Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Left Needs More Socialism
The Nation ^ | 4/1/06 | Ronald Aronson

Posted on 04/03/2006 4:05:12 AM PDT by jalisco555

It's time to break a taboo and place the word "socialism" across the top of the page in a major American progressive magazine. Time for the left to stop repressing the side of ourselves that the right finds most objectionable. Until we thumb our noses at the Democratic pols who have been calling the shots and reassert the very ideas they say are unthinkable, we will keep stumbling around in the dark corners of American politics, wondering how we lost our souls--and how to find them again.

I can hear tongues clucking the conventional wisdom that the "S" word is the kiss of death for any American political initiative. Since the collapse of Communism, hasn't "socialism"--even the democratic kind--reeked of everything obsolete and discredited? Isn't it sheer absurdity to ask today's mainstream to pay attention to this nineteenth-century idea? Didn't Tony Blair reshape "New Labour" into a force capable of winning an unprecedented string of victories in Britain only by first defeating socialism and socialists in his party? And for a generation haven't we on the American left declared socialist ideology irrelevant time and again in the process of shaping our feminist, antiwar, progay, antiracist, multicultural, ecological and community-oriented identities?

People who espouse these and a dozen other arguments against the relevance of socialism today may regard it as quaint that Bolivia's new president, Evo Morales, leads the Movement Toward Socialism Party, or that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez intends to create a "new socialism of the twenty-first century." After all, socialist parties elsewhere, such as in France, Spain and Germany, or indeed Brazil's Workers Party and Chile's Socialist Party, have no intention of introducing anything like socialism in their countries. Still, the newest significant formation, indeed, today's equivalent of the nineteenth-century International Workingmen's Association, calls itself the World Social Forum. The name reminds those who believe "another world is possible" that it can come about only if it is global, only if it is guided by a loosely organized "forum" rather than a top-down party--and only if its character is social.

CONTINUED BELOW Among Americans it has long since become obvious that the left is doomed without a vision, a sense of direction and an effective call to arms. One of the reasons we are having such tough sledding nowadays is that we have been unable to develop our own compelling alternative to those created by the right and the center over the past generation and embodied in the politics of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. We need to point to a clearly different direction from the one in which the United States and the world are heading. We need to spell out a historical diagnosis and project, a strategy and tactics, and root these in widely shared ultimate values.

We would be further along on all of these fronts today had it not been for the immense success of the Anglo-American right in insisting, for nearly a generation now, that in Margaret Thatcher's words, "there is no alternative," that the conservative project of free markets, privatization and deregulation is simple obedience to necessity. When Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the "end of history" fourteen years ago, he ruled out picturing "to ourselves a world that is essentially different from the present one, and at the same time better." Capitalism's victory over Communism in the cold war silenced any and all alternatives, present and future, he said. And today, among apologists for global capitalism like Thomas Friedman, the ideological assault on alternatives has become even more insistent, the faith in the market almost total.

Successful ideological and political campaigns close up the space in which imagination might conceive of a world different from the status quo. Alternatives become "unthinkable." In contrast, for two generations, between 1917 and 1989, the prospect of social change and political action worldwide were nurtured by the competition between two different world-embracing economic systems. Ugly as it was in so many ways, the Soviet Union not only spurred imitators but stimulated and sometimes supported resistance movements and, more relevant to us, along with the presence of vigorous socialist movements and ideas it encouraged thinking and acting toward alternatives that would be neither capitalist nor Communist. The 1930s through the '70s saw important and still relevant efforts at social change led by anarchists (Spain), social democrats (Scandinavia), non-Stalinist Communists (Yugoslavia, Italy), coalitions of socialists and Communists (Chile), and coalitions of leftists and less ideological forces of national liberation (Nicaragua, South Africa). Until the end of the cold war, alternatives to capitalism and Communism seemed both thinkable and possible.

Today, when the bottom line is touted as the answer to every question, Americans are imprisoned in a mental world shaped by economic trends. Ironically, its ideologists have become pitchmen for a capitalist caricature of Marxism--promulgating a crude economic determinism in which the market rules every social, mental and geographic space. Since the fall of Communism, market-oriented ways of thinking, feeling and seeing have permeated our lives and our culture to a degree that Marx never dreamed of.

