‘Revolutionary Marxism’ course??

[florida2]

If the course was instead about conservatism and right-wing ideologies, this thread would never had been started, I'm sure.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Why "even the NAACP"? I'm not familiar with the organisation - what is it and what do you see as being so wrong with it that it merits an "even"?

The NAACP is the American civil rights organization National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I'm sure even in England you've heard of them. I'm frankly amazed that you haven't for being so well-read and informed as you present yourself. What I find incredulous is that these other organizations are extreme left-wing groups, and the inclusion of the NAACP implies that it, too, is radical left-wing. I'm not surprised, but I'm not sure the NAACP would want that well publicized.

Why not? ... Unless students are signing up for this course without having read the syllabus first, they know what they're getting involved with. They're presumably going to at least have some sympathy with, or interest in, left wing ideologies in general or Marxism in particular before signing up. So no, it's not indoctrination in any meaningful sense. In the same way that when I was studying world religions it wasn't indoctrination to visit a Hindu Temple or a Synagogue. It's just first hand experience. Which is far better than book learning.

I realize merry old England has embraced whole-heartedly the socialist agenda, and though many are trying to back away from it, it is too well entrenched. Not so in the US. It is still considered by the majority of Americans to be the antithesis of the values upon which this country was founded, even the ones on the left who have been duped into supporting socialist ideology simply because those promoting the agenda haven't called it "socialism".

Ideological young people aren't mature enough to understand the implications of embracing Marxism, so while I'm sure they go into the course with sympathies for "the downtrodden workers of the world" and have a strong desire to make things better for the less fortunate, they haven't got the experience, nor have they removed the rose colored glasses of youth, to realize Marxism/Communism is a failed political experiment that requires iron-fisted tyrannical rule to get the system to function even at a bare minimum, that this rule must eliminate the freedom of speech, the media and religion that this country holds dear. It is obvious by requiring participation in the radical left-wing agenda, this is not something as innocent as studying at a Hindu temple.

It's not terribly well encrypted, otherwise you wouldn't be able to read it. I suspect there are copyright issues behind you not being able to copy and paste it, nothing more or less.

I don't know how it works in Great Britain, but syllabi in US public education cannot copyrighted. They are considered public documents and are open to republication. So while you're right that the encryption of this document is not terribly good, it is sufficient to prevent reproduction via a simple copy-and-paste, indicating PSU is not particulary proud of this course, or at least doesn't want a lot of noise being made about it. My experience with colleges and universities is that such an attitude indicates they are trying to get away with something they hope everyone will ignore.

 

[Yarddog]

So, I went to Portland state university's website to check the curriculum for a political science major, and I didn't see this course listed. It's entirely possible that I looked in the wrong place, if I did forgive me. HOwever, if this course isn't "required" how can it possibly be considered indoctrination? Especially when so many of the required courses were really benign. US politics, American politics, US politics (early) political theory, modern political theory, contemporary political theory, etc.

Some people here seem to be under the notion that this course is required, while opposing ideological theories are kept quiet. I've seen nothing in the article that was linked to suggest that, nor in the curriculum in Portland either. Where is this idea coming from??

It is not a required course but one that is "offered" students in the Chiron studies. You can learn about the different courses offered and about the Chiron studies at this site.
Portland State Chiron Studies | Spring 2012 Chiron Studies Courses

 

[Lovely Lane]

Why is it called “Chiron Studies?”

Chiron Studies was named at the time of its founding (by students) during the 1968/69 academic year. This was a time of major student activism around the world, surrounding student empowerment, social justice and war. In Greek mythology, Chiron was a centaur distinguished among his wild and debaucherous peers, an astrologer, healer and teacher whose pupils included such heroes as Jason, Achilles and Theseus.

Revolutionary Marxism: Theory & Practice (4 credits)

Mondays & Wednesdays 14:00-15:50 Instructors: Grant Booth & Wael Elasady CRN: 65450
The onset of the Arab Spring, revolts in European capitals against austerity, and the emergence of the Occupy Wall Street here in the US have made the need for understanding revolutionary political theories more urgent than ever. This course is designed to introduce students to the basic concepts of Marxist thought with an emphasis on the practical applications of Marxist Theory in local political struggle. We will focus on four major areas throughout the semester including the Fundamentals of Marxist Theory, Marxism and Oppression, Revolutionary Practice, and The Future of Socialism.

