The Sentimental Nature of the Liberal Socialist

[maineman]

liberal and conservative are relative terms.

socialist, on the other hand, is not such a term. It has a specific meaning and if you would claim that all liberals are socialists, then I ask you to also proclaim that all people convicted of simple assault are murderers.

 

[Bern80]

I simply don't understand why board members like Shogun and MM and don't stand up with pride when articles like this are written and sat 'damn right that's me.' "I do want legislated equality." It's what you want isn't it?

This is all I could find that even comes close to me calling you a socialist.

Are you suggesting that the republican party has not fully supported some form of the redistribution of wealth since its very inception?

No. You still don't seem to understand my position on this. I am not a backer of republicans. This is not a dems are horrible and reps are great thing for me. this is a conservatives persepective on what our govt has become..

Does that mean that the republican party is nothing but a pack of socialists as well?

I would say they're getting there. Yes I realize republicans are spending money like it's going out of style as while, but spending money in of itself is not what makes either a socialistic. It's what they spend it on. And as general rule, due to the ideologies behind that are loosely aligned with each party (very loosely nowadays). The dems spend more on social programs and reps spend more on big business projects and the military.

"socialist concepts", as you so quaintly put it, have been a part of both party's legislative agenda since the dawn of income tax. Having socialist concepts in a party's agenda does not mean that the party in question is socialist. Socialism has a very clear and unambiguous definition: it is the government's control over ALL the means of production. period. If you don't advocate government's control over ALL the means of production, then you are not a socialist...and since I don't advocate any such thing, I take umbrage when folks misuse the words and apply it to ME.

my mistake, but when most pundits use they mean it (as I mean it) moveing farther to the left in economic structure. Whether accurate perhaps communist is a more appropriate term for what I mean. As Marxx meant it socialism is just a step toward communism. the end (communism) being each according to his/her need. And i think our government and yes mostly the left, can't tell the difference between those that truly are in need with those that don't have the desire to put forth the effort.


and if you are not a "republican" but only a "conservative", I humbly apologize for suggesting the former when only the latter was correct. I wonder why I have never seen you call out RSR for his routine equation of liberals and democrats?[/QUOTE]

You know I have my issues with RSRs posting style, but it has been my observation that you uses liberal rather then democrat pretty much across teh board.

And I wonder why, since you are perfectly content with calling me a socialist, you could have the balls to bitch about being called a republican.

I simply don't understand why board members like Shogun and MM and don't stand up with pride when articles like this are written and sat 'damn right that's me.' "I do want legislated equality." It's what you want isn't it?

This is all I could find that even comes close to me calling you a socialist. And technically it's me trying to get to admit what you are. Whatever that may be. I've just always found it odd that I ahve seen very few libs stand up with pride declaring themselves liberal.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=what+is+the+difference+between+communism+and+socialism

 

[maineman]

I am proud I am a liberal.

But I am a liberal who believes in capitalism and who believes in the opportunities presented by a capitalistic society and a free market economy.

I am nowhere NEAR a socialist.

I have never advocated the government ownership and control of all the means of production.

end of story.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think someone should be ashamed of their views, their just opinions. Be proud. its all good

I am proud I am a liberal.

But I am a liberal who believes in capitalism and who believes in the opportunities presented by a capitalistic society and a free market economy.

I am nowhere NEAR a socialist.

I have never advocated the government ownership and control of all the means of production.

end of story.

 

[jillian]

I dont think someone should be ashamed of their views, their just opinions. Be proud. its all good

You do understand that liberalism and socialism are not synonomous, right?

 

[Bern80]

I am proud I am a liberal.

But I am a liberal who believes in capitalism and who believes in the opportunities presented by a capitalistic society and a free market economy.

Fine, Based on that however I'm not sure many liberals would claim you as one of their own. Here's a thought maybe your actually a conservative. You just don't think so because you have teh wrong idea of what one is.