Yet the real Marxism, although no longer embodied in movements or governments, has never been truer or more relevant: Most of the world's main problems today are inseparable from the dynamics of the capitalist system itself. With corporate capitalism everywhere in command, the outlook is for increased poverty, more environmental degradation, ever more uneven distribution of resources and the undermining of traditional societies and ways of life, for a culture dominated by marketing, advertising and uneven global development.

But Americans need only glance around the world to see that there are alternatives. The vibrant World Social Forums are an example, under way since 2001 and now envisioning several annual meetings of an immense variety of groups, organizations and networks. Another is the continuing leftward movement of South American governments, now adding Bolivia to Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, Chile and Brazil. A third is the continuing European efforts to defend social welfare programs, as evidenced in the German Social Democrats' remarkable reversal of a slide into oblivion to tie the Christian Democratic Party in last September's election, and the unflagging popular support for Britain's National Health Service.

The reigning economic system will continue to generate opposition as long as it speaks of equality (which it must) yet continues to be unequal and undemocratic (which it must); as long as it incites dreams of a better life (which it must) but deforms social, cultural and political life according to its bottom line (which it must); as long as its rampant abuse of the environment and pillage of natural resources continue (also inevitable).

Living in a capitalist world, we can't get far thinking and talking about alternatives and new directions without acknowledging that many of our key values and starting points are drawn from a common historical source: the socialist tradition. We have not reached the end of history as long as the spirit of solidarity animates antisweatshop movements, as long as a root sense of fairness motivates our efforts for a living wage, as long as the belief in equality nourishes our demand for a national healthcare system, as long as we embrace the democratic social provisioning embodied in Social Security. The next left will have to acknowledge, and even celebrate, the socialist spirit. Socialism's values continue to nourish community life. Much of our world continues to be organized collectively, democratically and socially, operating according to need and not according to profitability--in schools and cooperatives; libraries and nonprofits; local, state and federal government programs. September 11 and Hurricane Katrina showed the undying need for extensive and intensive structures of community. The socialist standards of fairness, democracy, equality and justice are as much a part of daily life as are capitalism's values of privilege, unequal rewards and power.

In this post-Communist era when even "liberal" has become a dirty word, the effort to create a more humane society will not be revived without explicit demands long associated with socialism. Social movements for environmental protection, women's rights and racial equality sooner or later run up against the institutional constraints imposed by capitalism. Then they discover that they can't achieve their goals without becoming anticapitalist. What will individuals and groups demanding equality, democracy, respect for the environment and freedom from the market call themselves as they try to coalesce around increasingly global demands and on behalf of increasingly global alternatives? We need not be timid about naming this "socialism." What else is it? What a new progressive movement needs can be simply stated: more socialism.

There can be no future social movements without key socialist themes: the importance of economic class, the centrality of labor and workers in shaping the world, the idea that people must act to create their own destiny. Not to mention themes already suggested: the decisive role of the economy in determining the rest of our life, the fact that today it is above all driven by the pursuit of profit, the insistence on freeing people from its domination and the need to think and act politically in terms of the socioeconomic system rather than in terms of individual policies. Whatever language people use, socialist ideas, experience, models, aspirations and analyses will help form the heart and soul of the alternative-in-the-making, or there will be no alternative.

Equality is the most important among these. Socialists have conceived a society that provides for the needs of every individual, including adequate means to live a decent life and develop each person's capacities. Our society, in contrast, is ambivalent and ultimately incoherent about equality. We are all said to be equal politically and before the law, but socially and economically our individual worth varies enormously. This is built into the American system: Social and economic inequality, a hallmark of life under free enterprise, make a mockery of a proud hallmark of American democracy, civic equality. In its own terms our society should be taking steps at least to insure that we are equal to become unequal. In other words, fair competition requires an equal starting point. Yet today this is not a liberal but a radical demand. Unequal schools, the rising costs of higher education, the growing gap in living conditions between well-off and poor, the abolition of the estate tax encouraging a plutocracy--all heighten the system's unfairness. In fighting against our increasingly unequal society, liberals and progressives will need to draw upon socialist thought in developing clear and consistent ideas, critiques, programs and watchwords about equality.