Why is it that Buffy the Vampire Slayer course received a pass from the Christian Right? I think it would be better to learn how to make peaceful change in government than pound a stake in a vampires heart.

Exploring Buffy the Vampire Slayer (4 credits)

Mondays 17:30-21:10 Instructor: Allison Higginbotham CRN: 65446
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of modern television's more enigmatic series, started out with a group of high school outsiders battling monsters every week. By the end of the show – in 2003 – they had saved their world. However, Buffy wasn’t just about battling monsters. Academics, fans and critics have praised and debated the show's political implications, production values, plot structure, and the metaphors behind the monsters. We will explore these aspects of the show, its cultural significance, the role of fans, comparative vampire film studies, some television history, and more.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Now this Chiron course is a real commie, socialist, anti-government 'down-with-the-pigs', No Justice, No Peace! propaganda in hatred for the Establishment.

Art Within Activism (4 credits)

Wednesdays 17:30-21:10 Instructor: Katherine Ball CRN: 65455
Rediscover your radical imagination! This course will focus on creating art within Portland-based activist initiatives, such as marches, actions, and causes different grassroots community groups are working on, like the Occupy and Decolonize movements. We will experiment with applying diverse mediums--graphic design, social practice, printmaking, and sculpture--to actions seeking to resolve diverse problems--hegemony, biodiversity loss, immigrant detention, animal exploitation, debt, insufficient healthcare, etc.

Oh my, now Johnny, I don't want you taking these awful Chiron classes. The Christian Right will have a fit.

 

[tulc]

I stated the point (even in bold, & underlined): The point was: "That university, could easily either
offer one (of each:
1. Moral, Conservative teacher
&
2. Liberal Leftist professor)
or
One teacher (capable of presenting both for comparison), for students to examine... to learn to determine which existence Advances...every human as God us so created."

It was written in plain, short, little words English, easy
to understand for anyone who wants to understand.
.

hmmm so the point of the thread that you feel the university is wrong in the way the course is being offered? If that's the point then why post it here at all? Shouldn't you be writing to the university about it?
tulc(appreciate your using small words for his sake)

 

[WinBySurrender]

So, I went to Portland state university's website to check the curriculum for a political science major, and I didn't see this course listed. It's entirely possible that I looked in the wrong place, if I did forgive me. HOwever, if this course isn't "required" how can it possibly be considered indoctrination? Especially when so many of the required courses were really benign. US politics, American politics, US politics (early) political theory, modern political theory, contemporary political theory, etc.

Some people here seem to be under the notion that this course is required, while opposing ideological theories are kept quiet. I've seen nothing in the article that was linked to suggest that, nor in the curriculum in Portland either. Where is this idea coming from??

No one has implied the course is required. Your jumping to that conclusion is not supported by the posts on the thread to that point. Secondly, it is essential to a well-rounded education that these "benign" courses be taught. History as a required subject in US high school and colleges is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and when the "alternative" is to be taught how to be good little comrades, there is something seriously wrong with educational priorities.

Obviously, not having taken the course nor even knowing who the professors are (beyond the fact they are members of the International Socialist Organization [ISO]) I can't say the following without fear of contradiction, but it nonetheless strikes me that a pair like that aren't going to hit on the misery of the proletariat under failed Soviet rule, the tyrannical rule of Stalin or Breshnev, the hubris and megalomania of Lenin or the nature of the gulags and terrors of the basement at Lubyanka Prison. Instead these students will be given the "positive" side of communism/Marxism (as though one could be found) and told how under the right conditions administered by the right people, Marxism could work.

The fact that would be one more great lie told by the proponents of this inept, failed tyrannical system will not ever occur to these wide-eyed impressionable radicals.

 

[sk8Joyful]

No one has implied the course is required. Your jumping to that conclusion is not supported by the posts on the thread to that point.

Secondly, when the 'alternative' is to be taught how to be good little comrades, there is something seriously wrong with educational priorities.

Obviously, a pair like that aren't going to hit on the misery of the proletariat under failed Soviet rule,
the tyrannical rule of Stalin or Breshnev, the hubris and megalomania of Lenin or the nature of the gulags and
terrors of the basement at Lubyanka Prison.

