How do Democrats perceive socialism? Generally, at least as revealed by some at the DNC, Tiffany Gabbay from theBlaze found out that for many on the left, the perception of socialism isn't so bad.
There are two recent articles regarding socialism from two different perspectives. One of the articles is from Diana West at the Sentinel, called "Politics Today: A vote for Romney is a vote against socialism." Ms. West makes some great observations. She notes that in the beginning of the Obama campaign way back in 2008, "the media consistently failed to report that the statist beliefs of the Democratic presidential nominee came straight from the socialist playbook." She speculates that the media was not even aware of this themselves. West notes that back in the last election cycle, there was "a feeling that such labeling is taboo."
Even Obama's infamous comment made to Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth didn't stop people from voting for him, despite the fact that as James Pethokoukis at US News stated, "Was he somehow channeling that left-wing populist from the Depression?" Pethokoukis continued to explain that he had spoken with a University of Chicago professor who was close to Obama. He reported that "This professor said that Obama was as close to a full-out Marxist as anyone who has ever run for president of the United States." Of course, why would anyone pay attention to that?
During Obama's presidency, Americans have seen double the amount of her citizens on food stamps and double the amount of people on Social Security disability. One recent government report finds that many people receive "overlapping" benefits, i.e., unemployment coupled with disability. The overwhelming and unfathomable amount of debt, and the stimulus packages should clue people in that America is going in the direction of a socialist system under this president. The president's so-called "Jobs Bill" is actually another 450 billion dollar "stimulus" package, in addition to TARP, which ended up being 840 billion dollars, and by many accounts, has not really done much to strengthen the economy.
Is this what Americans want?
The other article reflects the standard rhetoric about the "evil" tea party. Titled, "The right wing uses fear tactics," by Phil DeFriez at the Standard, it claims that the right wing is attempting to "demonize" progressive ideology by comparing it with socialism. He laments, "One of their favorite pitches is that President Obama and the Democrats are pushing us into socialism. Not true."
He continues,
"The irony of this tactic is that so many of this party's leaders and their base are Christians. Many feel they are 'Born again' and will inherit God's Kingdom. Do they ever stop to think and realize that God's kingdom will not be a capitalistic society where making wealth and personal gain is the primary driving force?"
Speaking of irony, it is ironic that DeFriez is denying the progressive socialist impulses while bashing capitalism.
Back to theBlaze article by Benny Johnson about perceptions of Socialism at the Democratic National Convention. Tiffany Gabbay asked a simple question to many of the delegates. "What do you think about socialism?" The answers varied. One man said that it is the "American Way" and one lady says, "I wish we had it!" The video can be found here.
Another revealing video along a similar vein is of Peter Schiff, who posed as an "an anti-business crusader," and asked some DNC attendees how they would feel about banning profits. Well, many are totally cool with that, of course!
Watch here:
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 84
all those other names they like to call us are just cover, so the main one "bible thumpers" isn't standing alone and obvious. They must give the impression that a believer is a stupid, redneck with a gun, thus a very dangerous individual, hmm, kinda like a terrorist. Oh yeah, they said that.
...but now those patriotic OWS poopers, ah, no problem.
Oh by the way, if Obama was a Christian, he NEVER would have said that. N E V E R.
Y A W N .............
New investigation sheds light on clique of powerbrokers, including Prescott Bush, who sought to overthrow U.S. government and implement Hitlerian policies
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
A BBC Radio 4 investigation sheds new light on a major subject that has received little historical attention, the conspiracy on behalf of a group of influential powerbrokers, led by Prescott Bush, to overthrow FDR and implement a fascist dictatorship in the U.S. based around the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler.
In 1933, Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler was approached by a wealthy and secretive group of industrialists and bankers, including Prescott Bush the current President's grandfather, who asked him to command a 500,000 strong rogue army of veterans that would help stage a coup to topple then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
According to the BBC, the plotters intended to impose a fascist takeover and "Adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."
The conspirators were operating under the umbrella of a front group called the American Liberty League, which included many families that are still household names today, including Heinz, Colgate, Birds Eye and General Motors.
Butler played along with the clique to determine who was involved but later blew the whistle and identified the ringleaders in testimony given to the House Committee on un-American Activities.
However, the Committee refused to even question any of the individuals named by Butler and his testimony was omitted from the record, leading to charges that they were involved in covering the matter up, and the majority of the media blackballed the story.”
