Skip to comments.How are todays' Democrats best categorized as socialists?
Posted on 04/22/2007 6:34:41 PM PDT by Miztiki
I'm reading about socialism on wikipedia and wondered how the Democrats of today would best be categorized. Are they social democrats? Reformist socialists? Moderates? Are they socialists according to definition of socialism at all?
Are they Marxists who see socialism as the "transition between capitalism and communism, the final stage of history"?
Do they only want a "welfare state"?
For instance, what is Hillary? What type of "ism" does she envision for our country?
The Democrat party of today is split between the old Roosevelt socialist lite folks and the new hard core leftists who embrace both socialiasm and marxism.
Many of them can not speak to either of the latter. They merely rant the feel good propaganda that both idealogies have made part and parcel in the quest to take America from within.
They are all creeping totalitarians—some want to run and some would creep more slowly. But they are all heading to the same destination. Ideological details are unimportant. I don’t care about the fine differences between socialists, communists and national-socialists. They all hate God and they all want to engineer my life and my children’s lives into something abhorrent.
Gosh you really illustrate so well in a personal way. It’s all bad and as you said.
Fabian Socialists. Like the Fabian Society in the U.K., they’ve come to the conclusion that Marx and Engels were right, but that all that class warfare proletarian revolution language will never sell. Therefore, they’re out to achieve the ultimate goal of a socialist society, but by using the methods of Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator: stealth, patience, subversion, and harassment.
That one was one of mine done just this morning. Feel free to snag it if you wish.
It varies. There are some who are old Roosevelt/Kennedy Democrats, strong on national defense and believe in socialism-lite, most of those seem to be from the southwest or Great Lakes region. Coastal Dems seem to tend more towards Social Democrats or out-and-out Socialists. I’ve met very very few true blue Communists who claim to be a member of anything but a fringe party.
Where does the term “Statist” fit into the socialist world?
ANTI-AMERICA COMMUNISTS.....and that just covers the RAT Party “purists......the rest are just a bunch of stupid dolts.
The Milwaukee socialists are very much into full blown surrender — both at home to illegal immigrants and abroad to the islamofascists. I don’t see a thread of national security values among the voting population or the elected officials on a local level here.
Oh, and handouts a plenty as well.
Thats the way I see the issue as well. You’re dead on.
Published in 1909, this book basically lays out the arguments for "socialism with an American face." E.g.:
Of more immediate importance to Croly himself, the book drew the attention of Willard and Dorothy Straight, who along with Walter Lippmann subsequently founded "The New Republic" magazine and hired Croly to be Editor-in-Chief. He remained in this position for the rest of his life, enthusiastically publishing the works of the British Fabian Socialists and their American imitators, and laying the foundations for modern American "progressive" and "liberal" thought.
"Statist" is just another synonym.
Politics can be expressed in terms of cows. There are some variations to the theme, but it goes something like this:
Socialism/Communism - you have two cows, and the government confiscates them and then gives you some of the milk.
Fascism - you have two cows, and the government confiscates them and sells you the milk.
Nazism - you have two cows, and the the government shoots you and takes them.
Capitalism - you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull.
” How are todays’ Democrats best categorized as socialists? “
Real socialists are a minority among the democrats anymore. By this I mean the “true believers” like Teddy Kennedy and Hillary. The rest are not ideologically pure and are more a duke’s mixture of screwed up beliefs.
Bill Clinton was an interesting case, more like a Mafia boss than a leader, wanting the entire democrat party and later the entire government working for him and only him. He would not allow and deeply distrusted anyone around him who was not “dirty” enough to be ruined at his whim, and felt no loyalty whatsoever to his toadies and lickspittles.
Hillary, on the other hand, embraces extremism anywhere she finds it, and has nothing but contempt for democratic forms, preferring liberal “elites” to craft policy for her. She sees the world as black and white, so individuals are either her friends or her enemies.
As far as commonality in their party, I would say that they remain together out of shared hatred. While they don’t all hate the same things, they all have bitter hatred towards something. And this hatred manifests itself as meanness and crudeness. Many of them are blind to their own hatred, and think that only they can feel oppressed, that those that they hate are incapable of feeling.
If you are looking for parallels, look to the Roman Empire in the last days—the government taxed everything and then paid for indulgences for the people. When the democrats can access all private wealth, then they will redistribute it according to the desires of the powerful. One last question—where is the Roman Empire today?
I think they are neo-feudalists.
I don't see Democrats supporting such 'right-wing' ideas.
They are NOT socialists, they are communists of the Marx variety out to destroy America.
They are NOT socialists, they are communists of the Marx variety out to destroy America.
liberal: n. One who is open-minded... at others' expense.
democrat: n. One who buys things... at others' expense.
Today's Republicans are to the left of Hubert Humphery, who was a raving libereal in his day.
Democrats as a party are a mix of different Socialists, but for the most part, as guiding philosophy to achieve practical goals they are :
Fascists - government’s/state’s control of means of production and services and education, yet not necessarily state’s ownership of means of production and services. As Hitler famously said “Why own when you can control?”
Kind of like dual-stock structure in NY Times, Pinch owns very little of NYT stock, so when stock goes down the shareholders bear the brunt of it, yet he has complete control of “voting stock” in managing NYT - his own “controlling legal authority”.
On that general theme, see the second quote on my FR home page, the two-paragraph one by Hayek.
That is called Maoism. Pol Pot could not have killed all those people without spies everywhere.
Read my tagline.
The funny thing about Democrats and socialism is that they run the gamut of Socialists. Some are soft socialists a la FDR. Some are disciples of Third Way Socialism (i.e. Fascism) and see a perfect union of industry run by corporations, but ultimately controlled by the government through heavy regulation. A few are hardcore Communists (they don’t confess it, otherwise lynch mobs would form), such as Queen Hillary, who strangely betrayed her true self when she said “we will take things from you for the common good.”
Also see the descriptions as given under Jessie Jackass, Murdering Ted Kennedy, Traitor John French Kerry, Cigar Billy Clinton, Racists Al Sharptongue, Anti-American George Sor@ss, Hairy Read, Nancy Peloser, Dickie Turdbin, John Kookie Edwards, Congression Black Caucau, NAACPeepee, Babs The Nose Streisand, Rosie The Anal Mouth O’Donnellll, Sean No Cents Penn
Most of their supporters at the ballot are simply ignorant.
Some are agenda driven.
Curiously, whenever I travel out of my home area, I always seem to meet intelligent folks who are not brainwashed.
Definitely it is the big government states and municipalities which are producing mindless, nonthinking, lockstep marching Socialists.
None of them are socialists - all of them are scumbag opportunists.
Socialist Sanders Fits in Well With Senate Democrats - ...a review of all 125 votes cast by Sanders since his election reveals that, far from being an outlier, Sanders walks almost side by side with his colleagues in the Democratic Party. Thirty-two Democratic senators voted with him at least 95% of the time. Another 13 saw things his way between 90% and 95% of the time. None voted with him less than 85% of the time. On the 15 cloture votes held thus far in 2007 (votes to end debate on contentious issues, i.e., the best test of party loyalty), Sanders has proven even more reliable than some Democrats, voting with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) every single time.
Indeed, you find virtually no daylight between the voting records of the rumpled Vermont socialist (who once said, I dont mind really if millionaires vote against me; they probably should) and millionaire Senate colleagues such as Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.), Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.), Herb Kohl (D.-Wis.), Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Frank Lautenberg (D.-N.J.). Each voted with Sanders at least 95% of the time. His fellow freshmen, some of whom campaigned as reasonable moderates, have also voted in lockstep with him. Finally, the senates two top Democrats, Harry Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.), voted with Sanders 96% of the time.
The affinity of many elected Democrats for the worldview Sanders espouses is nothing new. In fact, during the last Congress (when Sanders served in the House), about two-thirds of House Democrats agreed with him at least nine out of 10 times. In the House, though, Sanders lone vote didnt matter; in the Senate, Sanders has already determined the outcome six times, including whether to remove the requirement that U.S. troops be withdrawn from Iraq, grant tax relief to small businesses to offset the negative effects of increasing the minimum wage, mitigate the harmful effects of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and extend collective bargaining rights to federal airport security workers.
This remarkable convergence of Senate Democrats with the lone (admitted) socialist in Congress suggests one of two things. Take your pick. Either Senate leaders have successfully domesticated Sanders, convincing him to tow the moderate Democratic Party line against his better judgment. Or maybe there really is no distinction between a real socialist and a modern liberal in todays Democratic Party.
I hated Bill Clinton because he was so malleable. He as governor of AK was pro-life, pro-NRA, fairly conservative. It was only when he ran for higher office that he started going hard left. It was as if the leftists controlled him like a puppet. I thought that was much more dangerous than a true believer like Ted Kennedy. I never understood Clinton. Why be President and not have SOME firm convictions?
Ok now, how many of the following are socialistic moves?
I take your house/business away from you for a greater purposism
There was a huge pet food recall so we need the government (as opposed to creating a private entity) to look into itism.
Taxes up the buttism
You need a liscense or permit to do anythingism
I’m sure y’all can come up with more.
An Easy Guide to Political Ideologies using 2 cows.
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
UTOPIAN (PURE) COMMUNISM:
You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
APPLIED (REAL) COMMUNISM:
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
You buy two cows. Lie about the growth and productivity. The cows get ill and die. No cows, no milk.
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
You have two cows. The government takes both and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots you and sends the cows to Zurich.
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.
You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government does not do anything.
You have two cows. At first, the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate". The cows sue you for breach of contract.
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.
HONG KONG CAPITALISM:
You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the right to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because of bad feng shui.
Wow, dude, there's like...these two cows, man. You have got to have some of this milk.
You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf.
You are associated with (the concept of 'ownership' is a symbol of the phallocentric, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
How about maternal authoritarianism. Unlike paternal authoritarianism, maternal authoritarianism is best stated as “the state (leftist elite) knows best and no one is allowed to deviate for their own good.
This sounds like communism, but is not necessarily. It mixes elements of communism, fascism, and nanny statism. Remember, key among the left’s current belief’s are the celebration of various perversities. All that is evil is all that they will celebrate.
Todays modern Democrat, let’s address the leadership of the party as most of the Democrat sheeple are as so many not paying any real attention as to the direction their “Party” has taken, can best be described as “Nihilist”, opposed to “Liberal”. The term of “Liberal” actually is defined as a rather Noble cause, but todays “Liberal” isn’t so noble. The term “Nihilist” provides a more accurate descriptive value of todays Democrat Leadership.
Evidence: how much they'd like to take over the health care system. Control. Destroy the 2nd Amendment. Control. Next would likely be invent food crises, nationalize the agriculture system. Disarm, control the food, control the medicine, control the people.
Any good dictator worth his salt knows this.
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.