math?! Those motherfucking interlopers in our day to day lives!

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 9, 2008, 3:50 pm

I don't agree with Obama here, but I don't agree with Mid either. This has less than a snowballs chance on the surface of the sun of being made into law, ever.

Learning multiple languages is a great thing, but it will never be a requirement. In most places in the country, it would go entirely unused... Spanish? hah. I'd be better off learning Hindi.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » July 9, 2008, 3:53 pm

Fash wrote:I don't agree with Obama here, but I don't agree with Mid either. This has less than a snowballs chance on the surface of the sun of being made into law, ever.

Learning multiple languages is a great thing, but it will never be a requirement. In most places in the country, it would go entirely unused... Spanish? hah. I'd be better off learning Hindi.

I'd say if you are really looking to learn a language that would be lucrative, I'd learn Mandarin.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 9, 2008, 3:56 pm

No seria perjudicar a nuestros hijos a aprender otro idioma. Mi voto seria para espanol o frances, teniendo en cuenta nuestros vecinos.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 9, 2008, 3:57 pm

Fash wrote:This has less than a snowballs chance on the surface of the sun of being made into law, ever.

.

Don't be so sure. Socialists like Obama will push for this and many other programs like this if they get in. It's coming. They have been trying to rid America of it's identity for a very long time. With the very good chance of Obama getting in and the Congrees being even more unevenly balanced with Dems......it's coming.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 9, 2008, 3:58 pm

Educating our children is a horrible idea.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » July 9, 2008, 4:00 pm

If I were going to move to ANY other country, I would not do so until I spoke the language, period. I expect that from anyone else and will never, ever, accept any excuses/reasons why I should think any differently.

That's crazy Funk. I went to Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Germany last year and had an amazing time. Many of the people there speak english.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » July 9, 2008, 4:01 pm

Spang wrote:Educating our children is a horrible idea.

Cut the sarcasm and contribute, or shut up. Seriously.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 9, 2008, 4:02 pm

Spang wrote:Educating our children is a horrible idea.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » July 9, 2008, 4:03 pm

Tyek wrote:
If I were going to move to ANY other country, I would not do so until I spoke the language, period. I expect that from anyone else and will never, ever, accept any excuses/reasons why I should think any differently.
That's crazy Funk. I went to Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Germany last year and had an amazing time. Many of the people there speak english.

Vacationing/visiting and living in a foreign country are totally different things. I would still probably make a point to know how to say the very important things before going, even if I was just visiting.

I just see it as a respect thing, you go to another country, you learn their (main) language, and you conform to what their society deems acceptable. I just don't see why it's an issue.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 9, 2008, 4:05 pm

How about, there is really no reason for alarm?

The big bad Democrat government is going to what? Force our children to become bi-lingual? Good for them I say. It will make for a smarter and broader next generation. I mean, it is not like they are touting a bullshit war in podunk nowhere so that individual members of our government can get ridiculously rich at the expense of the american people and our soldiers lives and all, right? Because, that would just be ludicrous.

Post by **Sylvus** » July 9, 2008, 4:06 pm

If you'd like to read the whole response that Obama was making to a question from an audience member after he gave a speech about bankruptcy law in the United States, here it goes. The question he was asked was about whether he could do anything to help the problem of students dropping out of high school, and the person ended the question with "there should be a push more for our citizens to become bilingual here in America." Yay, context!

Barack Obama wrote:You know, I don't understand when people are going around worrying about, "We need to have English- only." They want to pass a law, "We want English-only."

Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], "Merci beaucoup." Right?

You know, no, I'm serious about this. We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get a job. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international business. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an early age, because children will actually learn a foreign language easier when they're 5, or 6, or 7 than when they're 46, like me.

That nasty man sure sounds like he's going to increase the size of government to mandate how you raise your children.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 9, 2008, 4:09 pm

Sylvus wrote:If you'd like to read the whole response that Obama was making to a question from an audience member after he gave a speech about bankruptcy law in the United States, here it goes. The question he was asked was about whether he could do anything to help the problem of students dropping out of high school, and the person ended the question with "there should be a push more for our citizens to become bilingual here in America." Yay, context!