Doing battle against the prevailing inequality means invoking the idea that we all belong to a community, as opposed to the illusion, voiced famously by Thatcher, that "there is no society, only individuals." The paradox of our time is that individualism is riding high even while our universal interconnectedness is intensifying in this increasingly interdependent global society. The more interdependent each person in the world becomes, and the more large corporations rule not only economic but social life, the less social awareness there seems to be. We are supposed to live our lives as if there were no community, while more and more, vital social functions become performed for private gain, as if each of us had become a Robinson Crusoe.

The fantasy universe of purely private individuals, for all its lip service to religious belief, is no longer able to inculcate the basic social morality and sense of responsibility any society needs to function. Twenty-five years of attacking government has drained much of the basic civic spirit and social responsibility we must have to transact our collective business with integrity. If nothing is higher than the individual, the only thing that matters is whether I alone succeed. In the Enron and other corporate fraud scandals, in the debacle of Hurricane Katrina, the chickens have been coming home to roost.

On the road to shaping an alternative, the left might respond with a time-honored socialist insight, namely that "I" only exists within a "we," and that unless we look out for everyone, no one is secure. To say this confidently means accepting that we stand for a clear alternative and embody decisively different values and traditions than those on the right. This means getting friendly again with socialism.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: confiscation; cowbell; democrats; gulag; misery; needsmorecowbell; poverty; secretpolice; socialism; terror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
Yep, 100 million dead aren't nearly enough. What the world needs today clearly is more socialism.
1 posted on 04/03/2006 4:05:16 AM PDT by jalisco555
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

The fruits of Socialism can be seen in Detroit Michigan and New Orleans LA. Both are abject failures. Social Laboratories of why Socialism is contrary to human nature. Look at China and Russia who both have embraced Free Markets to see that Socialism has failed in both Countries.

Socialism is being promoted by the Left in order to control the populace and make them dependent on Policy Makers. Note to the Women of the US. Alot of US Men are sick of the Gynocracy the Nanny Government here. We are either expating outright or considering it. Look at New Zealand if you doubt Men will vote with their feet when things get bad enough.


2 posted on 04/03/2006 4:10:05 AM PDT by Khankrumthebulgar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
"SOCIALISM" that's right, "Socialism"

Like a Monkey with a sledgehammer, socialism gets even with those who have one dollar more than you do.

3 posted on 04/03/2006 4:10:34 AM PDT by Falcon4.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Once again, the Socialists make it clear that Property Rights mean nothing to them.

I say: without Property Rights, there can be no freedom. The thing that Socialists support is the opposit eof freedom.

4 posted on 04/03/2006 4:13:15 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Never question Bruce Dickinson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
"We have not reached the end of history as long as the spirit of solidarity animates antisweatshop movements, as long as a root sense of fairness motivates our efforts for a living wage, as long as the belief in equality nourishes our demand for a national healthcare system, as long as we embrace the democratic social provisioning embodied in Social Security."

I will watch Hillry's leftist charge to the end of their history to see which of these particular themes she embodies.

Her "we can do it better" campaign is a reminder of another former New York senator's presidential campaign. Hillry is even embracing herself a 'god' on her journey.
5 posted on 04/03/2006 4:13:33 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Living in a capitalist world, we can't get far thinking and talking about alternatives and new directions without acknowledging that many of our key values and starting points are drawn from a common historical source: the socialist tradition.
Key values? WTF? Socialist tradition of what - taking from those who work to those who won't? BS!
6 posted on 04/03/2006 4:17:11 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

Nah...

What it needs is MORE COWBELL.


7 posted on 04/03/2006 4:17:12 AM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
It is funny in a sad pathetic sense. Those that would direct the society, always see themselves as the directors. Capitalism isn't a system, it is what happens when you don't force one. It is the natural default mode.

Freedom is the God given right to the individual.

