View Full Version : What’s in a name?
Teddy a Republican started the Bull Moose, or the Progressive Party. But according to mainstream historians that I have read – Wilson and Teddy were not that different. Both were Progressives -- yet we assume they were so different now. Likewise we think that the R's and the D's are polar opposities -- I dont think they are 9 with rate exception.
Would it be more accurate to call the average elected Democrat in DC a socialist? Or are “we all Socialists now?” And how about Obama? How far can one push the Socialist label before one can legitimately be called a Marxist? I have not heard Obama attack property rights directly – has he? Why would he then appoint folks like Van Jones, and Mark Lloyd?
Would it be more accurate to call the average elected Republican in DC a fascist?
Blart
12-25-2011, 01:38 AM
Conservative pundits have become so quick to call their rivals "socialist" or "communist" that they no longer know what those words mean.
Has anyone ever met a conservative that knows the difference between socialism and communism, or that liberals are capitalist?
This is why we can't have grown-up conversations about healthcare or any other social program. Half of American's first reaction is to say, "Russia didn't work! North Korea is horrible!" Seriously, look at the OP - he's honestly wondering if Obama, a man who appointed the Wall Street elite and bank deregulators as his economic advisors (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/pers-a06.shtml), is against the idea of property.
Conservative pundits have become so quick to call their rivals "socialist" or "communist" that they no longer know what those words mean.
Has anyone ever met a conservative that knows the difference between socialism and communism, or that liberals are capitalist?
This is why we can't have grown-up conversations about healthcare or any other social program. Half of American's first reaction is to say, "Russia didn't work! North Korea is horrible!" Seriously, look at the OP - he's honestly wondering if Obama, a man who appointed the Wall Street elite and bank deregulators as his economic advisors (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/pers-a06.shtml), is against the idea of property.
Having read the Communist Manfesto -- I think I have a better grasp of what a Marxist is vs. what a socialist is...I mean aside from dictionary depth definitions of socialism. I think its safe to assumethaat there is a great deal of variation between competing versions of socialism, which I need to beome more educated about. I have always understood that aside from property rights, the difference between socialism and communism is in the degree of government control -- right? Or is there something I am missing? So long as the government allows for personal property rights -- can a central government control just about everything else, and yet not be considered Marxist?
Regrading Obama -- he has appointed a few folks like Van Jones and Mark Lloyd, and Mark Bloom, who have said somethings, that can only be described as communist. Now, that doesnt then mean that Obama has to be one himself, does it. It just means that out of all the folks he could have hired over green jobs, the FCC, and car manufacturing that he felt that they were the best for the job?
If any amount of "government control" in the economy means it's socialist, then the US has been socialist from the get-go.
How do you feel living in a socialist system, Bob?
If any amount of "government control" in the economy means it's socialist, then the US has been socialist from the get-go.
How do you feel living in a socialist system, Bob?
I think that Socialism is a couple short steps from something even worse, and worry about the path we are on, and were we will be 20 years from now. The federalists fought for a stronger central government than what had been organized under the Articles of Confederation. I am not against any "control" as there has to be some (the alternative anarchy is much worse.) I just think Americans have gone way too far in ignoring the expansion of federal powers. The Constitution outlines 18 enumerated powers - those things the federal government could do. The Bill of Rights in the 9th and 10th Amendments declares that powers not speficied in the Constitution are to be reserved for the people or to the states respectively. If we are not governed by the supreme law of the land found in the founding documents, then what are we governed by?
So for many years under Republicans and Democrats federal powers have continued to expand. Folks here bicker but give a free pass to the R's or the D's repectively -- but statism continues to grow, and that concerns me. I am sure it bothers you too. Newsweek stated that we were a Socialst country. I know we were not founded as a socialst country, and have added increasing amounts of socialism over the years -- just wondering at what point folks will take the next absurd step and claim we were always a communist country? A Brit named Chesterton stated that:
"The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often necessary to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air."
My issue is statism of all kinds, the lable doesnt matter much does it?
I think that Socialism is a couple short steps from something even worse,
Provide me a list of the socialist countries that have become communist.
Marx was entirely wrong, and yet you believe he was entirely right. That's your basic mistake.
Provide me a list of the socialist countries that have become communist.
Marx was entirely wrong, and yet you believe he was entirely right. That's your basic mistake.