Instead these students will be given the "positive" side of communism/Marxism (as though one could be found) and
told how under the right conditions administered by the right people, Marxism could work.
The fact
that would be one more great lie told by the proponents of this inept, failed tyrannical system will not ever occur to these wide-eyed impressionable radicals.

what he said. - All the more poignant, as I was raised in a communist country; and therefore the Writing on the wall, is LOUD & CLEAR. - While those here who cry 'only paranoia' - have no clue.

 

[Respecthelect]

Big-government types can't accept the fact that eventually raising taxes lowers revenue, but it's a fact. When Obama was asked if taxes should be raised despite lowering revenues, he said they should be raised 1. (see paragraph 4 of the link)

This self-destructive tendency is the hallmark of the liberal, the Marxist and the socialist-communist. And Obama's lived up to his word. Despite the most aggressive business tax in the world, President Obama is pushing for more taxes. These increased taxes not only won't bring in more revenue, they will push more manufacturing and jobs offshore. Businesses moving jobs offshore is one of the mechanisms for reduced tax revenue, in case liberal readers weren't paying attention.

We simply must stop voting for big-government, self-destructive liberals.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Big-government types

When Obama was asked if taxes should be raised despite lowering revenues, he said they should be raised 1.
(see paragraph 4 of the link)

This self-destructive tendency is the hallmark of the liberal, the Marxist and
the socialist-communist. And Obama's lived up to his word.

We simply must stop voting for big-government, self-destructive liberals.

No, people don't get it. Why - because stupidity reigns!

 

[tulc]

No, people don't get it. Why - because stupidity reigns!

Interesting...so anyone who doesn't agree with what you believe is stupid?
tulc(wonders if that was what you meant?)

 

[Lovely Lane]

I kind of miss not seeing a post about stupid liberal socialist-communist each day, makes me wonder what I did right.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Interesting...

so anyone who doesn't agree with what you believe is stupid?
tulc(wonders if that was what you meant?)

No tulc. - You did not wonder, at all. You knew exactly what I meant.
But for those with nothing better to do, it's sorta fun, to intentionally derail someone else's thread, isn't it.

Anybody with the ability to READ, saw in the title marxism, followed by my explanation in my later post.

So it's not about "anyOne, nor ANYthing"; but again about the stupidity of bringing about marxism,
no less in a revolutionary way.

Now, either stay on Topic, or take your silly comments elsewhere. Thanks!
.

 

[tulc]

No tulc. - You did not wonder, at all. You knew exactly what I meant.
But for those with nothing better to do, it's sorta fun, to intentionally derail someone else's thread, isn't it.

Anybody with the ability to READ, saw in the title marxism, followed by my explanation in my later post.

So it's not about "anyOne, nor ANYthing"; but again about the stupidity of bringing about marxism,
no less in a revolutionary way.

Now, either stay on Topic, or take your silly comments elsewhere. Thanks!
.

So...it's only if someone disagrees with you about Marxism THEN they're stupid?
tulc(doesn't see how trying to understand your point is off topic)

 

[Ana the Ist]

No one has implied the course is required. Your jumping to that conclusion is not supported by the posts on the thread to that point. Secondly, it is essential to a well-rounded education that these "benign" courses be taught. History as a required subject in US high school and colleges is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and when the "alternative" is to be taught how to be good little comrades, there is something seriously wrong with educational priorities.

Obviously, not having taken the course nor even knowing who the professors are (beyond the fact they are members of the International Socialist Organization [ISO]) I can't say the following without fear of contradiction, but it nonetheless strikes me that a pair like that aren't going to hit on the misery of the proletariat under failed Soviet rule, the tyrannical rule of Stalin or Breshnev, the hubris and megalomania of Lenin or the nature of the gulags and terrors of the basement at Lubyanka Prison. Instead these students will be given the "positive" side of communism/Marxism (as though one could be found) and told how under the right conditions administered by the right people, Marxism could work.

The fact that would be one more great lie told by the proponents of this inept, failed tyrannical system will not ever occur to these wide-eyed impressionable radicals.

