Socialism

[wjh2657]

We have started throwing that word Socialism around again, and once again carelessly, without understanding what a socialist really is.

First off. I define a party member, of either party, not as a voter claiming affiliation, but as active political individuals who are controlling through political power and money and achieving personal gain from the process.

Ruling the people for the purpose of acquiring wealth and power is the purpose of any political party.

Both parties in front of us today have socialist characteristics. The only difference being who gets the money.

The Democrats, are Democratic Socialists and not Marxists, want to take the money from the middle class and give it to the lower class.The Democrats are following an agenda that has failed in every country where it has been tried .

　

The Republicans , while claiming to be Laissez Faire, are actually dangerously close to being National Socialist, and they want take the money from the middle class and give it to the higher class.

　

I don't think I have to go to much into why the Democrats can be considered Democratic Socialists, but I probably need to tell why I think the Republicans are not who they say they are. True free market, Conservative, Constitutionalist Republicans would not have thrown out the competitive bid system for government contracts and replaced it with patronage of large corporations (Haliburton and others.) They also would not have used government regulations to allow the banks to run amok as they did. They did not stand by their principles (Democrats also contributed strongly in this error).

　

The answer, I believe. is not blindly following either group, but to seek individuals who do represent true Constitutional values. The problem is that , at the present, the two parties hold too much power to run independents in effective numbers. Anybody who believes that some self-serving ultra-wealthy member of either party is going to allow reform within the party is not being realistic.

The only way the middle class will survive is to find a way, politically and within the system, to dull the edge already held by both parties.

We also have to realize that the defense of all Citizen's rights, including right of speech and right of property, must be defended not just 2d Amendment rights. All rights apply or none apply as they come from the same authority. Gun owners need to focus on the big picture not just one part of it.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

In my opinion.. the "o" man is a MARXIST.

[Guest Straight Shooter]

The BIG picture, is of course important.

But, I focus more of my attention on 2nd Amendment matters, because if the 2nd goes, I gauran-damn-tee you a LOT more will too. Sometimes lately I truly believe its the only thing thats kept us going further into oblivion than we already are.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Socialism is marxism is communism, whatever you wish to call it.

The "Rockefeller Republicans" are the ones you could come closer to calling what you did, but that doesn't apply to the majority. RINO's are at least declining in number, thanks to the Tea Party and people like Ron Paul. I don't think you could get away with calling any Republican a NAZI(National Socialist) for very long. No comparison. The Republicans have far too many people that are comfortable with the way things are and they are the ones being challenged of late by Tea Party and libertarian candidates.

Democratics have a similar problem with socialism, if

that's the right word. they were infected with progressives somewhere around 1900 or maybe earlier.

Both parties, when they get rid of those types would make for a better political climate for all of us.

Also, if you wish to see a successful independent candidate, remember Ross Perot. He gave us Bill

Clinton. If you will look in some history books, just for the political parties, you will see that the two

party system has remained strong from the beginning and one party or the other has been changed from other movements. Free Soil, Whigs, Tories, Democrat-Republican parties eventually ended up

in the two we have now. Change has historically come from movements not unlike the Tea Party

movement. Or so says "Patriots Guide to US History" and other sources I've read lately.

Edited May 3, 2010 by 6.8 AR
add

[wjh2657]

Socialism is marxism is communism, whatever you wish to call it.....I don't think you could get away with calling any Republican a NAZI(National Socialist) for very long.......

Communism is a hard departure from true Socialism. Moot point, because neither one works.

National Socialism is a political philosophy , the NAZIs were just a German branch of it, and not a very correct example of it either. This system also hasn't worked.

As far as ouside pressure groups changing the existing political parties, I wouldn't hold my breath. "Those people" that you speak of in the political parties that need to change are the political parties.

There has to be better way than just joining one gang that is hurting us to avoid the other gang from hurting us.

[MCSCOTT]

There has to be better way than just joining one gang that is hurting us to avoid the other gang from hurting us.