I dont know of any. But I cant say that I have given this subject enough research. Maybe you are on to something here. My personal concern is that America seems to be trending toward greater statism. It does seem that many governments trend toward greater statism (ie they seek for greater power ) that should not be a suprise to anyone. I believe that if a country like what happened in Germany in the 1930's "picked" Facism, rather than choosing communism, the name of statism doesnt matter much, when the bottom line is that the people living in Germany, and everyone around them were less free.
What is "statism", Bob?
How many Americans are "statists"?
What is "statism", Bob?
How many Americans are "statists"?
The official definition is "The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy." I think I prefer the word statist to other terms like fascist, communist, or socialist as the term statist seems to best describe the consideration of the state’s will first and foremost over individual liberties, and leaves right and left thinking alone. It measures government control in up and down terms, like the Founders. My own opinion is that a statist is any person who feels that government should be expanded from current levels to solve most of the problems we face. To answer your rhetorical question of how many Americans are statists? How many Americans want to expand federal powers from current levels? My guess would be about 10-20% want to grow the federal government. I don’t think that most democrats are statists. Obviously some government is needed, sometimes government powers even need to be expanded, but the statist is one who doesn’t trust the individual enough to believe that he or she can govern their own life in most instances, that the average American requires someone “smarter” than them to nudge or shove them to behave in ways that are good for the state, not the individual.
Blart
01-02-2012, 10:51 AM
Since your definition of "statism" includes everyone who disagrees with Corporatocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy) I'll give you some definitions with a broader consensus.
Despite what our country's well-funded propaganda tells you, socialists believe in private property, and income inequality.
What socialists advocate is public control and operation of the means of production i.e. giant factories, natural resources, expensive tools, and other things that produce wealth which an individual lacking massive capital couldn't afford.
A major goal of socialism is a sort of meritocracy, where the distribution of wealth is based on one's contribution to society.
Communists see it as inevitable that a classless, stateless society will form, where decisions on what to produce are made in the best interests of the whole of society—a sort of 'of, by, and for the working class', rather than a rich class controlling the wealth and everyone else working for them on a wage basis.
Equality is the major difference between communism and socialism.
Liberals, on the other hand (the right one) are capitalist and believe in preserving capitalism. They arrived as an answer and refutation of Marx. This may blow your mind, but the largest liberal welfare state in the world, Denmark, has more economic freedom than the USA (http://www.heritage.org/index/) as defined by conservative, koch-funded think-tank Heritage.
Since your definition of "statism" includes everyone who disagrees with Corporatocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy) I'll give you some definitions with a broader consensus.
Despite what our country's well-funded propaganda tells you, socialists believe in private property, and income inequality.
What socialists advocate is public control and operation of the means of production i.e. giant factories, natural resources, expensive tools, and other things that produce wealth which an individual lacking massive capital couldn't afford.
A major goal of socialism is a sort of meritocracy, where the distribution of wealth is based on one's contribution to society.
Communists see it as inevitable that a classless, stateless society will form, where decisions on what to produce are made in the best interests of the whole of society—a sort of 'of, by, and for the working class', rather than a rich class controlling the wealth and everyone else working for them on a wage basis.
Equality is the major difference between communism and socialism.
Liberals, on the other hand (the right one) are capitalist and believe in preserving capitalism. They arrived as an answer and refutation of Marx. This may blow your mind, but the largest liberal welfare state in the world, Denmark, has more economic freedom than the USA (http://www.heritage.org/index/) as defined by conservative, koch-funded think-tank Heritage.
It might be awhile before I have to move to Denmark...I wonder how they are with other freedoms, like the right to bear arms? What about tax rates? America is not very good in this area, yet the statists want to get more from the rich? I'm not rich yet, but I am ok with those that are. Those things that you want to encourage in a society you tax it less, those things one wants to discourage, you tax more.
For example, if Big Brother wants less smoking it can raise taxes, and magicly the state gets less smokers. Yet, at times our government tends to subsidize failure and by its policies encourages dependence. I have spent a career helping people with disabilities who need some government support -- I think I get that some people need various systems of support. But the system is setup to encourage dependance (in many cases.)
One of the first actions of this admin was to attempt to get rid of tax write offs for charitable donations. The backlash was significant, so they backed off. But it should have been a telling moment, about if they really wanted to help folks out, or if it was about amassing additional state control, which clearly it was.