I didn't really jump to any conclusions. The word "indoctrination" has an implication of force behind it. If you or anyone has a choice not to take the course, then it cannot be considered "indoctrination". INdoctrination is something you are forced to be exposed to. For example,

Let's say a married couple decides to homeschool their child because they don't want their child being exposed to "crazy ideas" like evolution. They keep their child home and teach that child "intelligent design" and creationism from the earliest age onward. Any time the child is exposed to the idea of evolution, it is treated with derision and mocked. The child never really learns biology, instead thinking that god created all life forms on earth. This would be a case of indoctrination, as the child never had a choice in what they could learn.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I didn't really jump to any conclusions. The word "indoctrination" has an implication of force behind it. If you or anyone has a choice not to take the course, then it cannot be considered "indoctrination". INdoctrination is something you are forced to be exposed to. For example,

Cults indoctrinate their followers, and it is done with the willing cooperation of the follower, as they do not know what they are getting into.

Let's say a married couple decides to homeschool their child because they don't want their child being exposed to "crazy ideas" like evolution. They keep their child home and teach that child "intelligent design" and creationism from the earliest age onward. Any time the child is exposed to the idea of evolution, it is treated with derision and mocked. The child never really learns biology, instead thinking that god created all life forms on earth. This would be a case of indoctrination, as the child never had a choice in what they could learn.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Biology is taught in home school courses, and in conservative Christian schools. Biology as it exists in the human being and the animals of the world is not part of creation science. Creation science deals with not only the "how" but also the "why" of that biological existence. This is not indoctrination, it is education. Indoctrination is defined in Webster's:

Indoctrinate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
​

1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments:teach
2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

Examples of INDOCTRINATE

1. "The goal should be to teach politics, rather than to indoctrinate students in a narrow set of political beliefs."

That, by the way, is an excellent example, because it highlights my point. You can't get more narrow in your thinking than in endorsing and instructing others in the methods and ideologies of communism, a supremely failed politico-economic system. It is especially bothersome that these students are taught this failed system and its tangential authoritarian/tyrannical accouterments by immersing them in the obviously left-leaning Marxist style of politics visible in the Occupy Movement and the other organizations mentioned in the syllabus.

Also, your example is not appropriate because it is not the same situation. And by the way, God did create all life forms on Earth.

 

[WilliamB]

So how would capitalism be any different or better. Doesn't it subscribe to the same narrow mind state, just based on a different set of principles? If its all narrow thinking, then how can just one ever survive on its own? Wouldn't a society need a combination of ideals to thrive?

Take America for instance, it's got a combination of capitalism, socialism, Marxism and communism and despite its flaws, it works. Its seems when any one of them dominates the other, thats when there are problems. I'm honestly asking. I've read the posts but I don't really see what all the fuss is about.

 

[WinBySurrender]

So how would capitalism be any different or better. Doesn't it subscribe to the same narrow mind state, just based on a different set of principles?

You have got to be kidding me! That is either them most ludicrous tongue-in-cheek bait I've ever seen set on this forum, or it is the product of a woefully uninformed mind. I've a feeling it is the former, as I've seen from your posts you are not uninformed. So what's the deal, Will? Wanting to get a rise out of me? Or do you really want a definitive discussion of the vast differences between the two systems? I would think the list of freedoms we have in this capitalism-fueled republic vs. the tyranny and authoritarianism of old-style communism would be enough for you to see with answer to your question without having to ask it. Let me know ...

If its all narrow thinking, then how can just one ever survive on its own? Wouldn't a society need a combination of ideals to thrive?

Which is exactly what we have in the US. I'm a conservative Republican, you're a moderate to liberal Democrat. we have our "mirrors" in Washington constantly presenting, debating, discarding and invoking new ideas every day. Communism had only one idea -- do what the state tells you and don't make waves and you will be happy. Or else.

Take America for instance, it's got a combination of capitalism, socialism, Marxism and communism and despite its flaws, it works. Its seems when any one of them dominates the other, thats when there are problems. I'm honestly asking. I've read the posts but I don't really see what all the fuss is about.

OK, then I withdraw my comments in my first response above in this post. But I'm leaving them there, not for you, but for others who might want to play games. Anyway, I more or less answered this in that first response, however, I must also address your question regarding the combinations we have so active in the US. In reality, only two conflict regularly and in such dynamic ways as to create dysfunction in the government: liberalism and conservatism. Our government has become so polarized by this constant debate it has stalemated the governing bodies' ability to effectively govern. Rather than government not working when one theory dominates, it is when neither can gain an upper hand that dysfunction occurs. Look at the last three years. The Democrats had free reign for the first two years, but found that the public hated what they did with that free reign, voting them out of office. Now, with conservatism on the upswing again, Democratic senators and representatives are fearful of doing anything lest the voting public become angry over whatever actions they take. One of the most telling indicators of that is the unanimous defeat of Empty Suit's budget three weeks ago in the House. The vote was 414-0. Not even the Democrats wanted to own a budget that has no hope of balancing the budget, not just in the next five or ten years, but ever. Our government doesn't work because our electorate are like scared sheep in a thunderstorm, running one direction when lightning strikes in front of them, and then stopping, turning and running back the other way when lightning strikes there, too.