But, to be honest, I wish the dems would come out and say what they really are: socialists. Then they could finally be tagged as the traitors they are. I have grown less patient with liberals in general in these past years. I now tell them there are three reasons to be a democrat or a liberal. The first reason is that they are uninformed. The second is that they are mentally ill. The third reason is that they hate their country and are traitors. That covers all the bases.
On Meet the Press May 22, 2005 Howard Dean was promoting Bernie Sanders as a potential senate candidate. Russert asked Dean if he was bothered by the fact that Sanders was a socialist. Dean said it was a matter of semantics. After all, Bernie voted with the Dems 95% of the time.
It's one of the reasons I don't change my tag line. The fifth column needs outing.
8 posted on 04/03/2006 4:17:39 AM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I say: without Property Rights, there can be no freedom.
Bingo! And who on the USSC voted for Eminent Domain? Friggin' pinko-commie b@stards.
9 posted on 04/03/2006 4:20:05 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

And here I thought brain disease had been wiped out! You never can trust a commie!


10 posted on 04/03/2006 4:21:35 AM PDT by Doc Savage (Of all these things you can be sure, only love...will endure.......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Wasn't Pol Pot's Khymer Rouge government, with over a million dead Cambodians, yet another great socialist "alternative"? I guess the wrong people were in charge.

The Soviet Union under Stalin? Why --- that was really "state captialism"! (Whatever the hell that means...)

Whenever you point out the failure and mass murder of socialism, you hear the same tired rebuttals:

Isn't wasn't "true" Communism. (Well, what is then?)

Under democratic socialism, workers would control all the farms and factories. (Where has this ever happened without government control, bureaucracy & the inevitable police state?)

Why, look at how great life in Sweden is! (It's so great they've got the highest suicide rate worldwide. Sweden's always been a mixture of capitalism & socialism, anyway, and the welfare state is crumbling. Sweden's main advantage is that they were smart enough not to import an immigrant workforce from Muslim North Africa --- unlike those brilliant socialists in France, who are now munching on wine & cheese while Paris burns.)

It's pointless to argue with left-wing intellectuals. If 100 million dead under various socialist regimes wasn't enough to convince them they're wrong --- nothing ever will. Unfortunately these are the same types who are comfortably ensconced in some many of our college faculties --- safely cushioned from the real world effect of their evil ideology.
11 posted on 04/03/2006 4:22:55 AM PDT by griffmorpho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
Socialism is a political religion that seemingly will never die. Simply put if you don't believe in (God's) love, you must believe in (man's) power.
12 posted on 04/03/2006 4:26:22 AM PDT by ZeitgeistSurfer (Visit the Iran Crater in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

bookmark


13 posted on 04/03/2006 4:27:16 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

>>Yep, 100 million dead aren't nearly enough. What the world needs today clearly is more socialism.

Exactly!

They have a way of justifying the outrageous - for the betterment of themselves.

When their programs don't work (they never do) - somehow they end up in population reduction as an answer.

Somebody, somewhere, right now - is calculating the effect of re-releasing the 1918 flu virus on global warming.


14 posted on 04/03/2006 4:29:17 AM PDT by The Raven (Undocumented Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Falcon4.0
The Left Needs More Socialism ----

****

Hillary in 2008

15 posted on 04/03/2006 4:31:19 AM PDT by beyond the sea (Claire De Lune ........ 1862)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

socialist= rat vermin that need "Pest Control"!

LLS


16 posted on 04/03/2006 4:31:25 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Social Security and Medicare pose the most seri­ous danger to long-term spending restraint. Together, these programs face an unfunded liabil­ity of $33.2 trillion, which is eight times larger than the current national debt.

More socialism?

17 posted on 04/03/2006 4:32:15 AM PDT by listenhillary (The original Contract with America - The U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

If only the left would take Ron Aronson's advice and crawl out from under their rocks and call themselves socialists, we could bury these sorry socialists forever.


18 posted on 04/03/2006 4:33:06 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are familiar bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

I pray for the day the democrats add social to there name. Once they finally come out of the proverbial closet it will be that much harder for them to commit economic and social subversion. It is another time for choosing for America, Go down the path of false security toward serfdom, or toward a future our founders envisioned where our destiny is what we make of it not what our politicians choose for us.


19 posted on 04/03/2006 4:33:12 AM PDT by spikeytx86 (Beware the Democratic party has been over run by CRAB PEOPLE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
What? Rats admit they're socialists? Rats stop lying?

Never happen.

AV

Aroostook Beauty.com

20 posted on 04/03/2006 4:34:13 AM PDT by Atomic Vomit (www.aroostookbeauty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griffmorpho
Under democratic socialism, workers would control all the farms and factories.