My observations of the claims of other liberals on this board as well legislation both passed and proppossed by the left side of the aisle in government suuggests to me that the left has entered into a mentality that people have right to a truly risk and worry free life and a victim mentality. That it is some cruel twist of fate that some have a lot while others have so little. Logic simply doesn't bear this out. To counter this cruel twist of gate liberals will attempt to legislate equality if they have to.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You do understand that liberalism and socialism are not synonomous, right?

Not so you can notice today....the neo-liberalism of today is a far cry from classical liberalism. Today there is not much difference between liberalism and socialism when you look at the methodology and desired results. I found this which explains it pretty well:

A Great Question: Liberalism vs. Socialism

Recently, Colin Urban asked me:

"...Also, you seem to group liberalism in with socialism. I can see how you may associate the two but they are far from the same thing."

Well Colin, as for socialism vs. liberalism, you are correct. They are different in the textbook definitions. Socialism advocates that all property is controlled collectively. The old aphorism is "From Those Who Are Able, To Those Who Need." Well, what is the practical result? That the state sets wages and prices, the economy is centrally planned, resources are rationed to the people, and any means of resistance are controlled by the government.

Liberalism espouses the use of government power to solve social problems. It stems from classical liberalism which believed that government power should only be used to relieve market externalities (ie. The Tragedy of the Commons). The classic example is a lighthouse, from which many benefit, but for which few have to pay. According to classical liberalism, the government would need to take over operation of the lighthouse in order to ensure that this important service continues to be provided. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats extended this idea of liberalism. They believed that government power could solve not only economic problems, but social problems as well. To understand how this ideological jump can be made, consider that poverty could be considered a failure of the market (by those who do not understand it...). And so arose what we now see as modern liberalism.

What was the practical result of the new liberalism? State intervention in industry, price controls, wage controls, welfare and social security (From those who are able, To those who need), etc... Essentially a massive growth of the state. As the state grew, and interfered with the economy and private life, problems were exacerbated not solved. This of course created the need for more government to solve those problems (aka. the Great Society), which created new problems, which called more government, etc...

Now, look at where we are today:

I think that major politicians, and a majority of their supporters, who call themselves "liberals" are in essence no different from socialists in what they are advocating. I mean, you have Senator Hillary Clinton saying she wants to "take the profits" of the major oil companies, and spend it on government energy programs. You have many of the major Democrat presidential candidates calling for universal health care (or "socialized" medicine). You have Democrat Congressmen like Joe Kennedy praising Leftist Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez, who is nationalizing every industry he can get his hands on... And the list can go on and on. My question is: If today's Democrats are not socialists, how would they act any different from how they already do?

You see, Colin correctly states that liberalism is not socialism. Instead, it is a flawed ideology that inevitably leads to socialism. Government cannot solve social problems, and it is debatable the degree to which government can solve economic problems. A Libertarian professor, whose name I unfortunately cannot remember, once put it to me best: Government is just not smart enough to solve social problems. It does not have enough information to make choices for millions of people. It does not understand what we need better than we do, and it cannot anticipate the thousands of little things we do everyday to keep our lives in balance and running smoothly. By interfering, Government upsets that balance and creates new problems.

Now, some liberals (perhaps like Colin) are well intentioned. They want to help people solve problems in their life, and see government power as a quick way to do so. As one of my liberal college friends told me once, "We have the power to stop these problems now... Why are you standing in the way?" The problem, as I have explained, is that government does not have the power to solve these problems, and very often makes them worse. But, these well-intentioned liberals allow their emotions to cloud the long-term ramifications of their actions.

However, an elite group of liberals within the leadership of the liberal movement (like Sen. Hillary Clinton) are not well intentioned, but in fact understand everything I have outlined here. They prey upon the good intentions of average people and use them to obtain greater and greater power. These elite liberals politicize every issue and advocate government power as a solution, with them in charge of course. They advocate social programs in order to create a dependent class of voters that will ensure their power into perpetuity (ie. Social Security). They use class envy to turn the poor and the middle class against those who employ them (and by extension feed them), generating public support for a government takeover of industry. They exacerbate racial and social tensions in order to stifle free speech and to obfuscate any argument against them. And, they infiltrate media and educational institutions to brainwash the ignorant, the apathetic, and children into believing their lies and accepting rule by a liberal elite. Any way in which these elite liberals can advance themselves and their power, often at the expense of the average citizen, they take. It is a brand of fascism and totalitarianism that should have died off long ago, but must unfortunately be continually guarded against.