Barack Obama wrote:You know, I don't understand when people are going around worrying about, "We need to have English- only." They want to pass a law, "We want English-only."

Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], "Merci beaucoup." Right?

You know, no, I'm serious about this. We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get a job. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international business. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an early age, because children will actually learn a foreign language easier when they're 5, or 6, or 7 than when they're 46, like me.
That nasty man sure sounds like he's going to increase the size of government to mandate how you raise your children.

Yes, it does read that way. That's for helping clarify my point for me. You keep fluffing off every little thing they pass as they nibble away at our freedoms. People like you have been doing it for over 15 years. They add up.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » July 9, 2008, 4:10 pm

Acies wrote:How about, there is really no reason for alarm?

The big bad Democrat government is going to what? Force our children to become bi-lingual? Good for them I say. It will make for a smarter and broader next generation. I mean, it is not like they are touting a bullshit war in podunk nowhere so that individual members of our government can get ridiculously rich at the expense of the american people and our soldiers lives and all, right? Because, that would just be ludicrous.

I never said there was reason for alarm. I don't think there will be laws mandating this anytime soon either. I was just sharing my thoughts.

I also didn't feel the need to turn yet another conversation to the war in Iraq, nice try though.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » July 9, 2008, 4:13 pm

*gasp* Midnyte posted a quote out of context, and didn't give a source? What is VV coming to??????????????

I personally wish my school district had offered classes (required or not) in languages before the high school level.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 9, 2008, 4:15 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Yes, it does read that way. That's for helping clarify my point for me. You keep fluffing off every little thing they pass as they nibble away at our freedoms. People like you have been doing it for over 15 years. They add up.

He wants to educate our children YOU STUPID FUCK!!!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 9, 2008, 4:16 pm

I look forward to the next 8 years of Obama rule just so Midnyte's head explodes. Start building your bunkers now people!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 9, 2008, 4:16 pm

Detengase o disparo!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » July 9, 2008, 4:18 pm

Aardor wrote:*gasp* Midnyte posted a quote out of context, and didn't give a source? What is VV coming to??????????????

I personally wish my school district had offered classes (required or not) in languages before the high school level.

Come to think of it, in Jr. High school we had to take A language class. We had either sign language, spanish, french or german to choose from (we only had to take one class.)

I don't have a problem with them requiring one and giving you choices like that.. For the most part it will be just like anything else you learn at that grade, if you don't use it in your day to day life later on, you will just forget it entirely.

What I have a problem with is people thinking that we should change to accommodate people immigrating here.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 9, 2008, 4:19 pm

Yes, Obama said we need to learn Spanish so Americans can communicate with illegal immigrants.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 9, 2008, 4:21 pm

Right after he announced that he is ceding the U.S. to Mexico and raping twelve babies to bring about the end of days, right?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 9, 2008, 4:22 pm

OH NO THE EVIL COMMUNIST NIGGER IS TRYING TO BREAK UP OUR KLAN RALLY WHATEVER SHALL WE DO

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » July 9, 2008, 4:24 pm

Spang wrote:Yes, Obama said we need to learn Spanish so Americans can communicate with illegal immigrants.

I wasn't even responding directly to Obama's comment. This isn't a new topic that Obama was the first to bring up. I was commenting solely on the topic of mandating Spanish in school.

Edit: Let me put it this way. If I moved somewhere in Europe and didn't know the language before I went, most people there would likely think of me as a arrogant American that expected other people to know English instead of learning their language. Hell, I am willing to bet there are several people here that would think that precisely.

But because it's Americans saying the same thing about Mexicans (many that aren't even here legally) it's somehow different? And spare me the melting pot bullshit as a reason why it would be different, our language here has been English since the creation of this nation.

Post by **Sylvus** » July 9, 2008, 4:31 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Spang wrote:Yes, Obama said we need to learn Spanish so Americans can communicate with illegal immigrants.
I wasn't even responding directly to Obama's comment. This isn't a new topic that Obama was the first to bring up. I was commenting solely on the topic of mandating Spanish in school.