This is the issue that I fear with upcoming elections. Everyone is going to be so quick to vote the Democrats out of office, that I worry if they'll really look at what each individual candidate stands for. Republican candidates know this as well, so I worry about their motives when election time comes. This is always the case with elections though, which is why I think we should just cut their pay rate down so much that the only ones that would want political jobs would be the ones that truely want to devote their time to helping the country.

[leroy]

Cant let this one pass:

...Both parties in front of us today have socialist characteristics. The only difference being who gets the money.

The Democrats, are Democratic Socialists and not Marxists, want to take the money from the middle class and give it to the lower class.The Democrats are following an agenda that has failed in every country where it has been tried .

　

The Republicans , while claiming to be Laissez Faire, are actually dangerously close to being National Socialist, and they want take the money from the middle class and give it to the higher class.

...

With all due respect. I believe that you cannot paint Republicans as "wanting to take money from the middle class and give to the higher class." This one is a stretch and is right out of the ole Demorat playbook. I will concede that all politicians to some degree will reach into everyone’s pockets. The fact is that these statements are naive at best. I would opine that you need to remember several things about politics and the creation of wealth.

First of all, politics:

· Politics is a "winner takes all" sport. There is no power sharing in politics at the national level. The majority party calls the shots. The demorats are calling the shots now. Their agenda is one of headlong charge into real socialism. The demorats are, in fact taking money from the about 1/2 the population and giving it to the other 1/2 who don’t work. I don’t like that and neither should anyone else. I say, let everyone pay his fair share.

· I do not see the Republicans backing Orwellian ideas like national healthcare, the fat tax, and lots of other idiotic, nanny state bunk. I do see the demorats actively pursuing that exact agenda.

Re: The creation of wealth.

· No matter what you prefer to believe about the rich; they are the guys who make jobs in this country. Not the government, not the poor, not anyone else. Only the folks with money create jobs. The demorats have used the mantra of soak the rich while soaking everyone else for as long as I can remember (...and that is a pretty long time...).

· The current demorat administration is the most anti capitalist bunch that have been in office in my lifetime (...and, most likely, everyone else’s' too...).

· Government spending using dollars confiscated thru taxes create temporary jobs; not permanent ones for the most part. You cannot tax yourselves into economic prosperity.

I do not believe in the "lets all get along" philosophy and back both parties idea. It simply won’t work in the atmosphere we find ourselves in at this juncture in history. No one is going to change the demorat party and bring it back to the old time fifties philosophy.

The republicans are in danger of being morphed into the demorat party if they don’t straighten up and go back to the concepts of limited government, lower taxes, and constitutional government.

I like the idea of a third party throwing all these bums out; but I doubt it can be done. Our only hope is that the republicans embrace what lots of the third party guys are saying.

Food for thought.

Leroy

[Guest Joey]

wjh2657: Your original post was pretty much spot on. I just want to add that a textbook definition of socialism is when the means of production are owned by the public or directly by a group of workers. Socialism and communism aren't all that different. Both are collectivist ideologies that ignore individual liberties.

I'm fed up with the two party system too. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Why vote for someone just because all they promise is to screw you over less than the other guy and they happen to be more likely to win than a third party candidate?

I really thought the Tea Party movement would have died down by now. I'm glad to see it hasn't. If there's any hope for this country it will happen Tea Party style - e.g. large groups of average Americans making their opinions known. Real change won't come from the ballot box.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Communism is a hard departure from true Socialism. Moot point, because neither one works.

National Socialism is a political philosophy , the NAZIs were just a German branch of it, and not a very correct example of it either. This system also hasn't worked.

As far as ouside pressure groups changing the existing political parties, I wouldn't hold my breath. "Those people" that you speak of in the political parties that need to change are the political parties.

There has to be better way than just joining one gang that is hurting us to avoid the other gang from hurting us.

It depends on what you mean by better way than just joining one gang. I'm not holding my breath. There are changes going on in our political parties, especially the Republican Party. If you think the Tea Partiers are a fad

you're mistaken. the kind of change going on doesn't

take place over night. It takes years and takes active

participation from a large group of people to force change

within. But it won't happen if enough don't believe in it.