“General Smedley Butler, author of the famous quote "war is a racket", exposed the fascist plotters but was subsequently demonized and shunned by the government and the media.
In 1936, William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in which he stated,
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."
The proven record of Prescott Bush's involvement in financing the Nazi war machine dovetails with the fact that he was part of a criminal cabal that actively sought to impose a fascist coup in America.
Prescott did not succeed but many would argue that two generations down the line the mission has all but been accomplished.”
FDR's social security was akin to socialism and it has proven to be unsustainable. Let me tell you something, since I was 13 years old I have been paying into it and I won't see a penny.
I realized back during the last election campaign how little many Americans (mostly Democrats) understand about money and finances. Think about it, though. There are those on entitlements, those in unions (who allow their union leaders to rule over them) and they probably all owe far too much credit card debt, and there are those who feel they're part of the elite or next to it, having been to Ivy League schools and come out as lawyers or professors. You also have Hollywood types, and we know they know nothing about money. (Think about it....they have managers who often take them to the cleaners....and are forever getting into trouble with the IRS.) They know nothing about the economy or money and certainly nothing about how to start or manager a business. But, boy oh boy, do they envy and covet all the profit they think that businesses are making.
I remember once going through new employee orientation at a major retailer at Christmas time. One of the lessons we learned - trying to show the importance of each employee doing his/her part to make sure that shoplifting is minimized - that this retailer's profit was only 7%. The lessons showed a pie chart and showed how much of each dollar went to administrative costs, to building maintenance, to buying inventory, and how much was eaten up by shoplifting. People were amazed that in 1997, 10.5% of that retailer's products were stolen from them. Shoplifters stole more than there were profits. I can remember seeing person after person in our class shaking his/her head and trying to process the information. One young lady finally said, "Why would any business stay in business for so little profits? Yeah. Bingo. And yet some are only getting 3 and 4% today and still the Democrats will demonize them.
Another commenter, on another post, stated something to the effect that changing the morals of Americans has nothing to do with money.
Well, here is the proof that the morality of Americans COSTS A LOT OF MONEY EACH AND EVERY DAY, not only for the lost goods, but for the lost profits from the sale of those lost goods, and for the security to attempt to prevent further losses. When all things are considered, that 10.5% probably cost that business 25% of the gross sales.
Just think about how much money is lost nationwide every year because of DISHONESTY of all types. Just think of how much money would be available for the things we really want if people did not need to lock cars, lock houses, spend money on security, hire guards for protection, etc. Hell, we would not even need ID in an ideal world like that. IMMORALITY, of any kind, IS EXPENSIVE.
Then you sink your teeth in, and it's totally hollow. You're swallowing air, kidding yourself it's steak dinner. You're paying to get lied to, and if you don't lie and say you like it, you're a bad person.
Isn't THIS what R E A L L Y matters...
"The goal of socialism is communism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
You've said you are neither socialist nor communist, yet you love to play these games. Do you merely like to be disruptive? Do you simply like the debate? Or do you really just enjoy being a pain?
Your definition appears to be "anything Obama and the Democrats do is socialism."
That's the impression I had before.
What really matters to me is knowing what people mean when they write things. When that isn't clear to me I ask instead of guessing and flaming the writer on the basis of my guess.
You also have no definition for "socialism." I'll bet that you have no definition of "communism" either.
I do enjoy debate when both parties are learning. (See my comment exchanges with Vic, for example.)
If all you want from gather is agreement with your opinions the don't read my comments or posts. By now you must know that I don't share your opinions on lots of matters.
It seems as though, and this article is a great example of this, that everyone has their own "definition", and everyone arrogantly believes that they are the only ones that know the real answer. That is the insidious part - and just like communism... there are varying definitions based on who is speaking.
Your definition appears to be "anything Obama and the Democrats do is socialism."
It is more like, anything that is redistributive in nature - anti-freemarket.
et toi?
You do not agree, I see, with your snarky, "That's the impression I had before."
You actually make a good point - and nobody on the left (ie, the socialist endorsers) can give me a clear definition. I invite you, Jim, to GIVE IT A SHOT ;-)
Larry, school us.
Let's not play that game, People. Cut them off at the knee's.
The term "socialism" has had a standard definition well recognized and successfully used for well over 100 years. Social and political scientists have been using that meaning for all that time. My old desk top dictionary has it's definition
1. "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2. a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state."