Capitalism works because it allows for free market pricing fed by supply and demand. Capitalism encourages freedoms among the governed because the more free the governed are, the more likely they will contribute to both supply and demand and feed the economy. Communism doesn't work at all, because there is no incentive to produce, as the guy next to you who refuses to work, shows up when he wants and is usually drunk when he does is still going to get paid the same rate you do. Communism has a Five-Year Plan for everything, none of which ever come to fruition because the government doesn't know how to make the economy work because it killed or imprisoned all the capitalists when it became the governing theory of the country.

I've gone on much longer than I intended here, but I hope you get the idea. God bless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Cults indoctrinate their followers, and it is done with the willing cooperation of the follower, as they do not know what they are getting into.Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Biology is taught in home school courses, and in conservative Christian schools. Biology as it exists in the human being and the animals of the world is not part of creation science. Creation science deals with not only the "how" but also the "why" of that biological existence. This is not indoctrination, it is education. Indoctrination is defined in Webster's:

Indoctrinate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
​

1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments:teach
2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

Examples of INDOCTRINATE

1. "The goal should be to teach politics, rather than to indoctrinate students in a narrow set of political beliefs."

That, by the way, is an excellent example, because it highlights my point. You can't get more narrow in your thinking than in endorsing and instructing others in the methods and ideologies of communism, a supremely failed politico-economic system. It is especially bothersome that these students are taught this failed system and its tangential authoritarian/tyrannical accouterments by immersing them in the obviously left-leaning Marxist style of politics visible in the Occupy Movement and the other organizations mentioned in the syllabus.

Also, your example is not appropriate because it is not the same situation. And by the way, God did create all life forms on Earth.

I'm still going to have to disagree. First of all, cults brainwash...not exactly the same as indoctrination. Secondly, there is a big difference between "teaching" knowledge and "imbuing" knowledge. Students at Portland can choose to take this course or not. While the course teaches Marxism, it does not required the student to become a Marxist to pass. The notion that every class that teaches a particular political ideology should also teach any opposing political ideology is laughable. As someone who has a degree in political science, let me assure you this would be a tremendous waste of time.

Just think of what you're suggesting. UNder such a system, a student takes a course on communism but ends up spending half the class learning about capitalism. Then the student takes a class on capitalism, but ends up spending half of that class learning about communism. Then the student decides to transfer to a college where the spend the entire course learning about a topic of study instead of barely scratching the surface of two opposing topics.

Let's go back to indoctrination though, if you were to imbue ideas into the mind of someone else, what kind of person would you choose? Someone who already thinks they know how the world works? Or someone who is young and impressionable? The majority of indoctrination in anyone's life is over by the time they reach their early teens. Religion, politics, etc. THere is a reason that more often than not people follow their parent's beliefs until they are old enough to think for themselves. The notion that universities indoctrinate students to become more liberal is completely unfounded. There is however, evidence that indicates the more intelligent someone is, the more likely they will hold liberal/atheistic views.

 

[WilliamB]

You have got to be kidding me! That is either them most ludicrous tongue-in-cheek bait I've ever seen set on this forum, or it is the product of a woefully uninformed mind. I've a feeling it is the former, as I've seen from your posts you are not uninformed. So what's the deal, Will? Wanting to get a rise out of me? Or do you really want a definitive discussion of the vast differences between the two systems? I would think the list of freedoms we have in this capitalism-fueled republic vs. the tyranny and authoritarianism of old-style communism would be enough for you to see with answer to your question without having to ask it. Let me know ...

I know we're on the opposite sides of many issues but that's why I enjoy the debates. Its challenging and educational. However, I honestly was looking for an answer. I dont believe I intentionally bait people but maybe I am guilty of that sometimes. I know a good amount about the bible and a good amount about modern politics but honestly I've heard these terms associated with Obama since 2008 and I just assumed it was some code words for him being black. Point is, I just ignored the phrases and never looked into them.

