Why The Left Loves Socialism

Boss

Take a Memo:
Apr 21, 2012
21,884
2,773
280
Birmingham, AL
This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.

I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.

Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.

Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.

The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.

Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.

In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.
 
Considering Americans don't even have a socialist party I would say they don't love it all. A better question might be why are right wingers so paranoid and afraid of socialism?
 
Considering Americans don't even have a socialist party I would say they don't love it all. A better question might be why are right wingers so paranoid and afraid of socialism?

Uhm ...yeah there is....

Socialist Party USA Reception

Socialist Party USA - Home
and they got how much of the vote? did they even have a candidate on the ballot in a single state? Seems like if the left loved socialism they would atleast be the 3rd or 4th most popular party
 
This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.

I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.

Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.

Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.

The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.

Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.

In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.

It's mostly never having lived under real Socialism, maybe it's a form of ignorance
 
Considering Americans don't even have a socialist party I would say they don't love it all. A better question might be why are right wingers so paranoid and afraid of socialism?

Uhm ...yeah there is....

Socialist Party USA Reception

Socialist Party USA - Home
and they got how much of the vote? did they even have a candidate on the ballot in a single state? Seems like if the left loved socialism they would atleast be the 3rd or 4th most popular party

I was just pointing out you're clueless....and schooling you. Again
 
I believe Liberals like Socialism as opposed to our Republic because in a Socialist State, you have FREEDOM FROM RELIGION as opposed to The US which has Freedom of Religion.

Liberals tend to be Atheistic and Amoral, so Socialism would appeal to them for that reason.

This is also why they continually attack Religious Freedoms here in this country.
 
I was just pointing out you're clueless....and schooling you. Again
fucking troll

Pointing out you don't have a clue is now trolling? LOL Sour grapes, oh unknowledgable one
blow it out your ass

Now you are trolling. Careful....and get back on topic
I can't someone is trolling people in the thread

Did you or did you not make the claim there is no Socialist Party in the US? I simply pointed out there is, and provided proof and now you are doing what you accused me of doing. Trolling. Do you understand now why I laugh at you loons?
 
I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.
When did you serve? Because it is a socialist organization...The farmer analogy is a dictatorship...

No, it's NOT a socialist organization in any aspect. If you had to compare it with a governmental organization it would be totalitarian fascism. Nothing in the military is ever done for the collective, including the oath you take to serve. If the military were socialist you wouldn't have ranks, all ranks would be the same, everyone working for a common cause. Pay would be the same, duties would essentially be the same. And if it were socialist, all this would be happening to serve the common good of the group, but the military doesn't serve it's own interest, it serves the interest of the country, by it's very definition.

So you can CALL it that if you like, but it's no different than you calling it a ham sandwich... it only demonstrates what a moron you are.
 
fucking troll

Pointing out you don't have a clue is now trolling? LOL Sour grapes, oh unknowledgable one
blow it out your ass

Now you are trolling. Careful....and get back on topic
I can't someone is trolling people in the thread

Did you or did you not make the claim there is no Socialist Party in the US? I simply pointed out there is, and provided proof and now you are doing what you accused me of doing. Trolling. Do you understand now why I laugh at you loons?
so does that defeat my point in anyway.... or are you just being a troll as usual
 
I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.
When did you serve? Because it is a socialist organization...The farmer analogy is a dictatorship...

No, it's NOT a socialist organization in any aspect. If you had to compare it with a governmental organization it would be totalitarian fascism. Nothing in the military is ever done for the collective, including the oath you take to serve. If the military were socialist you wouldn't have ranks, all ranks would be the same, everyone working for a common cause. Pay would be the same, duties would essentially be the same. And if it were socialist, all this would be happening to serve the common good of the group, but the military doesn't serve it's own interest, it serves the interest of the country, by it's very definition.

So you can CALL it that if you like, but it's no different than you calling it a ham sandwich... it only demonstrates what a moron you are.
the USSR had ranks
 

Forum List

Back
Top