Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Fascist/Socialist/Communist descriptors...

breamfisherbreamfisher Senior MemberPosts: 13,561 Senior Member
I've heard the President and his party called fascists, communists, socialists, or my favorite, Nazi communist. All by the same people. When you correct them as to the imprecise use of verbiage, you get told you're being too pedantic or that it doesn't matter, as they want to enslave use anyway.

Or the use of "taxation without representation" to describe how Congress passes tax laws, nevermind the Congress is composed of elected officials who represent their districts. But they're not representing their districts, supposedly (nevermind the majority elects them to do what they do.)

What I find it odd is that some of the folks who do this are the most pedantic with regards to firearms (assault rifle, clip vs. magazine, M1-6 for AR-15, using pistol to describe a revolver, etc...) are incredibly sloppy when it comes to describing those with differing political ideas. I'm not talking just on this forum, but elsewhere. By the way these folks talk about politics, a clip is the same as a magazine since both feed bullets. And a Winchester 94 is the same as a M-60 as both have a stock, sights, and are shoulder-fired.

Weird...
Overkill is underrated.
«1

Replies

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,561 Senior Member
    I just find it odd that some folks who get so picky over some terms get so sloppy over other descriptors.

    Funny thing is, if someone who has an opposing view reads or hears the poorly worded view, they tend to disregard the person because they can't argue coherently. Get enough people arguing incoherently, and the argument can be disregarded.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 17,315 Senior Member
    Nazi communist.

    Really? Someone needs to hit the history books...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    I just find it odd that some folks who get so picky over some terms get so sloppy over other descriptors.

    Funny thing is, if someone who has an opposing view reads or hears the poorly worded view, they tend to disregard the person because they can't argue coherently. Get enough people arguing incoherently, and the argument can be disregarded.

    A guy once fell into an open manhole because he tended to ignore / dismiss anything I would tell him.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,806 Senior Member
    Here is a good article about the differences and similarities...page 2 is about Marxism.

    http://andersfloderus.com/nazi.html
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,561 Senior Member
    It should be noted that Soviet-styled "Communism" is not true communism as it was put forth by Marx. To Marx there would be no ruling class, no need for currency, and eventually no states in a political sense, as communism would eventually be the final steady state of all world affairs economically, politically, and socially. Also in communism there would be unlimited resources for people and ready access to all goods. Pie in the sky...

    Marxist-Leninism (and Maoism) have a ruling class, there is a currency whereby resources are limited, and it is very much a political ideology with a state.

    It should be noted that in Marx's view of communism, capitalism would lead to socialism, which would mature into communism (his interpretation.) Socialism is the intermediate state.

    Marxist-Leninism stressed a communist overthrow of the capitalist bourgeois which would blossom into socialism, i.e. communism is the intermediate state.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,865 Senior Member
    pedantic using pistol for revolver :confused: isn't complaining about that, being pedantic? :popcorn:

    Pendantic----Marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    The main difference between fascism and communism is that in the fascist system, a dictator is in control, and in communism, there is a ruling elite. Both have total control over industry and production and distribution. Fascism tends to control industry less than communism. Neither can work because of greed, gluttony, and the lust for more and more power.

    Socialism is more community controlled, as it does much the same thing, but at a smaller scale.
    "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Hippy communes come to mind.

    Nazism is "the ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy."
    The National Socialist Worker's Party were the Nazis. They combined the worst of the fascist and socialist systems, and threw in rabid racism into the mix.

    Capitalism is "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

    Capitalism bears a little similarity to the above systems, but since individuals, rather than government or regions, control the means of production, and not necessarily distribution, the power of the individual is too small to hold sway over the entire system. The only fault, if it can be said to be a fault, is the amassing of great wealth in a few individuals or families over time. The capitalist system does drive innovation as the ones who make things better, faster, cheaper, and more reliable rise to the top. There is incentive to make new things and try new ideas.

    That's my take on the different systems, with a little help from the dictionary, and history. Obama's 'spreading the wealth' he talked about in his campaign speeches would seem to me to be an attempt at national socialism. But for national socialism to work, all that are able would have to necessarily work to produce the wealth to be shared. The story of the "Little Red Hen" applies. Nobody wanted to help, but all wanted to share the bread.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    I just find it odd that some folks who get so picky over some terms get so sloppy over other descriptors.

    Funny thing is, if someone who has an opposing view reads or hears the poorly worded view, they tend to disregard the person because they can't argue coherently. Get enough people arguing incoherently, and the argument can be disregarded.