Which is exactly what we have in the US. I'm a conservative Republican, you're a moderate to liberal Democrat. we have our "mirrors" in Washington constantly presenting, debating, discarding and invoking new ideas every day. Communism had only one idea -- do what the state tells you and don't make waves and you will be happy. Or else.OK, then I withdraw my comments in my first response above in this post. But I'm leaving them there, not for you, but for others who might want to play games. Anyway, I more or less answered this in that first response, however, I must also address your question regarding the combinations we have so active in the US. In reality, only two conflict regularly and in such dynamic ways as to create dysfunction in the government: liberalism and conservatism. Our government has become so polarized by this constant debate it has stalemated the governing bodies' ability to effectively govern. Rather than government not working when one theory dominates, it is when neither can gain an upper hand that dysfunction occurs. Look at the last three years. The Democrats had free reign for the first two years, but found that the public hated what they did with that free reign, voting them out of office. Now, with conservatism on the upswing again, Democratic senators and representatives are fearful of doing anything lest the voting public become angry over whatever actions they take. One of the most telling indicators of that is the unanimous defeat of Empty Suit's budget three weeks ago in the House. The vote was 414-0. Not even the Democrats wanted to own a budget that has no hope of balancing the budget, not just in the next five or ten years, but ever. Our government doesn't work because our electorate are like scared sheep in a thunderstorm, running one direction when lightning strikes in front of them, and then stopping, turning and running back the other way when lightning strikes there, too.

Capitalism works because it allows for free market pricing fed by supply and demand. Capitalism encourages freedoms among the governed because the more free the governed are, the more likely they will contribute to both supply and demand and feed the economy. Communism doesn't work at all, because there is no incentive to produce, as the guy next to you who refuses to work, shows up when he wants and is usually drunk when he does is still going to get paid the same rate you do. Communism has a Five-Year Plan for everything, none of which ever come to fruition because the government doesn't know how to make the economy work because it killed or imprisoned all the capitalists when it became the governing theory of the country.

I've gone on much longer than I intended here, but I hope you get the idea. God bless.

I had already wrote a response to the first part so I'll just leave it.

I understand the disfunction in congress. I would say it is conservatives that are doing nothing but, that's not really the point nor will either side take the blame. But not once did you mention Marxism and how is the occupy movement considered such. All these ism's. I suppose that's why they are offering classes.

Communism is a no brainer as a governing body but we do have communism in this country and we all tolerate it. Where? For starters, at the very jobs that thrive off of capitalism. We wont accept communism in government but we accept this in the workplace. Capitalism breeds debt and debt keeps people trapped in a job. That job in turn keeps people trapped to their health care and on and on. That fear is dealt out by our bosses (dictator) and we accept it or start our own business where we in turn become the dictators. Businesses aren't democracies, they are dictatorships. Ironically, they too run on 5 year plans. It just seems contradictory to me or maybe were just talking on two different pages. In either case, don't they both (capitalism and communism) have to coexist to work?

There's, also plenty of socialism in this country. Medicare, social security, welfare, unemployment benefits, corporate welfare, GI Bill, Pell grants and all grants for that matter. I mean, I hear people call Obama a socialist and I'm like huh? All these programs were here when he got here. What am I missing? And if we removed them all today, what kind of America would we be? I mean that's wiping out:

The poor
The elderly
The veterans
Our kids eduction
Small businesses
Innovation
Middle class (if they find themselves unemployed)

By doing that, aren't we really reverting to communism, disgused as capitalism? Where a few make all the money, set all the rules and force cheap labor or starve?

I'm going to do some research on these ism's as I think I simply don't know enough about what each one truly is and how it functions, or more so the history behind them. Socialism I looked up at one time and it didn't seem so bad at first but as a total society it has to collapse eventually. I feel the same way about capitalism. Too much of anything is a bad thing. I don't view America as great based on capitalism, I base it's greatness on it being a democracy. Capitalism is fine on the surface but unchecked we get disaster like the great recession. This is why I'm so anti-Romney. Yes, we must deal with entitlements. It's simple math. But running America like a business will destroy us just the same and probably faster. I don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind. Additionally, if I've taken this thread way off topic, it's only through ignorance on the topic and not a deliberate high jack.