Ironically if instead of having a program where we give the government money for 50 years and in return they dole out little bits to us to live on after a certain age we had a system where we could actually invest our own money then workers would control most of the farms and factories.

You would think that the stock market would be a socialist dream come true.

21 posted on 04/03/2006 4:35:27 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Sign up to donate monthly and you will be automatically entered in our "Win a Bear Hug Contest")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Community, equality and fairness. While integral to a socialist vision, Ronald Aronson's honesty runs into a big problem: it can only be imposed by force. There is no way in a free society to make people live together voluntarily, to make every one the same and to eliminate every agent that acts against a fair society. Autonomy, inequality and diversity lie at the heart of a free society. The opposites postulated in socialism sooner or later lead to tyranny. There has never been and never will be a truly just society on earth that can be truly free. You can have a dependent society or you can have a free one. You cannot have both and this has been borne out by the historical record. The Left cannot admit that socialism ultimately destroys the will of a society to continue existing. We can see this in Russia, Germany and France where all the primary impulses of society have been subsumed by purely secondary ones and as result they're all dying countries. Do we want to end up like them? I don't think so.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

22 posted on 04/03/2006 4:37:58 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Thanks for the post. It could provide a new slogan for the Dems:

DEMOCRATS:
Always "in the process of shaping our feminist, antiwar, progay, antiracist, multicultural, ecological and community-oriented identities," ever since we stopped fighting civil rights!

23 posted on 04/03/2006 4:39:11 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (Well, Kerry did win the exit polls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

I know it's "The Nation" but the piece is dated April 1st...Ya think????


24 posted on 04/03/2006 4:39:37 AM PDT by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to propagate her gene pool. Any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griffmorpho
Wasn't Pol Pot's Khymer Rouge government, with over a million dead Cambodians, yet another great socialist "alternative"

Yes, but all those previous Socialists in Cambodia, Vietnam, the USSR, Poland, Bulgaria, Albania, Nicaragua, Cuba.... all got Socialism wrong. This time it will be done right. This time there will be Heaven on earth, the lion will lie down with the lamb, cats and dogs will live together and we'll all sing Kumbaya around the fire. We just need to give Socialism another chance.

25 posted on 04/03/2006 4:41:24 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us and pigs treat us as equals" Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
We Americans can do it better than the Europeans did. We're richer, more resourceful and more innovative. And from the Left's point of view, the only reason socialism hasn't worked is because we haven't tried it yet.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

26 posted on 04/03/2006 4:44:21 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Well, where would the U.N. get it's global taxes to redistribute if we get rid of capitalism?

Who wiill decide what work each individual will do in order to promote the common good?

Will we be labeled at birth, "worker", "farmer", "doctor", "politician", "teacher", "scientist". How else will we know where we fit in to the "global" economy?

27 posted on 04/03/2006 4:47:01 AM PDT by BB2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
And from the Left's point of view, the only reason socialism hasn't worked is because we haven't tried it yet.

And they'll keep trying until they've wrecked every country on earth.

28 posted on 04/03/2006 4:47:42 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us and pigs treat us as equals" Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555; LegendHasIt

Mr. Aronson is right about one thing. The left is a bunch of pink-o commie collectivists and they should go ahead and admit it.

Now, their failed 19th century philosophy of material collectivism is bunk (stupid, for those of you in Rio Linda).

Finally, Post #7 has hit the nail on the head. What the socialist left needs is MORE COWBELL.


29 posted on 04/03/2006 4:50:39 AM PDT by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BB2
Its amusing to see people like George Soros and John Kerry insist what's good enough for them is hard on every one else. But you don't hear them offer to give up THEIR wealth for the common good.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

30 posted on 04/03/2006 4:51:43 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
When I called the illegal invaders socialist liberal dims someone on another thread said I was wrong that the criminals weren't socialists, but on TV a leader of the group protesting CLEARLY STATED, " capitalism is not working in America, we need socialism" I heard that clear as day and it sent shivers up and down.

The socialist liberal illegal aliens are here with a purpose in mind and it isn't just to get a job. I asked the ques all along, if 12-20 million people sneak into this country illegally and hide out do you really think they have good intentions toward this country?