    It will be interesting to see which direction this thread takes as folks will tend to completely ignore the premise of your initial post and this follow up post that reiterates your specific proposition of how the misuse of language or even the proper use of language when argued incoherently causes one to disregard the argument, which allows the conversation to be cluttered with all kinds of junk that misdirects, because it would take to much time or at least a small book to correct the incoherent stuff, just to be able to get back to the initial premise.
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,559 Senior Member
    I've always had difficulty respecting the opinion of a person who refuses to use accurate terms. It's much different than conversing with a person who is simply ignorant; more often than not, if you correct them, they learn and begin to use the proper phraseology. But there are those who refuse to use the correct terms either to express disdain for an opposing view or to appear plainspoken, and when I see that I find it difficult if not impossible to focus on whatever point they were attempting to make.

    Edited to add: I don't mind being corrected myself; actually, I appreciate it. It lets me know the other participant in the conversation is listening. :tooth:
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    The Democrat party has become a 'melting pot' for big government radicals of every sort, and in the confusion, we see Marxists, Maoists, and many other types of, as yet, undefined socialists. Obama has been influenced by several different kinds of socialists, for his entire life, with plain old Chicago gangsterism thrown in for good measure. His brand of socialism is whatever it takes to gather the numbers to neutralize the traditional American conservative.

    Soviet communism, socialism, and National Socialism actually have quite a lot in common - enough so that the average person, who simply believes in individual freedoms and a pretty much inviolable Constitution, tends to lump them all together. The people who rant on Internet forums, myself included, are not lawyers and those we wish would pay more attention are not lawyers, either. So, sure, the terms get used interchangeably to make a very basic point, which is simply this: This is not the way this country is supposed to be governed, and it will not work, if we are to remain a country that believes in individual freedom.

    You will find all different 'flavors' of Republicans, from hard core small government conservatives to social liberals, so it should come as no great surprise to anyone that the Democrats favor different brands of socialism. The more educated Democrats seem to favor a ruling elite, where they will naturally be pretty high up in the 'pecking order,' while the more politically naive favor a strong, powerful leader who will pander to their simpler wants and needs. The days when there were still moderate conservatives among them are all but dead and gone. So, naturally, Obama panders to whichever of these target groups he is speaking to, sometimes adopting an arrogant, look-down-your-nose approach that is reminiscent of Mussolini's glory days. And, sometimes he projects himself as soft-spoken and thoughtful. This duplicity pretty much goes unnoticed among his base, because they just want to win, and anything conservative or Republic is anathema to them. I guess if he gets re-elected, we will discover which one he is.

    Back to the point, we have been taught that the far left of the political spectrum is Soviet Communism and that the National Socialists reside on the far right. That is mostly hogwash, and explains a lot about why conservatives get tagged as racists by the leftists - it simply benefits them to do so. Compare the two leaders, Stalin and Hitler, to get a fair representation of this, in the context of their times. Both were dictators, mass murderers, and megalomaniacs. The governments of their respective countries were both administered by cronies and enforced with fear tactics. The reason the National Socialists portrayed themselves as the opposite of Communists is because they were in competition with them for control of the government. The very things they used to demonize them were the very things they actually did, themselves, once they achieved absolute power.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Hey, what's wrong with Marx and Lennon?

    untitledbmpJL.jpg

    grouchomarx6.jpg
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,806 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    The Democrat party has become a 'melting pot' for big government radicals of every sort, and in the confusion, we see Marxists, Maoists, and many other types of, as yet, undefined socialists. Obama has been influenced by several different kinds of socialists, for his entire life, with plain old Chicago gangsterism thrown in for good measure. His brand of socialism is whatever it takes to gather the numbers to neutralize the traditional American conservative...........
    That pretty much sums up what I feel about today's Progresso-libs. That's why I may refer to them one day as Commies, and another day as Nazi's. Both groups are radical, hard-core left wingers, and as far as I am concerned there is not much difference between them. As you go on to say in the rest of your post, the Nazi's are the 'European Right'...not to be confused with the 'American Right'. There is a HUGE difference, but Progresso-libs don't want anyone to know that.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Interesting thread Breamfisher!!!! I am going to admit that I am one of the many persons who probably uses terms and descriptions in a haphazard way. I am not a Pendantic type of person, but I have my opinions just like everyone else.
    Funny thing is, if someone who has an opposing view reads or hears the poorly worded view, they tend to disregard the person because they can't argue coherently. Get enough people arguing incoherently, and the argument can be disregarded