Thank you Colin, for giving me the chance to really delve into this issue. Liberalism is not socialism... it is a more sinister ideology that leads us to socialism through the back door. Capitalists and those who love freedom must constantly guard against the idea that government is the solution, and avoid the seductive sirens call of power. We must continue to advance an agenda of political and economic liberty for all, progress through unbridled human innovation and private enterprise, and happiness through the freedom of the human spirit.

http://capitalistleague.blogspot.com/2007/05/great-question-liberalism-vs-socialism.html

 

[Bern80]

I stand corrected....err I think

 

[Diuretic]

Nah that article is a lot of old cobblers. It's totally confused its terms. It's confused the social theory of liberalism with the economic theory of socialism and it's just a load of propaganda on top of the confusion.

 

[Bern80]

Nah that article is a lot of old cobblers. It's totally confused its terms. It's confused the social theory of liberalism with the economic theory of socialism and it's just a load of propaganda on top of the confusion.

Aside from possibly the last two paragraphs, you don't think his analysis is accurate? He fully admits in the first paragraph that the dictionary definition of the words are different. Is his analysis of liberalism in paragraph 3 incorrect? If so, how? Are the things he says about what Hillary is advovating untrue? She has been quoted as saying all of that. Are those proposals not socialistic in nature? Does not every single one of them propose to use the government to fix something once a part of the free market?

Isn't Hillary, like any elected officail, simply trying to get votes? Logically the best way to do that is make people dependant on you because it's hard to bite the hand the feeds you, so to speak.

 

[maineman]

what you are saying, basically is...if "socialist" actually meant something different than "socialist" actually means...and instead it meant something synonymous with "liberal", then all liberals would be socialists.

I agree.


silly word games.

 

[maineman]

if "elephant" did not mean large pachyderm, but instead, meant "baseball", then the Boston Red Sox would be my favorite elephant team.

same thing.

 

[Vintij]

Of course you don't give a shit. It might bother you too much if you did.

Corporatist/elitist/racist republicans don't work for me either.

So you mean the quoted words of Jesus. I thot you meant you red words in my post that you highlighted. How about when Jesus said this:

"Away with you, Satan!" replied Jesus, "the scripture says, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only you shall serve'."

Why is it the Liberal Socialists want a secular society? Why do they put down Chrisitians? While at the same time they don't put down Muslims or Buddhists or Wiccans? Is that following Jesus?

Still waiting for that big list of non-fake Jesus followers of the Socialist Democratic party...

The question you asked was "why is it the liberal socialists want a secular society, and why do they put down christians?"

I have been waiting a long time to explain a few things to people like you.

secular government is in the constitution! WHen Jefferson drafted the original consitution, it had no reference to any diety, and certainly no reference to christianity. Infact if you do some homework, you might find that almost all of our founding fathers (franklin, Jefferson, hankcock, paine) Were all diests. They followed no religion but believed in a higher power. Even George washington hardley went to church.

Our founding fathers where "revolutionary raddicals" of the time. They made it very very clear that religion should be completely seperate from government. Why you ask? Well basically they feared that the government would become divided (like it is today) because of religion. They also feared that a religion might rise up and make legislative decisions not based on intellect or equality, but on mindless scripture.

"in god we trust" was not added to the dollar until the 1950s, "under god" was not added to the pledge until later. The ten commandments are not in the constitution. So I ask, why the hell is the government slowly drifting to christianity as its founding religion, when clearly christianity was not the influence of the consitution or the men involved with it? And why are christians upset that they dont get enough attention when, in the old days and up until the 1940s, no leader wanted to change the consitution to give more attention to any religion let alone chritianity. If you ask me, christians got it pretty good. They have swayed the past 5 presidential elections, and laws have literally been put in place to please them. Our founding fathers would be disgusted at how we have upheld the constitution.

