This Is What We Are Up Against

A socialist by any other name

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 27, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


As Howard Dean continues to muscle his way to the front of the Democrat pack, the line between the Democratic Socialists of America, and the socialist Democratic Party, continues to blur. Read the Socialists' statements on Iraq and pay attention to the campaign speeches of all the Democratic candidates. Each of them, to one degree or another, recites the official Socialist Party line.

Now examine the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Note that the co-chair, Dennis Kucinich, is one of the Democratic candidates. John Conyers, a caucus member, spoke at the Socialists' convention in Detroit in November, as did former House Majority Leader David Bonior. Now, study the issues the caucus is promoting, and compare its positions with the Socialists' positions and with the Democrat Party Platform.

-snip-

This is just a continuation of this administrations labeling anyone who is antiwar as being unpatriotic, a traitor, UnAmerican.
:kick:

EDITED BY ADMIN FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS

I couldn't give a damn about the NRA rating (aside from its appeal to some voters) but "socialist"? I just want to see them resolve the two...Charleton Heston in a pink tutu?

(They haven't discovered our plans to rename the Washington Monument Karl Marx's Giant Muscle of Love) :hippie:

OK,...a workable definition... 'stakeholder councils' with representation from the national level oil industry, regional representation from the NRA, oh, oh...and let's not forget participation from your local Safari Club International. Oh joy, socialists all!

is home to beyond help nutjobs. I honestly do not think that this poster is representative of most Americans. They may be too lazy to learn that their president is a liar, a phoney, and a fraud. That is what I fear we are really up against. But I don't really believe that the commie pinko stuff is mainstream.

Fascist vs. socialist, that is what we have coming to us in 2004, or better yet fascist vs. the communist. That is much better.

This is another scare from the corporate right that you are going to be taxed to death, the world is going to tell U.S.A. what to do and all natural resources are going to be left in the ground to be looked at. The disgruntled conservatives is another crack-up, these people who realize that their civil liberties are being thrown out of the window is more like it. Also saying that the response from Clinton and Gore would have been feeble is also a joke. Just because Clinton and Gore did not listen to the neocons in 1997 to take over Iraq is also saying come take over our country is in bad taste. This article is disinformation 101 and should have its news tax status removed and change to opinion publication tax status.

What the good ole U.S. of A. does not need is another four years of Mr. Bush Jr. government of greed, corruption and secretively. This will take us and the rest of the world down faster than anything else. It will not matter how many weapons of mass destruction everybody has.

Note: What happened to the Greens. I do net see one Green remark on this whole page. Paging Mr. Green, Mr. Green to the white courteously phone, paging Mr. Green. Sorry, I am getting carried away; I do not want the Greens to feel alone.

"This is just a continuation of this administrations labeling anyone who is antiwar as being unpatriotic, a traitor, UnAmerican."
I don't think this is fair. The anti-war position of most democrats is not even the subject of this essay--the essay is accusing the democratic party of being infultrated by socialists and socialist ideas. You should deal with that accusation as it stands, rather than label it as a part of a more nefarious program that it can only be connected to in a tangential way.

First we have this maybe line buried in the text:

<snip>

The election in 2000 was certainly a pivotal event in the direction of the United States. Had Al Gore become president, the U.S. would almost certainly now be under the regulatory power of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol. Following the example of Bill Clinton, Gore would have launched a few missiles toward Afghanistan in response to the World Trade Center attack. Even more private property and natural resources would be held or controlled by the government, and the United States would be even further under the control of the United Nations.

<snip>


A lot of people speculate if Mr. Gore had been president the World Trade Center attack would never have occurred. The point is moot, World Trade Center attack occurred on Mr. Bush Jr.’s watch and we did attack. We sent the Taliban to the hills and Afghan society is in a mess. So much about a few missiles.


Second, you need to understand the difference about a Socialist Society and a social program:

A Socialist Society works collectively to meet the needs of a group of persons. This relates to all aspects of a persons life. Another words, takes all competition out of a society.

A social program gives a base to a society to which people can work from and strive. This can be rearing their young (school), taking care of the sick (medicine) and growing old (retirement). There is also the infrastructure of the community, namely roads, water and sewage projects and resource management. There are controls as to how society deals with one and another. This does not take all competition out of society and people work to get ahead.

To say Democrats are a bunch of Socialist because we relate to this group of people is pure bunk. Democrats also relate to Republicans, but do not call Democrat a Republican because you will really piss them off.

As for a simplistic point of view, Democrats want independence for the individual and controls on groups of people, Republicans want controls on the individual and independence for groups of people. The proceeding is very simplistic and is very easy to find exceptions.