As you can see these definitions have certain features in common which emphasize ownership and control.
This is the standard, ordinary, traditional, long term meaning of socialism. If you doubt that try any dictionary, wikipedia, or other internet dictionary.
Your definition and your comment at 7:34 pm "anything that is redistributive in nature - anti-freemarket." do not match the above definitions. I think you might be able to understand why I asked for your definition because your post doesn't make any sense at all using those dictionary definitions.
-------------
I really don't care what definition you use. It's none of my business. But if I am to understand what message you are attempting to send me I have to know what you mean by the words you use. I am happy to use whatever definition you like while exchanging comments with you. I am used to doing such things.
[I should also mention that I don't know what "snarky" means.]
With respect to your comment of 7:38, in which you wrote "Larry, school us." Please look in your dictionary. That's the definition of "socialism" and "communism" that I use.
Renee was kind enough to provide her definition of "socialism." You claim "We know precisely what it means." So perhaps you would be kind as well and set out in your own words "precisely what it means."
In socialism a factory is owned by the workers not by a capitalist plutocrat . In communism the factory is owned by the state and the gains made distributed by the state. Simple enough.
This country is nowhere near either.
Thanks, Jim - So another interesting thing - people who are not keen on the Free Market use terms like "capitalist plutocrat" - I am guessing that you believe socialism to be the better model? So you give the example of the factory that "workers" own. So - any bosses in the factory? And if someone has a concept for a new factory, how do they implement it (honest question), does he or she go to the people and pitch the idea and they all build it together? Any incentive for their concept? What if one worker sucks and another is productive? Or is that just the breaks?
One can only speculate as to the reasons for such reticence.
I have not read all of Das Capital (and don't intend to waste my time reading the rest of it) and I have read the Communist Manifesto. I have not found it to be at all specific. It's mostly just propaganda. Marx was on charity almost his whole life. (Engles gave him money quite often.) But even in its vagueness the meaning of "socialism" is clearly that the government owns and operates (controls the day to day operations of) the means of production (the capital goods). To say that any and every government involvement in the economy is socialism, is to use a completely different meaning for the term.
Yes, people do treat socialism like a buffet meal and pick and choose what they want to object to and what they want to keep. (I can't resist mentioning Romney's saying that he will keep parts of Obamacare. :-) ) So people do complain about welfare but defend their tax deduction for home interest when both could be considered socialist.
(I also would note that Capitalists say that the Free Market has never been done correctly.)
Do not believe in either. Merely giving the short definition I was taught since no one else was supplying one of any kind.
"Actually, they're merely enjoying to run those in circles over semantics. We know precisely what it means."
...exactly. They pick out a word we use, then beat it to death. They skirt around what they truly mean, and hide behind their own nice "sounding" labels and terms, pretending they are compassionate and caring. Their denials of what they support ring hollow.
And you never come up with a definition, unlike Renee. Perhaps you cannot defend your ideas unless they are vague? Renee, Jim, and I have provided definitions. Where's yours?
That which is antithetical to the Constitution, and the intent of Leftists, is "Socialism," for the sake of this "argument." Given your grasp of the most fundamental of concepts, I don't expect you to understand this one. There are, of course, many different types of "Systems." I'm not interested in the dogmatic definition of Socialism; I'm not interested in the dogmatic definition of Marxism; I'm not interested in the dogmatic definition of Communism; I'm not interested in the dogmatic definition of anything but that which the Leftist promotes in favour of their intent to abolish Liberty, Freedom and Personal Responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. I am not interested in semantics. I am not interested in tortured definitions of any dogma. I'm not interested in covering how much we've already perverted our System, our Freedoms, and our Personal Liberty. Therefore, don't bother, nor waste my time, with your twisting and torturing.
For this argument:
That which is antithetical to Free Market Capitalism is Socialism.
That which abhors Profit is Socialism.
That which is designed to "spread the Wealth" is Socialism.
That which places "the collective" over Personal Responsibility is Socialism.
That which does not recognise Private Property is Socialism.
That which replaces Charity with confiscation and redistribution is Socialism.
A Government that believes that the People serve the Government, and not that Government serves the People, is Socialism.
Those who vote for such a Government are Socialists.
A "system" designed to force Population concentration and abhors personal transportation is Socialism.
Those who believe that America owes them anything but Personal Freedom are Socialists.
