Liberals are Really Socialists

This is one of those subjects where people talk past eachother an awful lot. Libs say they are not socialists because they don't want the state to own the means of production or some such gibberish. They also try to say that liberalism is good because the founders were liberals. Another example of talking past eachother.

The one thing all lefties have in common, whether they are American, European, Chinese, Cuban, Russian, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, pacifists, animal rights activists, marxists, Trotskyites, or just plain ol modern liberal... is that they all share the same moral concept.

Their idea of justice being served is when a member of a "traditionally oppressed" group wins out over a member of a "traditionally oppressor" group. That is it. That is the essence of the leftist.

Western civilization was founded on a different moral construct. We believe that justice is served when a person doing right in a given situation, prevails over those doing wrong.

All of the strife, confusion, and struggle over the last several decades in the west has come from the fact that the cultural elite have embraced the moral structure of the left and tried to impose it on a civilization with traditions and institutions designed on the assumptions of a completely different moral structure.

As a result we have judges overiding legislatures and making up laws. Our courts are clogged with silly matters they were not designed to, and therefore not able to adjudicate. Our legislatures are busy trying to "right past wrongs" of people who are no longer with us.

And it is all for the children.

Their idea of justice being served is when a member of a "traditionally oppressed" group wins out over a member of a "traditionally oppressor" group. That is it. That is the essence of the leftist.

Case in point: Last week, an email went out at my law school asking folks to show up at the local TacoBell to help the travelling migrant workers boycott/protest there (they're on a 100 city tour). The email request was accompanied by a Washington Post article on the topic. The workers were protesting poor working conditions and low wages from the Imolakee FL tomato growers.

I replied to the email to the entire distribution list, noting that both the article and the protest organizer admit that:
1) TacoBell has done nothing wrong,
2) TacoBell does not have the authority to make the growers change their policies,
3) TacoBell offered to pay $110,000 to help the workers (it was refused because, the protestors said, they had no way of knowing if it reflected the proper amount they "owed" and they had no way to distribute it to the workers who were harmed)

The article also noted that:
4) Yum! Brands Foods (TacoBell's supplier, which actually buys the tomatoes from the growers) also owns Pizza Hut, which uses FAR more tomatoes per serving than the typical TacoBell meal. Why not bother them instead?

Aside from the article, I added:
5) The local TacoBell is indepently-owned, and has even less to do with the FL growers. (growers sell to Yum!, who sells to TacoBell, who sells to the local restaurant)
6) The proper channels for such claims lie within the branches and agencies of government, not in the drive-thru lane (the article noted several successful efforts at improving workers' conditions and punishing illegal acts of growers... all of which were handled by police, the judicial system, and legislation)
7) Boycotting TacoBell could reduce demand for TacoBell, which would reduce the demand for the migrant farmer's work product, thus reducing jobs and/or wages for the "victim" farm workers.
8) Bothering people who are simply trying to enjoy their meal in peace is no way to promote "social justice".
9) This could even be a corporate extortion scheme, since they threaten to disrupt TacoBell's business unless they pay more money.

(I intentionally refused to raise the immigration status of the workers, but national origins were also mentioned in the aricle)

The main elements in the replies I got were "offensive", "ignorant", "evil a$$hole", "schmuck" and "disrespectful"... not a one addressed any of the points I raised. I confronted their zealous belief that the victim group should be paid-off by the "oppressor" group, and they railed, but could not rebut. You are spot-on correct.

I have been reading David Horowitz's books, most recently Unholy Alliance and The Politics of Bad Faith, as he tries to look into the mind of these socialists(who call themselves progressives.) Progressive is correct in the sense that they still have the dream of a man made "Heaven on Earth" where everyone (who the government doesn't end up having to kill) has 'equality'. Of course every attempt at this in history has failed and created an ugly mess and mostly misery. Here's my little post on this subject with a actual amusing example:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1345213/posts

The author of the article in question here, which you posted in full in your reply, really uses some bad analsys and logic.

First off he gives two quite accurate definitions of "liberal." Definitions that he shows to be in wide use today. Then he calls for the reader to "think" about them in "modern terms for a movement." But that is not what he offers. Instead, he selects a particular group of "new-self styled Liberals" and presents them as being the only kind of Liberals found in the "Democratic Party of today." Which they are not.

He then jumps from his specific (liberals in the Democratic Party), to the general by stating that "Liberals of today are the complete opposite," of those who identify with the ideas found in his second definition of liberal that he had already set out as having wide use today. Instead of attempting to deal with his irony, he changes subject and moves on to defining "socialism."

Then in summarizing his position, he puts forth the the obscure terminology "classical liberal" to replace to replace the well established word "liberal" in total disregard for the widely understood definition of the latter, which he himself proves with his Google search. And then he uses this narrow illogical insight, to state that "today's Liberals are really Socialists. Never mind what his own google search says, and worse, never mind what a dictionary says.

Wow! Both of those definitions sound downright Conservative to me. But let's think about these interesting ideas in modern terms for a moment.

Regarding Definition Number One, the new-styled Liberals in the Democrat Party of today only want to "reform" things that give people more from the government and require less personal responsibility. Their idea of "progress" is a new government bureaucracy to tell people how to think and live.

As to Definition Number Two, the Liberals of today are the complete opposite of the free-market model. Their core agenda is to tax people and businesses to pay for their social programs. Along with all the nanny alphabet agencies like OSHA, EPA, EEOC, etc. -- not very much self-regulating there!

Now let's consider the definition of "Socialism." This is what you get if you go to Google and search "what is socialism?":

1. a theory or system of social organization by which the major means of production and distribution are owned, managed, and controlled by the government, by an association or workers, or the community as a whole; [Does this one sound like a Hillary Clinton speech, or what?]

2. an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the state.

We wonder why the Chinese are taking over the production of most consumer goods sold in the U.S.A. The answer is simple. They use convict labor and pay slave wages. Meanwhile, back in the states, the Democrats have pushed for all these government programs, regulations and taxes that restrict the ability of our own domestic companies to compete on the global market.

Classical Liberalism is about freedom, and government leaving people alone.

Socialism is about total control, and government being involved in everything.

We ought to give hungry people a fishing pole and teach them how to fish; instead, we give them hot fried fish in a convenient to-go box at a drive-thru window!

It's time to rename the party of Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore and all the rest. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck . . . then it must be a duck.

Today's Liberals are really Socialists. If the Democrats ever wish to reach the common man, they are going to have to be honest with their agenda.

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.