Which no one, outside of Midnyte, has suggested. "So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an early age, because children will actually learn a foreign language easier when they're [young]" is nowhere near "children should be forced to learn Spanish".

I'm not sure what kind of backwards-ass schools people around here went to, but I went to both private and public schools growing up, and had to take foreign language in junior high, high school, and for 4 semesters in college. I took Latin and German, both of which improved my vocabulary and comprehension of the English language. I only wish I'd started earlier, as I've gotten a bit rusty with both of them in my old age.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 9, 2008, 4:33 pm

In many European contries, English language classes are compulsory.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 9, 2008, 4:38 pm

Apparently, you right-wing, reactionary douchebag retards have problems speaking and understanding your own native tongue. No one is interested in pressing a law, here. Obama simply used Spanish as an example for the point he was making, which is that kids should be encouraged to learn another language. Whether that language is Farsi, Chinese, Spanish or Ruski is immaterial to that point.

Like I've said before, it is like some of you wake up each day determined to prove that you're even dumber than the rest of us previously believed.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » July 9, 2008, 5:00 pm

miir wrote:In many European contries, English language classes are compulsory.

English from 2nd grade to 2nd year of high school as a compulsory subject.
A choice of French or German from 7th to 10th grade compulsory
A choice of French, German or Spanish in 10th grade
A choice of French, German, Spanish or Russian for years 1 and 2 of highschool compulsory.

- and my highschool was the Science branch.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 9, 2008, 5:21 pm

I don't remember my options, but I know what I chose...

2 years of Spanish in jr high
3 years of German in high school
Kicked out of German in college due to the accent I developed in the Rheinland-Pfalz area during the summer before I started...then they dropped the class completely due to small class size or something

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 9, 2008, 5:27 pm

Maybe if these stupid fucking hillbillies learn a different language they can begin to understand that immigrants are not out to get them and "take their jobs/land/etc".

Last time I was in Mississippi my aunt asked me, "Are Indians smarter than Asians?". Something needs to be done about the south.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » July 9, 2008, 5:30 pm

Canelek wrote:Maybe if these stupid fucking hillbillies learn a different language they can begin to understand that immigrants are not out to get them and "take their jobs/land/etc".

Last time I was in Mississippi my aunt asked me, "Are Indians smarter than Asians?". Something needs to be done about the south.

Maybe if you learn to address the valid points being raised by people as opposed to defaulting to a smart ass comment like this you would have your eyes open for long enough to understand that no one said anything like what you are implying.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 9, 2008, 5:36 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Fash wrote:This has less than a snowballs chance on the surface of the sun of being made into law, ever.

.
Don't be so sure. Socialists like Obama will push for this and many other programs like this if they get in. It's coming. They have been trying to rid America of it's identity for a very long time. With the very good chance of Obama getting in and the Congrees being even more unevenly balanced with Dems......it's coming.

you're goddamn right it's coming. I hope you're scared shitless. We are going to force feed you common sense and logic and teach your children different languages and thus RUIN YOUR LIFE! WE ARE COMING TO GET YOU!! Be afraid.

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » July 9, 2008, 5:55 pm

All the bilingual and multilingual children will have a distinct advantage over your children.
That makes me happy.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » July 9, 2008, 6:15 pm

rhyae wrote:All the bilingual and multilingual children will have a distinct advantage over your children.
That makes me happy.

I will state again that no one is saying children being bilingual is a bad thing, especially not if they want to learn another language. The issue is in forcing it, and especially in forcing it for shitty reasons.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 9, 2008, 6:22 pm

So, Funk, care to point out to me the point where anyone besides you and Midnyte have said anything about forcing this on anyone, or that this has anything to do with immigration, legal or otherwise? Also, I'm curious to know how you feel about kids being forced to learn English, science, history, math, etc. I suspect that most kids would choose not to learn those things if the responsible adults in their lives weren't forcing them to do so.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 9, 2008, 6:24 pm

Xyun wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Fash wrote:This has less than a snowballs chance on the surface of the sun of being made into law, ever.