He who longs for European-style failure is a Socialist.
I could go on...and on.
You may call these "systems" whatever you wish; Socialism; Communism; Marxism; Leftism. I couldn't care about dogmatic definitions any less than I do.
My point, therefore, is this:
We are well-aware of what Leftists desire; and, as Constitutional Conservatives, and True Americans, we will not stand for it.
Definitions are a means to make your meaning clear. They are not "dogmatic."
-----------
From your second paragraph it appears that you are interested only in propaganda. So I'll skip that.
------------
The nature of our money is antithetical to the Free Market. As evidence I cite the fact that there never has been a nation which had a free market economy. Free markets end when money develops. Hunting and gathering cultures have free markets because they have no money and no government.
Even leftist liberals like profit. They, too, invest.
The Republican Party claims its candidate for President will spread wealth throughout the nation and its economy with more jobs and less taxes for everyone.
The collective is responsible for nothing at all.
Government are not people. Governments have no mind. Governments cannot believe.
How many True Americans are there? Will you be executing all those who are not True Americans? Will you torture those who do not agree with your faith? Is dissent to be punished by death? (Or did I misinterpret your phrase "we will not stand for it."
"In other words," I've already stated my case above. Agreement must be with The Constitution...not me. Does that clarify things for you?
I've requested of Larry that he take his Leftist twisting and torturing of words elsewhere. You wouldn't want to be caught doing the same, would you?
As (Former) President Bill Clinton told us, President Obama wants to "rebuild America from the ground up" (which means clearing away what is there) and "fundamentally change us" into "a country of shared prosperity and shared responsibility -- a we're-all-in-this-together society," (in other words, a "collectivist" society).
Collectivism is Socialism by a different name.
Capitalism is based on risk/reward. Under a "we're-all-in-this-together society" in order to have shared prosperity we will have to share the risks as well.
So, how do we share those risks? SOMEONE will have to decide which risks are worth taking and (to minimize them) the logical path is that only low risk opportunities be taken.
That is the end of entrepreneurialism. No more "Apples" or "Facebooks." Why should the country invest millions of dollars on ventures that generally do not pan out. (It is estimated that fewer than 1 startup in 80 will succeed.)
No new pharmaceuticals, as these cost billions of dollars to undertake and very few are approved. Ditto for surgical procedures and medical devices. What we have will do the job, why risk money on something new?
The Unilaterally Stagnant America will be the result.
Socialism = Equal sharing of nothing.
A sad thing is so many people do not know how corporations work. In California there are groups that believe Electrical Utilities are in business to provide electricity to the public. Not even close -- they are in business to make money.
Ban profits? You would be banning things like your grandmother's pension. It would also be banning jobs.
With no return on investment, why would anyone start a business or invest in one? Where would companies get the money to grow and expand, provide new products and jobs?
These people clearly have never studied economics.
Nor does making all of this "State owned" help anyone.
An example is Lake Baikal in Siberia. In the 1960s, Lake Baikal was the world's oldest lake, at 25 million years (possibly older) and deepest, averaging 744.4 m. It was absolutely pure and was home to over 1200 unique species.
Then the Soviet government wanted to exploit the rich timber land that surrounded the lake and build a pulp mill on the lake. When some Soviet Environmentalists raised concerns, the government gave assurances they would protect the lake's ecosystems.
Remember, the government that wishes to exploit the lake is the same as the government giving assurances to protect it.
Yes, the pulp mill was built and many of the unique species died. Many of the assurances given were paper assurances only.
Since the fall of the USSR, measures have begun to be taken to restore the area, but it will never be as it was before.
Socialism lacks a counterbalance to serve against the wishes of those who produce. With a socialist system, there would be little to protect workers, consumers, etc. as the party protecting them and the one threatening them are the same.
and you raise a brilliant point, "With a socialist system, there would be little to protect workers, consumers, etc. as the party protecting them and the one threatening them are the same." Accountability is important and we have too precious little of it as it is!
Thanks, Yevgeni!
I am hoping that my adoptive home will not face the same path as my birthplace.
Market economies flourish because they work.
Market economies flourish because they REWARD those who take the RISKS.
In other words, they work.
Second-generation members often reject the very communal societies they were born into and seek out alternatives, which would lead us to believe that such behavior cannot be even taught or the need for market dynamics eliminated from a society.
Man may be hardwired for market economics, with only rare exceptions.