December 31, 2008
Recognizing Socialism Before Everyone Else Was
Remember, when you read stories over the next few months that begin like this Washington Times story does…
Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.…that Anchor Rising commenters were calling President Bush a socialist, long before it was cool to do so; here's Tom W from June of 2007…
George W has been a disaster for the Republican Party, and he's getting worse with each passing year.As we head into 2009, Anchor Rising hopes to continue to be the place where you can get next year's news now!He's also been a disaster for conservatives, for the unwashed masses think he is one, all the while he's been governing like an "evangelical socialist" (I wish I'd thought of that description, it is soooo apt).
The resolution is being spearheaded by Republican National Committee Vice-Chairman James Bopp, a name that may be familiar to Rhode Islanders as the lawyer who represented the Republican party in their 2002 campaign finance/First Amendment case in front of the Board of Elecitons, and who helped write the Carcieri administration's legal brief arguing that Rhode Island can grant same-sex divorces without recognizing same-sex marriage.
Don't you mean, "Recognizing Socialism Where it Doesn't Exist"? As a socialist, I say let the Republican Party call the Bush fiasco "socialism" and it will become much easier to introduce real socialist reforms.
Keep up the good work, Anchor Rising comrades.
OldTimeLefty
So what would you consider real socialist reforms?
Posted by: Andrew at January 1, 2009 9:22 AM>>So what would you consider real socialist reforms?
Comrade, just watch the actual agenda of the incoming Obama administration and Democrat Congress actual, (not necessarily how presented to the public / through the complicit media).
Things such as "single payer healthcare" (deliberate euphemism for socialized medicine). The same folks who brought us the unionization, high costs and poor quality of "public education" want to give us "public healthcare" which will inevitably also have the same characteristics.
Things such as imposing forced unionization on workers (such as the deliberately misnamed "employee free choice act").
Even more "progressivism" in the tax code coupled with increased redistribution of wealth via the welfare system, e.g., expanding the "earned income tax credit" (straight out of the Communist Manifesto's "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" a/k/a Obama's "spreading the wealth around").
Increased control over "free" enterprise via regulation (straight out of the Communist Manifesto's "controlling the means of production" just more surreptitiously by exercising control via regulation instead of by taking title).
Redistribution of wealth, limitation of individual choice, and a political patronage system to favored companies (contributors) under the guise of environmentalism ("green jobs" / "green industries").
Posted by: Tom W at January 1, 2009 1:02 PMAndrew,
Be realistic. Bush pushed through the big bail out bucks because it was the only way left to him to shovel money to his friends. That's the opposite of socialism. Who in hell do you think got the money, the workers, middle management, or the COO's?
Those dollars didn't go to unions or workers, they went to capitalists. Get your head out of the sand.
OldTimeLefty
You mean that when government gets directly involved with business, the money goes to those who are politically connected, instead of those who are producing value for the economy? Shocking, I say (NOT)!
You're positing that this is an argument in favor of socialism, how again exactly?
Andrew,
Don't be a moron. In the first place, it's the workers who produce the value for the economy - that is a socialist tenet. Just exactly who do you think got the money, capitalist management or the work force?
Read my first post and you'll find that I said "Recognizing Socialism Where it Doesn't Exist". Th bail out had no social component. The money all went upstairs.
Did you really miss the point, or are you intentionally being stupid?
OldTimeLefty
Why don't you take some time to ponder how big government intervention in business and big benefits going to the politically connected might not be mutually exclusive. If the concept is completely beyond you, then no one is going to care what your opinion of their intelligence is.
Andrew,
You're being stupid.
OldTimeLefty
And that's about as strong and as erudite as the arguments in favor of socialism get.
Andrew,
You called the bail out "Socialist". I didn't think so and asked you who got the bail out money?
You dodge the question and then expect a reasonable dialog. You have Midnight Cowboy syndrome, i.e. able to hear only the echos of your mind.
OldTimeLefty
No, I asked you early on very straightforwardly what you would consider real socialist reforms to be. You responded with an insult. I pointed out that the politically connected making out well doesn't disqualify a system from being socialist (since socialism concentrates power in the political class. Maybe I made a mistake in assuming that you were familiar enough with socialism to understand this 2nd part). But you don't like that point, so you responded with more insults.
Your ability to project your behavior onto others is either tragic or comic, depending on the perspective.