.
Don't be so sure. Socialists like Obama will push for this and many other programs like this if they get in. It's coming. They have been trying to rid America of it's identity for a very long time. With the very good chance of Obama getting in and the Congrees being even more unevenly balanced with Dems......it's coming.
you're goddamn right it's coming. I hope you're scared shitless. We are going to force feed you common sense and logic and teach your children different languages and thus RUIN YOUR LIFE! WE ARE COMING TO GET YOU!! Be afraid.

Main
social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement.

Origins
The origins of socialism as a political movement lie in the Industrial Revolution. Its intellectual roots, however, reach back almost as far as recorded thought—even as far as Moses, according to one history of the subject. Socialist or communist ideas certainly play an important part in the ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, whose Republic depicts an austere society in which men and women of the “guardian” class share with each other not only their few material goods but also their spouses and children. Early Christian communities also practiced the sharing of goods and labour, a simple form of socialism subsequently followed in certain forms of monasticism. Several monastic orders continue these practices today.

Christianity and Platonism were combined in More’s Utopia, which apparently recommends communal ownership as a way of controlling the sins of pride, envy, and greed. Land and houses are common property on More’s imaginary island of Utopia, where everyone works for at least two years on the communal farms and people change houses every 10 years so that no one develops pride of possession. Money has been abolished, and people are free to take what they need from common storehouses. All the Utopians live simply, moreover, so that they are able to meet their needs with only a few hours of work a day, leaving the rest for leisure.

More’s Utopia is not so much a blueprint for a socialist society as it is a commentary on the failings he perceived in the supposedly Christian societies of his day. Religious and political turmoil, however, soon inspired others to try to put utopian ideas into practice. Common ownership was one of the aims of the brief Anabaptist regime in the Westphalian city of Münster during the Protestant Reformation, and several communist or socialist sects sprang up in England in the wake of the Civil Wars (1642–51). Chief among them was the Diggers, whose members claimed that God had created the world for people to share, not to divide and exploit for private profit. When they acted on this belief by digging and planting on land that was not legally theirs, they ran afoul of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate, which forcibly disbanded them.

Whether utopian or practical, these early visions of socialism were largely agrarian. This remained true as late as the French Revolution, when the journalist François-Noël Babeuf and other radicals complained that the Revolution had failed to fulfill the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Adherence to “the precious principle of equality,” Babeuf argued, requires the abolition of private property and common enjoyment of the land and its fruits. Such beliefs led to his execution for conspiring to overthrow the government. The publicity that followed his trial and death, however, made him a hero to many in the 19th century who reacted against the emergence of industrial capitalism.

Utopian socialism
Conservatives who saw the settled life of agricultural society disrupted by the insistent demands of industrialism were as likely as their radical counterparts to be outraged by the self-interested competition of capitalists and the squalor of industrial cities. The radicals distinguished themselves, however, by their commitment to equality and their willingness to envision a future in which industrial power and capitalism were divorced. To their moral outrage at the conditions that were reducing many workers to pauperism, the radical critics of industrial capitalism added a faith in the power of people to put science and an understanding of history to work in the creation of a new and glorious society. The term socialist came into use about 1830 to describe these radicals, some of the most important of whom subsequently acquired the title of “utopian” socialists.

One of the first utopian socialists was the French aristocrat Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon. Saint-Simon did not call for public ownership of productive property, but he did advocate public control of property through central planning, in which scientists, industrialists, and engineers would anticipate social needs and direct the energies of society to meet them. Such a system would be more efficient than capitalism, according to Saint-Simon, and it even has the endorsement of history itself. Saint-Simon believed that history moves through a series of stages, each of which is marked by a particular arrangement of social classes and a set of dominant beliefs. Thus, feudalism, with its landed nobility and monotheistic religion, was giving way to industrialism, a complex form of society characterized by its reliance on science, reason, and the division of labour. In such circumstances, Saint-Simon argued, it makes sense to put the economic arrangements of society in the hands of its most knowledgeable and productive members, so that they may direct economic production for the benefit of all.