We made the argument against allowing the 12-20 million to stay and no one listened, when there is a coup and we are all in danger how will Washington be able to save us than? When Republicans are the minority and they keep losing elections because of the 12-20 million socialists already here what will Washington do than?

31 posted on 04/03/2006 4:52:15 AM PDT by stopem (Call any co you deal with and insist they not let any illegal work on or near your property, we did!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khankrumthebulgar
And since the Russians and Chinese living standards, while still low by our standards, have increased greatly. And their economies are running well. Socialists are idiots by definition, it is like shooting yourself in the foot, then reloading for the other one. It has never worked, nor ever will. The world is not flat. Socialism does not work. They need to get with the times. The corporatism the the Nazis used is the closest thing that worked, they called it socialism, but it kept the profit motive. But it was not socialism in the Marxist sense, Nazis hated Marxists.
32 posted on 04/03/2006 5:13:23 AM PDT by gafusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Yeah, read Atlas Shrugged for a good description of what socialism would do. The socialists will just loot and steal until nothing is left. Socialism is theft.
33 posted on 04/03/2006 5:18:32 AM PDT by gafusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

"It's time to break a taboo and place the word "socialism" across the top of the page in a major American progressive magazine. Time for the left to stop repressing the side of ourselves that the right finds most objectionable." "Yet the real Marxism, although no longer embodied in movements or governments, has never been truer or more relevant:"

I love this guy!!!!! Please dude keep saying stuff like this. The more you do the more the rat will love you and then start repeating this stuff.


34 posted on 04/03/2006 5:19:03 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (John Spencer is the warrior we have been waiting for.We can trust him with our future.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

Human life is not a "value" of Hillary's ideology - socialism. Like the Islamofacists, Socialists don't care if people die or not under the weight of their ideology. Marxism is their faith and they want it to rule the west by force if necessary. Socialism has many names: social justice, progress, human rights...

America is going to turn left with all the foreigners in the country who do not understand why we have the wealth and freedom we do. If you don't understand why America is free and prosperous, then you can not vote and act in a way that protects it. The unassimulated foreigners broke the law to come here for free stuff. That is the sum of their National values and all they know about this Nation.


35 posted on 04/03/2006 5:44:27 AM PDT by Galveston Grl (Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Galveston Grl
Socialists don't care if people die or not under the weight of their ideology.

"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic".

J. Stalin

36 posted on 04/03/2006 5:51:04 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us and pigs treat us as equals" Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: gafusa
Yeah, read Atlas Shrugged for a good description of what socialism would do.

A remarkably prescient book, considering when it was written.

37 posted on 04/03/2006 5:51:59 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us and pigs treat us as equals" Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

Yes please. Turn your liberal cesspools like LA, SF, Ithaca and NYC into Socialist Zimbabwe USA.

I only wish we could build a fence around those pits to keep the liberals in the mess of their own making so they can't escape after they've ruined the place. People are fleeing Kalifornia in droves, conservatives because they are sick of the place and liberals because they are too stupid to realize the problems were their own making.


38 posted on 04/03/2006 6:28:15 AM PDT by noobiangod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
The fantasy universe of purely private individuals, for all its lip service to religious belief, is no longer able to inculcate the basic social morality and sense of responsibility any society needs to function.

Cool. Who do you plan to shoot first?

39 posted on 04/03/2006 6:29:18 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

That's one of the best things I've ever seen written on FR. I'm going to quote you on my profile page.


40 posted on 04/03/2006 6:39:18 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt
Done.... Image hosting by Photobucket
41 posted on 04/03/2006 6:43:42 AM PDT by Illuminatas (Being conservative means never having to say; "Don't you dare question my patriotism")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Oldie but outstanding. Posted for those who may have never read these.

Walter Williams
Socialim is evil part 1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1252930/posts

Socialim is evil part 2
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1192981/posts


42 posted on 04/03/2006 6:52:08 AM PDT by listenhillary (The original Contract with America - The U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Go ahead and praise Socialism, make sure you include many pictures of Socialism's heroes such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Chavez, Pol Pot ......
43 posted on 04/03/2006 8:01:16 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (In the Land of the Blind the one-eyed man is king.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
My guess would be that the author is another upper-middle class Ivory Tower liberal who knows absolutely nothing about the real working world.