What you say about socialism concerning Germany, maybe.

But I remember Hitler acting like a utopian way before he

took the guns, just like a socialist or communist. The NAZI's

got to their facism as fast as Russia changed to Communism

and were equally evil, but started with a smiley face as

opposed to Russia.

Both started to power with a crisis and both ruled with an iron

fist. The Soviet Union lasted longer only because of its stricter

control of its people. Hitler went nuts thinking he could take

over the world. We all know how that ended.

A lot of similarities can be found if you really look at the

Democrats compared to the NAZI's. Crisis, guns, green

movement, and as follows by both, control of life. You may

argue this, if you wish, but Goebbels and his misinformation

is very similar to tactics to what Moveon.org and several

other Democrat groups use. Saul Alinsky was also a communist,

I think.

I don't think Republicans can be compared very well to

this, with all of their flaws. The RINO's and Rockefeller's

need to be and some are being purged. The Tea Party movement

and libertarians are making serious change and you will continue

to see the change by their actions.

Their are progressive Republicans, too. They are mostly

the Rockefeller Republicans. They are big government

and are just as dangerous as socialists. They need to be fought

just like the Democrats.

I'll take the winner take all approach and will not support

based on one issue or vote for a Democrat just because he

sounds good today. Tomorrow he will act differently.

It's bad enough Republicans like Alexander vote for the

"wise latina" but he stood firm on health care.

Hold their feet to the fire and threaten them with their lives

about abiding with the Constitution. It works when

people join together and demand more from their elected officials.

I am not trying to argue with you, just the way I see it.

Edited May 3, 2010 by 6.8 AR
add

[Smith]

Socialism is a philosophy of societal relationships. Think Utopian philosophy, communal living, hippie movement etc. Communism is the resulting governmental form of socialism. Marxism is a philosophy that bridges the gap between socialistic philosophy and the resulting Communist government. A vehicle if you will between the two. National socialism, Nazi, Fascism, etc are all different governmental forms of socialism using varying degrees of control.

Republicans are farm from being Nationalist socialist. While I understand why it is emotionally easy to throw them all into the socialist pot, it just isn't reality. The base ideology between the two are diametrically opposed.

Socialism, capitalism, republican, democrat, etc are all symptoms of one of two philosophical/theological ideas that have existed since time began.

One believes that man is god and answers only to himself.Thus he is the arbitrator of right and wrong and can impose his will on the "unenlightened".

The other believes there is a superior truth outside of himself that dictates morality of life and that he is subject to it's governance. Thus making him and all men accountable to a set base morality in which he can not nor should not change, ie "rights".

Just a thought.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Smith
left out some details.

[Smith]

I should add that just like too many church members, most politicians don't have a clue what they really believe or why they believe what they say they believe. It is too easy to get caught up pin the process and forget the product. This is what the Tea party movement is about. It is NOT about politics but rather getting back to those ideologies which should shape their politics.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's a much better explanation, Smith:D

[Guest That Guy]

.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

You might as well eat your crap cookie and wait on the inevitable because all those that claim to have eyes and large nads waited WAY too damn late to do anything about the monster WE created. You may get a short lived smile on your face voting "Pro Choice or Pro Gun" but in the mean time they are picking your pocket, fencing you in and jerking your legs out from under you while all the time baking a HUGE cake of crap that we all get to share in. Hell, we did provide the ingredients. OPEN WIDE, SUCKERS!

[Smith]

You might as well eat your crap cookie and wait on the inevitable because all those that claim to have eyes and large nads waited WAY too damn late to do anything about the monster WE created. You may get a short lived smile on your face voting "Pro Choice or Pro Gun" but in the mean time they are picking your pocket, fencing you in and jerking your legs out from under you while all the time baking a HUGE cake of crap that we all get to share in. Hell, we did provide the ingredients. OPEN WIDE, SUCKERS!

That's a positive, hopeful outlook!

[leroy]

That's a much better explanation, Smith:D

Amen brother. I heartily agree.