Another early socialist, Robert Owen, was himself an industrialist. Owen first attracted attention by operating textile mills in New Lanark, Scot., that were both highly profitable and, by the standards of the day, remarkably humane: no children under age 10 were employed. Owen’s fundamental belief was that human nature is not fixed but formed. If people are selfish, depraved, or vicious, it is because social conditions have made them so. Change the conditions, he argued, and people will change; teach them to live and work together in harmony, and they will do so. Thus, Owen set out in 1825 to establish a model of social organization, New Harmony, on land he had purchased in the U.S. state of Indiana. This was to be a self-sufficient, cooperative community in which property was commonly owned. New Harmony failed within a few years, taking most of Owen’s fortune with it, but he soon turned his attention to other efforts to promote social cooperation—trade unions and cooperative businesses, in particular.

Similar themes mark the writings of François-Marie-Charles Fourier, a French clerk whose imagination, if not his fortune, was as extravagant as Owen’s. Modern society breeds selfishness, deception, and other evils, Fourier charged, because institutions such as marriage, the male-dominated family, and the competitive market confine people to repetitive labour or a limited role in life and thus frustrate the need for variety. By setting people at odds with each other in the competition for profits, moreover, the market in particular frustrates the desire for harmony. Accordingly, Fourier envisioned a form of society that would be more in keeping with human needs and desires. Such a “phalanstery,” as he called it, would be a largely self-sufficient community of about 1,600 people organized according to the principle of “attractive labour,” which holds that people will work voluntarily and happily if their work engages their talents and interests. All tasks become tiresome at some point, however, so each member of the phalanstery would have several occupations, moving from one to another as his interest waned and waxed. Fourier left room for private investment in his utopian community, but every member was to share in ownership, and inequality of wealth, though permitted, was to be limited.

The ideas of common ownership, equality, and a simple life were taken up in the visionary novel Voyage en Icarie (1840; Travels in Icaria), by the French socialist Étienne Cabet. Icaria was to be a self-sufficient community, combining industry with farming, of about one million people. In practice, however, the Icaria that Cabet founded in Illinois in the 1850s was about the size of a Fourierist phalanstery, and dissension among the Icarians prompted Cabet to depart in 1856.

Other early socialists
Other socialists in France began to agitate and organize in the 1830s and ’40s; they included Louis Blanc, Louis-Auguste Blanqui, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Blanc, the author of L’Organisation du travail (1839; The Organization of Labour), promoted a scheme of state-financed but worker-controlled “social workshops” that would guarantee work for everyone and lead gradually to a socialist society. Blanqui, by contrast, was a revolutionary who spent more than 33 years in prison for his insurrectionary activities. Socialism cannot be achieved without the conquest of state power, he argued, and this conquest must be the work of a small group of conspirators. Once in power, the revolutionaries would form a temporary dictatorship that would confiscate the property of the wealthy and establish state control of major industries.

In Qu’est-ce que la propriété? (1840; What Is Property?), Proudhon memorably declared, “Property is theft!” This assertion was not quite as bold as it appears, however, since Proudhon had in mind not property in general but property that is worked by anyone other than its owner. In contrast to a society dominated by capitalists and absentee landlords, Proudhon’s ideal was a society in which everyone had an equal claim, either alone or as part of a small cooperative, to possess and use land and other resources as needed to make a living. Such a society would operate on the principle of mutualism, according to which individuals and groups would exchange products with one another on the basis of mutually satisfactory contracts. All this would be accomplished, ideally, without the interference of the state, for Proudhon was an anarchist who regarded the state as an essentially coercive institution. Yet his anarchism did not prevent him from urging Napoleon III to make free bank credit available to workers for the establishment of mutualist cooperatives—a proposal the emperor declined to adopt.

Marxian socialism
Despite their imagination and dedication to the cause of the workers, none of the early socialists met with the full approval of Karl Marx, who is unquestionably the most important theorist of socialism. In fact, Marx and his longtime friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels were largely responsible for attaching the label “utopian,” which they intended to be derogatory, to Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen, whose “fantastic pictures of future society” they contrasted to their own “scientific” approach to socialism. The path to socialism proceeds not through the establishment of model communities that set examples of harmonious cooperation to the world, according to Marx and Engels, but through the clash of social classes. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” they proclaimed in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. A scientific understanding of history shows that these struggles will culminate in the triumph of the working class and the establishment of socialism.

According to Engels, the basic elements of Marx’s theory are to be found in German philosophy, French socialism, and British economics. Of these, German philosophy was surely the formative influence on Marx’s thinking. Born in Trier in the German Rhineland, Marx was a philosophy student at the University of Berlin when the idealism of G.W.F. Hegel dominated German philosophy. Hegel maintained that history is the story of the unfolding or realization of “spirit”—a process that requires struggle, agony, and the overcoming of obstacles to the attainment of self-knowledge. Just as individual persons cannot realize their potential—especially the potential for freedom—if they remain forever in a childish or adolescent condition, so spirit must develop throughout history in a dialectical fashion. That is, individuals and even nations are characters in a drama that proceeds through the clash of opposing ideas and interests to a greater self-awareness and appreciation of freedom. Slavery, for example, was long taken for granted as a natural and acceptable practice, but the slave’s struggle to be recognized as a person was bringing an end to slavery as master and slave came to recognize their common humanity—and thus to liberate themselves, and spirit, from a false sense of the master’s
superiority.

Like Hegel, Marx understood history as the story of human labour and struggle. However, whereas for Hegel history was the story of spirit’s self-realization through human conflict, for Marx it was the story of struggles between classes over material or economic interests and resources. In place of Hegel’s philosophical idealism, in other words, Marx developed a materialist or economic theory of history. Before people can do anything else, he held, they must first produce what they need to survive, which is to say that they are subject to necessity. Freedom for Marx is largely a matter of overcoming necessity. Necessity compels people to labour so that they may survive, and only those who are free from this compulsion will be free to develop their talents and potential. This is why, throughout history, freedom has usually been restricted to members of the ruling class, who use their control of the land and other means of production to exploit the labour of the poor and subservient. The masters in slaveholding societies, the landowning aristocracy in feudal times, and the bourgeoisie who control the wealth in capitalist societies have all enjoyed various degrees of freedom, but they have done so at the expense of the slaves, serfs, and industrial workers, or proletarians, who have provided the necessary labour.

For Marx, capitalism is both a progressive force in history and an exploitative system that alienates capitalists and workers alike from their true humanity. It is progressive because it has made possible the industrial transformation of the world, thereby unleashing the productive power to free everyone from necessity. Yet it is exploitative in that capitalism condemns the proletarians, who own nothing but their labour power, to lives of grinding labour while enabling the capitalists to reap the profits. This is a volatile situation, according to Marx, and its inevitable result will be a war that will end all class divisions. Under the pressure of depressions, recessions, and competition for jobs, the workers will become conscious that they form a class, the proletariat, that is oppressed and exploited by their class enemy, the bourgeoisie. Armed with this awareness, they will overthrow the bourgeoisie in a series of spontaneous uprisings, seizing control of factories, mines, railroads, and other means of production, until they have gained control of the government and converted it into a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Under socialism or communism—Marx and Engels drew no clear or consistent distinction between the two—government itself will eventually wither away as people gradually lose the selfish attitudes inculcated by private ownership of the means of production. Freed from necessity and exploitation, people will finally live in a true community that gives “each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions.”

Marx maintained that the revolution by which socialism would be achieved was ordained by the logic of capitalism itself, as the capitalists’ competition for profits led them to create their own “grave diggers” in the proletariat. Even the role of the revolutionary, such as Marx, was confined to that of “midwife,” for revolutionaries could do no more than speed along the inevitable revolution and ease its birth pangs.

This, at least, was Marx’s more or less “official” doctrine. In his writings and political activities, however, he added several qualifications. He acknowledged, for example, that socialism might supplant capitalism peacefully in England, the United States, and other countries where the proletariat was gaining the franchise; he also said that it might be possible for a semifeudal country such as Russia to become socialist without first passing through capitalist industrialism. Moreover, Marx played an important part in the International Working Men’s Association, or First International, formed in 1864 by a group of labour leaders who were neither exclusively revolutionary nor even entirely committed to socialism. In short, Marx was not the inflexible economic determinist he is sometimes taken to be. But he was convinced that history was on the side of socialism and that the equal development of all people to be achieved under socialism would be the fulfillment of history.