I'm sure he means Socialism with someone else's money.

44 posted on 04/03/2006 8:12:11 AM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Do we want to end up like them? I don't think so.

Well said. The true evil of Socialism is that it is contrary to human nature. That's why it can only be imposed by force.

45 posted on 04/03/2006 9:19:16 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us and pigs treat us as equals" Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
I know it's "The Nation" but the piece is dated April 1st...Ya think????

Every article ever appearing in The Nation reads like it was written on April 1.

46 posted on 04/03/2006 10:05:48 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

To test a new drug, a homogeneous sample of people is divided into 2 groups -- one group gets the new drug, one doesn't. The same can be done with an economic system, take a peninsula, (oh, say, Korea) divide it in half, impose socialism on half and capitalism on half and wait 50 years. Here is a statement from the Jan 22 2006 Parade Magazine list of worst dictators..."According to the United Nations World Food Program, the average 7-year-old boy in North Korea is almost 8 inches shorter than a South Korean boy the same age and more than 20 pounds lighter." Nothing says it better.

Socialism doesn't work because there is no basic human motivation to work anonymously for the good of the community.


47 posted on 04/03/2006 10:39:09 AM PDT by Aegedius (Veni, vidi, icked-kay utt-bay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Oh, I think they're serious enough about it. Old illusions refuse to die.

Yet the real Marxism, although no longer embodied in movements or governments, has never been truer or more relevant...

They'll never give it up. In point of fact Marx was mistaken in nearly every aspect of his predictive sociology and historiography - the proletariat did not experience increasing illiteracy and alienation, but the opposite, the capitalists did not experience decreasing profit, but the opposite - I could go on and on. Much of this took place during Marx's lifetime and explains a good deal of why the second volume of Capital is so different from the 1848 Manifesto.

"Equality" to such an ideologist refers to an equal distribution of material goods. An unequal distribution is his or her definition of "injustice." In practice such an equality is impossible to maintain even if sufficient theft to accomplish it is accepted. It is impossible to accomplish in the absence of central economic control, which itself lends toward inequalities. It does move the superior possession of material goods from one class to another in theory; in practice one class simply becomes another.

Worse, the idea of managing a factory with workers' soviets was the first thing Lenin tried when the Bolsheviks took over and the first thing he discarded when it and other policies dictated by theoretical Marxism resulted in real-world economic disaster. The upshot was the New Economic Policy of 1921. I quote Lenin on the topic:

But such a policy would be foolish because such a policy is economically impossible. It would be suicidal because the party that tried to apply such a policy would meet with inevitable disaster. We need not conceal from ourselves the fact that some Communists sinned.... in this respect . . . We shall try to rectify these mistakes . . . otherwise things will come to a very sorry state. A wise Communist will not be afraid of learning from a capitalist... (Ref.: Robert V. Daniels, A Documentary History of Communism, Vol. 1, pp. 213-16)

True socialists don't learn from history because they insist on denying it or explaining it away with the old wheezer "true socialism has never been tried." What is actually happening in places in South America is an envy-based populism that attempts redistribution of material goods and simultaneously maintenance of the capitalist entities (but not capitalist control) that generated the surplus being redistributed. It is in many respects Lenin's NEP all over again. That didn't work and never has.

48 posted on 04/03/2006 11:10:28 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Socialism = Slavery by government..

Socialist = Democrat or BIG government republican(RINO)..

Social Nurosis = Democracy which is the source of socialism..
-------------------------------
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx

Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx

49 posted on 04/03/2006 11:16:35 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

I agree --- By the way, G.K. Chesterton, the Catholic conservative writer, advocated a form of capitalism called "distributism". This philosophy encouraged individuals to have their own small businesses, and groups to form co-operatives. Distributism was never intended as a system to be administered from the top (ala socialism or communism), but rather as a voluntary movement, from the bottom.

As Chesterton wrote: "The problem with capitalism is not too many capitalists, but too few captialists."

The opportunity to invest our own money as we choose might go a long way toward Chesterton's ideal of increasing the number of captialists.

I would much rather have the choice to invest my money, than be forced into the social security program.


50 posted on 04/03/2006 5:43:08 PM PDT by griffmorpho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson