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?
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 don’t 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 senate’s 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 didn’t 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 today’s 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?
Homosexualism
I take your house/business away from you for a greater purposism
Abortion rights
There was a huge pet food recall so we need the government (as opposed to creating a private entity) to look into itism.
Social Security
Taxes up the buttism
Publik Skoolism
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.
FEUDALISM:
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
FASCISM:
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.
MARXISM:
You buy two cows. Lie about the growth and productivity. The cows get ill and die. No cows, no milk.
MILITARISM:
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
DICTATORSHIP:
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
TOTALITARIANISM:
You have two cows. The government takes both and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
NIGERIAN DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots you and sends the cows to Zurich.
PURE DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.
BRITISH DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government does not do anything.
EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY:
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.
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY:
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.
CAPITALISM:
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.
COUNTERCULTURE:
Wow, dude, there's like...these two cows, man. You have got to have some of this milk.
LESBIANISM:
You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:
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.
SURREALISM:
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.
genuine DU socialists and upperclass urban elite Faux socialists like Soros and Hollywood types who really do not ave any intent to pay significantly higher taxes and who are what they are becuse they despise the American middle class and it’s values and mores and definitely do not intend to anything for them accept maybe soak them.
Thanks for posting this.
[Vermont Senator Bernie] “Sanders is the first self-described Socialist to be elected to the U.S Senate.”
I wonder if anyone else will come out of the closet and admit that they are a Socialist?
Until 1999 the Progressive Caucus worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America. After the press reported on this link, the connections suddenly vanished from both organizations’ websites.
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) - DSA seeks to increase its political influence not by establishing its own party, but rather by working closely with the Democratic Party to promote leftist agendas. "Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party," says DSA. "We work with those movements to strengthen the party's left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Good link, straight to the source.
Yes, UK Labour Party is a very good example of what Fabian Socialism looks like, and “progressive” incrementalism expressed by “Third Way” after Blair’s election is a sure pathway to eventual fascist society - tight and corrupt interchange of government and private interests, regulated and controlled by the government.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm
I think they are neo-feudalists.
this is what i call the EU
If they got their way completely and didn’t have to compromise within and without their party, the Liberal/Progressive wing of the Democrats would be Corporatists; that is, either Fascist or degenerating into Fascism. As it is, they have to compromise with the conservative wing of their party who approximate what in Europe would be called Christian Democratic; consequently, they have to take the concept of representative government seriously and would thus be labeled Social Democrats.
Can you explain what you mean? How does this apply to the current Democrats?
The only info I found on neo-feudalists (google search) was in regard to the “right”, and not in a positive way either.
Here’s a proper definition I found for feudalism:
“A social system based on personal ownership of resources and personal [loyalty] between a suzerain (lord) and a vassal (subject)... Defining characteristics are direct ownership of resources, personal loyalty, and a heirarchical social structure reinforced by religion.”
Yes — raise taxes, fund socialism, abortion and gun control, it’s all donks know. CCW has taken out the gun control prop and the 4D ultrasound has taken out the abortion prop. So literally all they have left is SOCIALISM. Parallels Europe’s lefties.
They want to be the lords and masters and us the serfs. That is what I mean. They own everything and we work the land.
It is simple really, just look at the word: neo=new feudalist=feudalist. What is to look up proper definitions?
I make up the word to describe what I see. I do not go and try to find a word that already exists because I don’t know that it does.
The reason you have trouble is because you become entangled in your thoughts. It is easy. One, two, three. They are neo-feudalists. You have nothing and you have to beg them for scraps. Easy, easy, easy.
The democratics want to own everything and you own nothing.
I don’t see how this is right but I don’t believe in right and left. I believe in leftists because they so define themselves and I believe in regular Americans who don’t wish to be subject, that is not rightists. That is real people.
Democratics/leftists/pseudo-intellectuals=non real people.
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.