Keep up the good work (...Both of ya... ).

Kind regards,

Leroy

[wjh2657]

Nobody read close enough to notice that I never said the Republicans are National Socalists, I said they were getting dangerously close to being NS.

I am not and never will be a Democrat but after more than 40 years as a Republican voter I no longer can stomach the real actions of the National Republican Party. I also have very little faith that those in the party that hold the power are going to change just because a few working class stiffs and merchants raise a ruckus. They are beyond caring about us.

I believe I am like a lot of Conservatives, I have no political party to trust or even believe.

[Guest mikedwood]

It seems to me that both sides in their own way are going for what I call Corporate Communism. I came up with the term years ago. A google of it makes it appear I'm not alone. It's pretty much where the deck is stacked against small companies and start ups and in favor or the large ones. Financial reform will make it more so that way.

It also seems to me that both parties are arguing about the divisive issues and yet agree on the bigger direction of America. Bush soft pitched the ability to fundamentally change America, Mccain would have done much of what Obama has done. The fine points might be different, but the end result very similar.

You don't hear any of the Republicans saying that these reforms don't need to be passed they aren't against any of the reform packages but want their own pork in it. The net result will be when they get power back I don't think anything will be repealed.

The politicians are going to the highest bidder and the two party system is like two abusive spouses, get beat up by one and the other tells you how important you are and wants you back and how much they have changed. Only to be worse this time than the last so go back to the other and repeat the cycle.

Neither the Republicans or Democrats are the parties I grew up with they have morphed into almost their worst case scenerios.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Basicly, when the dems swug left.. the repubics moved left with them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And it's our job through the grass roots to change them back to something we can tolerate.

[Guest Guitarsnguns]

Call it what you want...current trends in politics and social views will lead us all to ruin. Here is a little story I found that I think sums it up nicely.

THE ANT AND THE

GRASSHOPPER

This one is a little different...... Two Different Versions....

.............. Two Different Morals

OLD VERSION

The antworks hard in the withering heat all summer long, building

his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a

fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away..

Come winter, the ant is warm

and well fed.

The grasshopperhas no food or shelter, so he

dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY:Be

responsible for yourself!

MODERN

VERSION

The ant works hard

in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and

laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopperthinks the ant is a fool

and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshoppercalls a press

conference and demands to know why the antshould be

allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to

provide pictures of the shiveringgrasshoppernext to a

video of the antin his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopperis allowed

to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprahwith the grasshopperand everybody

cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'

ACORNstages a demonstration in front of the ant's house

where the news stations film the group singing, "We

shall overcome."ThenRev. Jeremiah

Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's

sake.

President Obamacondemns

theantand blames

President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the

Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry Kingthat the ant has gotten

rich off the back ofthe grasshopper, and both

call for an immediate tax hike on theantto make

him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity &

Anti-Grasshopper Actretroactive to the beginning of

the summer.

The antis fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugsand, having nothing left to

pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the GovernmentGreenCzarand given

to thegrasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopperand his free-loading

friends finishing up the last bits of the ant'sfood while the government house he is

in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house,

crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn?t

maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopperis found

dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over

by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous

and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE

STORY:Be careful how you vote in 2010.

I've

sent this to you because I believe that you are an ant -

not agrasshopper! Make sure that you pass

this on to other ants. Don't bother sending

it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn't

understand it, anyway

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ants carry a lot of dead grasshoppers around, but not for the grasshopper's

benefit. Good story:D

[mcurrier]

What's wrong with socialism? I'm social. I like to hang out with people with guns and Bibles. What could be more social than that? Ohhhhhhhhhhh...social-ism.

[leroy]

Whatta truth brother!!! A snapshot of us as we are today!

MORAL OF THE

STORY:Be careful how you vote in 2010.

I've

sent this to you because I believe that you are an ant -

not agrasshopper! Make sure that you pass

this on to other ants. Don't bother sending

it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn't

understand it, anyway

Keep up the good work!

Kind regards,

Leroy