    An exchange of ideas is a discussion, and an exchange of ignorance is an argument, or so I have been told. Its one thing to talk/discuss in person with spoken language, its an art form to write a good essay or article, discussion, using proper terms and language and organization, that converts a reader to the side of the author. I can only speak for myself, here and I know I don't posess a natural talent for writing. Never the less, its fun to post on a board like this and state how one feels about a subject or an issue. Our English language is no doubt the hardest languange on earth to learn and use properly.(with the exception of Arabic). We have multiple terms for a lot of the same items,for example: Coke,Pepsi,could be refered to as soda,pop, drink, and sarsaparilla. And to futher illustrate my point, a sarsaparilla, is actuall a plant, whose roots are used to make root beer. I know I bable and rant a lot here on ocassion, and have no doubt that lacking professional writing skills does make it burdensome for others to try to understand what I have written.

    Getting back to proper gun terms, I will admit that when I was young I too used the term clip/magazine, pistol/revolver interchangable,not knowing the true difference in each one. It wasn't until I started visiting this site,that I was truly corrected and realized the evil of my ways. Now I know. As far as calling or labeling our President: fascists, communists, socialists, or my favorite, Nazi communist. I do this because all of those labels, represent to me the utlimate desctruction of America and a life style I donot want. Yea, there are similarities and differences in these styles of leadership, but to me they have more similarities than differences.
    Or the use of "taxation without representation" to describe how Congress passes tax laws, nevermind the Congress is composed of elected officials who represent their districts. But they're not representing their districts, supposedly (nevermind the majority elects them to do what they do.)

    Guilty as charged^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:that: I don't ever remembering when an elected official,presented to their districts or to their constituents,a public announcment of a new tax law they are going to introduce into the house,and as far as I am concerned when a new tax is passed by congress without the voting public being aware of this, then as far as I am concerned its "TAXATION without REPRESENTATION," or a modified form of it anyway.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    The Democrat party has become a 'melting pot' for big government radicals of every sort, and in the confusion, we see Marxists, Maoists, and many other types of, as yet, undefined socialists. Obama has been influenced by several different kinds of socialists, for his entire life, with plain old Chicago gangsterism thrown in for good measure. His brand of socialism is whatever it takes to gather the numbers to neutralize the traditional American conservative.

    Soviet communism, socialism, and National Socialism actually have quite a lot in common - enough so that the average person, who simply believes in individual freedoms and a pretty much inviolable Constitution, tends to lump them all together. The people who rant on Internet forums, myself included, are not lawyers and those we wish would pay more attention are not lawyers, either. So, sure, the terms get used interchangeably to make a very basic point, which is simply this: This is not the way this country is supposed to be governed, and it will not work, if we are to remain a country that believes in individual freedom.

    You will find all different 'flavors' of Republicans, from hard core small government conservatives to social liberals, so it should come as no great surprise to anyone that the Democrats favor different brands of socialism. The more educated Democrats seem to favor a ruling elite, where they will naturally be pretty high up in the 'pecking order,' while the more politically naive favor a strong, powerful leader who will pander to their simpler wants and needs. The days when there were still moderate conservatives among them are all but dead and gone. So, naturally, Obama panders to whichever of these target groups he is speaking to, sometimes adopting an arrogant, look-down-your-nose approach that is reminiscent of Mussolini's glory days. And, sometimes he projects himself as soft-spoken and thoughtful. This duplicity pretty much goes unnoticed among his base, because they just want to win, and anything conservative or Republic is anathema to them. I guess if he gets re-elected, we will discover which one he is.

    Back to the point, we have been taught that the far left of the political spectrum is Soviet Communism and that the National Socialists reside on the far right. That is mostly hogwash, and explains a lot about why conservatives get tagged as racists by the leftists - it simply benefits them to do so. Compare the two leaders, Stalin and Hitler, to get a fair representation of this, in the context of their times. Both were dictators, mass murderers, and megalomaniacs. The governments of their respective countries were both administered by cronies and enforced with fear tactics. The reason the National Socialists portrayed themselves as the opposite of Communists is because they were in competition with them for control of the government. The very things they used to demonize them were the very things they actually did, themselves, once they achieved absolute power.

    :agree::that::agree::applause:
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    I like the direction we are taking on this thread, it is becoming a thread of information and good discussion.
  • Dr. dbDr. db Senior Member Posts: 1,541 Senior Member
    The political spectrum isnt a line. It's a circle. Extreme left and right both seem to want to run others lives. Kill a lot of people who disagree. Etc. However, the Nazis were National Socialists.
  • Dr. dbDr. db Senior Member Posts: 1,541 Senior Member
    Ooooo! If the circle thing is right then Libertarians are centrists.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Oh yeah, I need me a .45 LONG COLT that is CLIP fed.:jester:
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    In seriousness, I think there is a point where the extreme political poles do act in the same fashion, that is where the "Ends Justify The Means".