I think the relevant distinction to be made between socialists and either democrats or republicans is not in regards to how society is imagined to be structured, but rather in terms of the use of government to achieve these ends. Socialists and communists see it as the role of the government to in some way force the individual to work towards the good of the collective. Traditional conservative thinking says that this isn't the role of the government, and that individual liberty is supreme. The republican party, however, has corrupted that vision by allowing big business to influence government--in other words, to allow one very powerful group to assert control over another, even more powerful group, which in turn exerts its control over the populace. Democrats are guilty of this last step too in my mind. The difference is that democrats are traditionally more willing to wield the forces of government to support the basic needs of the individual, as you have pointed out. I think that what is of most relevance in all of this is the issue of government control. Communism, a far left position, is an extreme version of government control; facism, a far right position, is also an extreme version of government control. It is hypocritical of republicans to accuse democrats of being socialists, if the accusation itself is to be based on a conservative philosophy that emphasizes a lack of government control, because the truth is, the right also abuses government control, just in different ways. But I do think that there is some validity to the suggestion that the Democratic party has socialist tendencies, in that they seem willing to use the government for collective social programs, often at the expense of civil liberties. I personally disagree with the extent to which the democrats do this.

If what I have just said sounds like a conservative position--which is something that seems to be discouraged around here, perhaps because of the association it has with the republican party--I'd like to say that being conservative, as I define it, does not mean that one is not progressive, it simply means that one does not believe government to be the ideal vehicle of progress.

in terms of the governments role. It is not about socialism which is a form of centralization of government resources.

We have long lived in a mixed economy. But have not had many examples of socialism - defined as central control of economic resources (eg government owned industries) - one example would be the level of support given at times to Amtrack - to subsidize its running - in order to provide a service.

It has really only been since the advent of rush that the terms of socialism has been thrown loosely to mean any government spending (which when focused on programs to help citizens including safety regulations on industry, or oversight on financial markets such as the SEC, or in terms of direct programs such as funding for Special Education) which is liberalism - but not socialism for a long-shot.

Of course rush and his minions now conflate this with communisim - which is laughable.

There is a legitimate discussion on the role of government - and the degree of that role in terms of public safety/health/education etc. Many different positions on such things. That is a discussion that often divides on a left (it is the role of government) center (moderate role of government) and right (no role of government.) In the center would include using government incentives (eg targeted tax cuts) to get private interests to act in the public good according to specified goals (eg investment in alternative energy sources) rather than having the government take the action itself. But this discussion has nothing to do with socialism or communism. Throwing those terms about are a red-herring used by the right to cut off all public discussion through vilification. That is a shame. Cuts off real public and political discourse and leads to really poor policy formulation (no one side is good at dealing with the complexity of issues - each side can be simplistic - debate, compromise, and pragmatism founded in dissent - often leads to much better policy.) We all suffer as a result.

If you define socialism as the government control of the economy, then doesn't it follow that many liberal programs, such as welfare, which redistribute wealth, are to some degree socialist? This is not even necessarily suggesting that this is a bad thing, but just that the comparison isn't totally imaginary. I recognize that rabblerousers like rush use the stigma attached to socialism to bash the left, but we can, as rational people, ignore the stigmas attached to various political systems, and compare them to each other.

socialism is related to central control of economic systems, such a nationalized industries - and set wages and policies (eg sales/marketing strategies.... set production schedules... etc.)

One could make the argument that some specific welfare type programs are 'socialized welfare' programs - in that there is a degree of income redistribution - but it is very, very different than socialism which is an entire - centrally controlled - economic system.

I think the spirit of socialism is that the state ought to provide everything for the individual--this is benefit is gained through the sacrifice of individual freedom and ubiquitous government control of all aspects of life. Economic planning and the like are consequences of this system, but I think it is somewhat reckless to define socialism only in terms of this, even though such a definition is what is routinely used in dictionaries and political science textbooks. Socialism exerts government control over all walks of life--family, culture, religion, justice, education, etc. The centralized planning of industry is just one of socialism's consequences, and is in my mind one of the least significant.

As you can see, I'm not much of a fan of socialism--I don't want you to think that I believe liberal thinking comes close to socialism like some republicans have suggested, but I do sense certain socialist tendencies in the policies of the democratic party.

if you MUST be simplistic and black and white...those are the two ideologies at war...I personally prefer the socialist democratic party to the fascist republican party...that is my choice.

The reason that so many Americans have such a strong negative reaction to the word "socialism" is pretty much the same reason that Pavlov's dogs salivated when they heard a bell. For decades, Americans were subjected to waves of propaganda meant to demonize socialism. But socialism, when implemented properly, could be a great system. Just take a look at the social democracies of Europe. They have a better quality of life than most Americans. So, I welcome socialists into the Democratic party. Satisfied?

According to the DU rules on copyright, you should only exceprt 4-5 paragraphs of an article published on another website, and also should provide a link to the article where it was published.

DU Moderator

Just as Democracy is a political constuct....Capitalism is an economic construct...one can have a Communist capitalist system...see China. and Socialism is a an economic construct...one can be a Democratic Socialist country...see Venezuela...and to a lesser degree France, Britan, Germany...

America wants Iraq to be a capitalist country...and possibility it will be a dictatorship with a capitalist economy...see the difference between the 'political' and the 'economy' of states???

He implemented wage and price controls. No self-identified liberal has every tried something like that.

Socialism here is simply a buzzword. Its a call to arms for the unthinking morons who have no idea what socialism really is or might be. Expanding the welfare state or redistributing wealth through equitable or progressive taxation is NOT socialism. Now if Howard Dean wants to appropriate Chevron, or Halliburton, or CitiBank, then maybe I'd say you're talking socialism.