Ofcourse our consitution gives freedom of religion to everyone, but it also says in plain english, that "no diety shall be given special treatment, nor shall it be used for any legislative purpose"


So stop, asking for a hand out christians. Do your homework, read the constitution, learn about our founding fathers and other great leaders. And enjoy what leverage you have in this government, because in reality it should be NONE at all. The consitution is the law of the land, and the law states that this government is SUPPOSE to be completely secular. Not kind of secular and kind of christian. In my opinion, non-secular traditionalists are further dividing this nation into two halfs for no good reason.

 

[Shogun]

HA!

Steamin Beagle seems to think that christian kids will get taken out, swat team style, if they are found PRAYING in public school!

and yet, he opens this thread about the EMOTIONS that conduct the cognitive function of the left...

*Irony Alert*



ps, dude...


Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand
13When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

15As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food."

16Jesus replied, "They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat."

17"We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish," they answered.

18"Bring them here to me," he said. 19And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

 

[Bern80]

what you are saying, basically is...if "socialist" actually meant something different than "socialist" actually means...and instead it meant something synonymous with "liberal", then all liberals would be socialists.

I agree.


silly word games.

No,

I see you are still unable to answer the straightforward questions I posed.

"From those who are able, to those who need." Is this not exactley what those that are calling themselves liberal are trying to do? It is those that claim to be liberals that have changed the defiinition of the word, not me.

Stop dodging. You claim to be proud to be a liberal. Hillary claims to be proud to be a liberal. You claim to be in favor of capitalism. yet Hillary has propossed many a program that clearly are not capitalistic. Your real issue shouldn't be with me or any right winger. I will not assume that you like or would vote for her, but she is considered and has proclaimed herself a liberal just as you have. You either need to reevaluate how you've labeled yourself or you need to get people like Hillary who is considered the spokesperson for liberalsim to wake up and see that her proposals are not liberalistic in nature at all, they are socialistic.

 

[maineman]

right.

look... socialism means government ownership and control of all the means of production. period. It doesn't mean government control of some of the means of production. (if you have a government owned and controlled fire department, is that socialism? no. If you have government regulation of interstate commerce is THAT socialism? no... and the list goes on and on and on and on) It doesn't mean government regulation of any of the means of production. It doesn't mean a progressive tax system. I do not aspire to see government own and control all the means of production. I am not a socialist.

 

[maineman]

No,

I see you are still unable to answer the straightforward questions I posed.

"From those who are able, to those who need." Is this not exactley what those that are calling themselves liberal are trying to do? It is those that claim to be liberals that have changed the defiinition of the word, not me.

Stop dodging. You claim to be proud to be a liberal. Hillary claims to be proud to be a liberal. You claim to be in favor of capitalism. yet Hillary has propossed many a program that clearly are not capitalistic. Your real issue shouldn't be with me or any right winger. I will not assume that you like or would vote for her, but she is considered and has proclaimed herself a liberal just as you have. You either need to reevaluate how you've labeled yourself or you need to get people like Hillary who is considered the spokesperson for liberalsim to wake up and see that her proposals are not liberalistic in nature at all, they are socialistic.

if you continue to willfully misuse the word, I guess we are done talking about it.... and you will forever be a racist, child molesting, fascist republican to me. deal?

 

[hjmick]

Whoa whoa whoa.

I haven't been here that long, but I have come to expect more from you, maineman, than calling someone a "child molester." That is a very nasty path to travel, and not something to be done lightly, if at all. Damn.

 

[maineman]

hyperbole.

meant to make a point.

He knows I do not think any of those things about him - hell...he knows I know that he isn't even a republican....

but he also knows that I am sick and tired of being labeled a socialist.