Socialism after Marx
By the time of Marx’s death in 1883, many socialists had begun to call themselves “Marxists.” His influence was particularly strong within the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), which was formed in 1875 by the merger of a Marxist party and a party created by Marx’s German rival, Ferdinand Lassalle. According to Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme (1891), Lassalle had “conceived the workers’ movement from the narrowest national standpoint”; that is, Lassalle had concentrated on converting Germany to socialism, whereas Marx thought that socialism had to be an international movement. Even worse, Lassalle and his followers had sought to gain control of the state through elections in hopes of using “state aid” to establish producers’ cooperatives. Marx’s belief in the revolutionary transformation of society soon prevailed in the SPD, but his controversy with Lassalle and the Lassalleans testifies to the existence of other important currents in socialist thought in the late 19th century.

Socialism after Marx » Christian socialism
Caught up in these currents were men and women who seemed to agree on little but their condemnation of capitalism. Many prominent socialists were militant atheists, for example, but others expressly connected socialism to religion. Even the rationalist Saint-Simon had called for a “new Christianity” that would join Christian social teachings with modern science and industry to create a society that would satisfy basic human needs. His followers attempted to put this idea into practice, giving rise to a Saint-Simonian sect sometimes called “the religion of the engineers.” This combination of an appeal to universal brotherhood and a faith in enlightened management also animated the best-selling utopian novel Looking Backward (1888), by the American journalist Edward Bellamy. In England the Anglican clergymen Frederick Denison Maurice and Charles Kingsley initiated a Christian socialist movement at the end of the 1840s on the grounds that the competitive individualism of laissez-faire capitalism was incompatible with the spirit of Christianity. Similar concerns inspired socialists in other countries, including the Russian novelist, anarchist, and pacifist Leo Tolstoy.

Although neither Christianity nor any other religion was a dominant force within socialist theory or politics, the connection between Christianity and socialism persisted through the 20th century. One manifestation of this connection was liberation theology—sometimes characterized as an attempt to marry Marx and Jesus—which emerged among Roman Catholic theologians in Latin America in the 1960s. Another, perhaps more modest, manifestation is the Christian Socialist Movement in Britain, which affiliates itself with the British Labour Party. Several members of Parliament have belonged to the Christian Socialist Movement, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the son of a Methodist minister, and his predecessor, Tony Blair, an Anglican who converted to Catholicism not long after he left office.

This is what you are so blindly embracing. I just want to make this clear to you. If you do not agree with socialism, you truly do not agree with where the democratic party is taking us. Educate yourself sweetie.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 9, 2008, 6:28 pm

Xatrei wrote:Apparently, you right-wing, reactionary douchebag retards have problems speaking and understanding your own native tongue. No one is interested in pressing a law, here. Obama simply used Spanish as an example for the point he was making, which is that kids should be encouraged to learn another language. Whether that language is Farsi, Chinese, Spanish or Ruski is immaterial to that point.

This is how I read it too. I don't think he will try to pass a law that all children must learn spanish. He was just saying it would be nice if they did to help expand relations with other countries.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 9, 2008, 6:28 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Canelek wrote:Maybe if these stupid fucking hillbillies learn a different language they can begin to understand that immigrants are not out to get them and "take their jobs/land/etc".

Last time I was in Mississippi my aunt asked me, "Are Indians smarter than Asians?". Something needs to be done about the south.
Maybe if you learn to address the valid points being raised by people as opposed to defaulting to a smart ass comment like this you would have your eyes open for long enough to understand that no one said anything like what you are implying.

Calm down scooter. The mid-north has a totally different subset of hillbilly that was not referenced in my post. Feel free to describe your state's denizens, if you choose to do so. Since I have no frame of reference for said northern hillbillies, I do not bother to comment nor bash them. I know the southern hillbilly, therefore I know what the fuck I am talking about.