    It's a hard decision for me whether I hate Commies or Nazis the most. Their political viewpoints are diametrically opposed, but some of their tactics seem to meet when it's time to eliminate the opposition. I don't wanna be subjugated by either.

    I sometimes refer to people as "Health Nazis" the ones who want fast food joints to serve health food and want to pass laws so the dang government can dictate what we eat. They are most likely far from the right, but it sounds better than "Health Commie"
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I need me a .45 LONG COLT that is CLIP fed.:jester:
    :spittingcoffee::rotflmao::roll2: Me too Big Chief, me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:jester:
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    I sometimes refer to people as "Health Nazis" the ones who want fast food joints to serve health food and want to pass laws so the dang government can dictate what we eat. They are most likely far from the right, but it sounds better than "Health Commie"

    I follow ya Big Chief, and along with that label, of "Health Nazis", how about Safety Nazis, Tax Nazis, etc.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    I like the direction we are taking on this thread, it is becoming a thread of information and good discussion.

    Right on beartracker, a wonderful exchange of ideas and thoughts. AKA: dicussion.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    I think the political spectrum is linear. The far left of the line is total government control, and the far right is anarchy. Here's a representation of that that i made a few years ago in one of the forum's previous incarnations. Only difference between then and now is that the two political parties are less distanced, and further to the left on the line. Just my opinion.

    untitled.jpg
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    I think the political spectrum is linear. The far left of the line is total government control, and the far right is anarchy. Here's a representation of that that i made a few years ago in one of the forum's previous incarnations. Only difference between then and now is that the two political parties are less distanced, and further to the left on the line. Just my opinion.

    untitled.jpg

    The disparage is to great, I don't think your scale is representative. It suggest to much distance between any of us and the constitution, but I am sure it represents your view even though to me it seems extreme. Using the graph with out an explanation presented as evidence makes it difficult to really relate. With evidence that supports it we could appreciate your point of view better.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    The disparage is to great, I don't think your scale is representative. It suggest to much distance between any of us and the constitution, but I am sure it represents your view even though to me it seems extreme. Using the graph with out an explanation presented as evidence makes it difficult to really relate. With evidence that supports it we could appreciate your point of view better.

    What you ask would require volumes of text to cover. Take a 'for instance'. The Interstate Commerce Clause has been used to allow the government to put a stranglehold on trade, and to pass laws that are not supported by the Constitution. At the time the Constitution was written, many states charged tariffs, tolls, and other taxes for goods crossing their borders by road or river. They were crushing trade. The interstate commerce clause in the Constitution was meant to do away with this nonsense and make trade between the states smoother. If you have ever owned a pocket watch, and had to 'regulate' it to make it keep proper time, then you will understand the kind of regulation the framers were talking about when they wrote the clause. They only wished to make trade 'regular' between the states.

    A reading of the Federalist Papers and Antifederalist Papers, plus some history on trade moving between the states at that time is necessary to fully appreciate what the framers were trying to do. That the Interstate Commerce Commission has far exceeded it's mandate, and that the interstate commerce clause has been stretched far beyond it's original intent will become clear. The interstate commerce clause was used as a basis for the Federal government to regulate gun ownership near schools on the mere thin thread that firearms move in interstate commerce.

    The Democrats and Republicans are both infested with socialist ideals. Can't get around that fact. They promise things to constituents to get elected, then raid the treasury once they have passed social programs that have no mandate from the Constitution. The General Welfare clause has been stretched past any semblance of it's original meaning to be used for anything and everything to appease the masses.

    Then there's the Code of Federal Regulations:
    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/about.html
    A full set of the CFR consists of approximately 200 volumes.
    The CFR is divided into 50 titles representing broad areas subject to Federal regulation.

    Each Title is divided into chapters that are assigned to agencies issuing regulations pertaining to that broad subject area. Each chapter is divided into parts and each part is then divided into sections -- the basic unit of the CFR.

    The purpose of the CFR is to present the official and complete text of agency regulations in one organized publication and to provide a comprehensive and convenient reference for all those who may need to know the text of general and permanent Federal regulations.


    And then there are all the laws Congress passes which spin off from these regulations. And speaking of Congress, they have unconstitutionally abdicated their duty by allowing federal agencies to pass rules that become law. EPA, NRC, FDA, Dept, of Education(that has taught not one student, but rules state educational institutions with a carrot of money, and an iron fist)and all the other alphabet soup bureaus, administrations, and commissions that pass rules that become law without Congressional approval.

