Amiri Baraka Quotes

Socialism is about claims of justice, and it is also about money: about wealth, income, physical and financial capital. It is an ideology based on allocating economic resources. It may try to achieve that goal by nationalizing assets, by command-and-control regulation, or by taxation and redistribution.

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.

I disagreed with Carnegie's ideas on how to best to distribute his wealth. I spent mine! Spending creates more wealth for everybody.

I think, with Obama and the progressives, you've seen a massive expansion of big government, and it's all based on a moral premise. The moral premise is that wealth is theft. And I don't just mean the wealth of America, I mean, your wealth, my wealth.

It's not that I am against the rich giving money to charities. I'm all for it, and we should think of ways of encouraging more of it. But I also believe that states, rather than individuals, are ultimately a better bet for delivering a fair and just world and reconciling differing interests.

Tax the profiteers.

Spreading the wealth punishes success while setting America on course for a greater dependency on government.

Once the tentacles of redistributionism wrap themselves tightly around every part of the economy - and around our psyches - they can never be unwound.

The amassing of unfettered wealth of individuals and corporations should stop. The inheritance of rich people's wealth by their children should stop. The expropriators should have their wealth expropriated and redistributed.

I've always been a liberal and I've always had strong socialist leanings.

The generosity of the super-rich is sometimes proffered as evidence they're contributing as much to the nation's well-being as they did decades ago when they paid a much larger share of their earnings in taxes.

There is a legitimate concern about wealth distribution in the United States, but the answer is not to scapegoat any individual who makes over $200,000 per year and to try to sell the fraud that the government can equitably take the money of those who have earned it and give it to those who haven't.

If you make - not have - $1 million a year, should you not participate in the sense of community of our country? I'm willing to put that on the table.

My mother - she's a good old classic Northern European socialist - she's totally wonderful, but she raised me up believing that rich people have stolen their money from poor people.

Socialism is when government's taking care of you, you send all your money to the government, the government decides how to spend it instead of letting the people spend it and make all those decisions.

A conservative is a fellow who thinks a rich man should have a square deal.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth.

It is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.

For the past several years the United Nations has proclaimed Canada to be "The Best Place In The World To Live." But if you value individual and economic liberty, you are not likely to agree…What is it about Canada that the UN sees as especially praiseworthy and, by implication, the model to be emulated by other regimes? Could it be high taxation, centralized power, wealth redistribution between regions, and social engineering?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Our objectives are socialist. That means an irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people.

Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money - only for wanting to keep your own money.

[D]ecade after decade, through taxes and regulations, governments at all levels took ever-increasing control over people's lives, wealth, and property. The control grew exponentially, decade after decade. The rationale was that the control was necessary -- for society, for the poor, for the nation, even for freedom itself. Americans continued living their life of the lie: they continued believing that the more control government exercised over their lives and property, the freer they became.

I analyze people's ideology, and I know leftists and liberals like the back of my hand.