You think you are conservative? Dios mio, amigo.... you got nothing on the southern hillbilly. Nathin! They'd make you feel like you just bathed in patchuli and participated in a 2-day drumcircle.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 9, 2008, 6:36 pm

You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual?

I'll dumb this part down for some of the folks here.

He is saying that parents should take on the task of teaching their kids another language through schools or private lessons or spending time in another country for a while. He is giving parents the choice here.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 9, 2008, 7:13 pm

ROFL, mid just quoted encyclopedia brittanica.

I guess Socialism is the new Communism.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 9, 2008, 7:18 pm

I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about we need to have English-only. They want to pass a law, we want just … we want English-only.

We don't need to pass any more damn laws. We speak english in America. The only reason some group may feel they need to pass a law making it english only is because of the push to make so many things bilingual.

Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But … understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English—they’ll learn English—you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language

Why is he so confident they WILL learn english? Why would they feel the need to if every thing is done in spanish as well as english? If we are forced so sucumb to them as well, why would they feel the need to assimilate to our culture? Something drove them to come here to our country. They need to learn our language.

You know, it’s embarrassing … when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say is “Merci beaucoup.” Right?

Is it really? To whom? To those elitist fucks who presume they know everything. To those who think we need to apologize for everything? For those fucks whot hink we need to apologize for slavery of which we had nothing to do with? For those fucks who think we need to apologize if we work hard and make $250,00/year....we should feel guilty?

You narrow minded SOBs really need to broaden your perspective on things.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 9, 2008, 7:20 pm

For the real lefties of the world (like me), the Democratic party in the USA is far too conservative. I'll vote for Dems 99% of the time because they're the best option I have with our shitty system. From my perspective, however, they're only marginally better than Republican scum. The notion that the Democratic party would turn the USA into Sweden or France is just laughable, providing further proof of Midnyte's idiocy.

Also, I think it's a pity that 30+ years ago, there wasn't an authority in place to take Midnyte, Funk, Fash and some of the other retards around here away from the parental failures that produced such worthless adults. Maybe they would have turned out to be OK people.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 9, 2008, 8:10 pm

Mid wrote:We don't need to pass any more damn laws. We speak english in America. The only reason some group may feel they need to pass a law making it english only is because of the push to make so many things bilingual.

Perhaps the reason so many things are bilingual is because many parts of America speak more than English? I understand that English is probably pretty dominant in Scranton, but that might not be the case in Los Angeles or Miami.

Aardor wrote:I personally wish my school district had offered classes (required or not) in languages before the high school level.

I thought y'all had Spanish immersion in elementary.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 9, 2008, 8:32 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Yes, it does read that way. That's for helping clarify my point for me. You keep fluffing off every little thing they pass as they nibble away at our freedoms. People like you have been doing it for over 15 years. They add up.

Hahahaha. You ignorant cunt. You've been supporting removal of freedoms for little things like due process and habeus corpus, but you're *really* concerned about your freedom to maintain an America that is pig ignorant and arrogant. If it wasn't for the fact that you have already tainted the gene pool, it would merely be hysterically ironic, instead of tragic.

Funk however hasn't impregnated anything that we know of, so there's some hope yet.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » July 9, 2008, 8:46 pm

Sueven wrote:
Mid wrote:We don't need to pass any more damn laws. We speak english in America. The only reason some group may feel they need to pass a law making it english only is because of the push to make so many things bilingual.
Perhaps the reason so many things are bilingual is because many parts of America speak more than English? I understand that English is probably pretty dominant in Scranton, but that might not be the case in Los Angeles or Miami.

Also, unlike many countries, we do not have a set national language. Except in West (by god) Virginia.

Aardor wrote:I personally wish my school district had offered classes (required or not) in languages before the high school level.
I thought y'all had Spanish immersion in elementary.

Oh, you're right, I completely forgot about that. That doesn't really count though, because I would have had to arrive at school an hour early, take a short bus to another elementary school, and then take one back for the rest of my normal classes.