    Both Democrats and Republicans have moved further left towards total control of everything in our daily lives. The Health Care bill just passed courtesy of another stretching of the Interstate Commerce Clause is one example.

    And don't think I'm letting states off the hook. Laws that forbid that toy in your kid's Happy Meal, high taxes on businesses, labyrinthine regulations and laws and reams of documents that must be adhered to and filed just to open a business; some states take about three or more years to clear all the hurdles. Cities banning certain foods, or foods that contain something the 'fat police' don't like, and pass laws banning foods containing it.

    Laws that required MTBE added to gasoline as a fuel oxygenation additive, and found to contaminate groundwater with the resulting health problems. And the EPA fining the fuel industry for not blending in an additive that is not even available outside the laboratory.

    Both parties are all about total control, they just approach it in different ways.

    And on, and on, and on, and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Both parties are all about total control, they just approach it in different ways.

    And on, and on, and on, and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

    Thank you Mike, I see the reason for the graph and some of what you stated above I am familiar with so in light of an excellent short abstract of facts supporting the graphed issues, I not only understand your graph much better, but will also have to agree on it's intended accuracy is just about right. Thank you, much appreciated.
  • casinoroyalecasinoroyale Member Posts: 68 Member
    That pretty much sums up what I feel about today's Progresso-libs. That's why I may refer to them one day as Commies, and another day as Nazi's. Both groups are radical, hard-core left wingers, and as far as I am concerned there is not much difference between them. As you go on to say in the rest of your post, the Nazi's are the 'European Right'...not to be confused with the 'American Right'. There is a HUGE difference, but Progresso-libs don't want anyone to know that.

    Thats the problem with the right/left political descriptors. The idea of a right and a left dates back to the French Revolution. The Nazis could be seen as leftwing if you define the right as liberty and the left as oppression, but the Nazis are also vastly different from communists. For one, communists never had any idea of racial supremacy, living space, etc - the motivation for communism was vastly different than the motivation of fascism. Of course in practice communism tended to end up as similar to fascism.

    However, American liberals are far from that. Besides a few hippy college students, and Dennis Kucinich types, none of them advocate anything close to communism or even socialism. Socialism is a system where the means of production are predominantly controlled by the state. The European nations that are so often called socialist - think Sweden, Germany, etc - aren't even actually socialist, they are only semi-socialist. They may have parties that call themselves socialist, but that is because those parties have roots in the early 1900s, back when they really were socialist. Nowadays they advocate social market economy, a halfway between socialism and capitalism. A truly socialist economy would be something like Cuba, where the government does control pretty much all the means of production and sometimes try to use them for the betterment of the people. However, Cuba shows the flaw of socialism: stagnation. It simply doesn't innovate or advance.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Thats the problem with the right/left political descriptors....<snip>

    ....<snip> A truly socialist economy would be something like Cuba, where the government does control pretty much all the means of production and sometimes try to use them for the betterment of the people. However, Cuba shows the flaw of socialism: stagnation. It simply doesn't innovate or advance.

    Describing American ideologies is tricky. Like politicians everywhere, the promoters of an ideology take what they like from a wide variety of sources and try to use the parts that 'worked,' discard the parts that didn't work, and 'invent' something that can be labeled as more or less original. When applied to politics, it allows them to show evidence of how their ideology is not like the ones it draws from, and feign outrage that anyone would even suggest that is. At the same time, they demonize their opponents with the comparisons that can be made to those governments that corrupted their ideology and used it to oppress the people. Both ends of the political spectrum do this, and probably always have, and always will. But, there are many degrees of truthfulness in describing the goals that each faction wants to accomplish, and therein lies the problem.

    American styled conservatism has its roots in England, where its proponents favored the English monarchy. But, once Americanized, applied it to our own form of government in very simple terms. Basically, its intent is assure that all new ideas must be shown to work in an incremental fashion, rather than with radical changes that always cause unintended consequences. It's just that simple, and requires no great amount of faith in any one individual to implement.

    On the other hand, liberalism, as it has evolved in America, takes the utopian approach to everything, demanding radical change to most of the traditional ideas that have been proven to work (to some degree), in favor of a theoretical idea of how things should work, even when there is no evidence that it ever has. Liberals always claim that its failures are due to a lack of commitment, and that given enough resources, it will create prosperity and equality for all. The problem, of course, is that they eventually run out of other people's money to spend, and have to switch horses in mid-stream, with another brand new unproven idea.

    So, as it pertains to this thread topic, yes, opponents of liberalism/socialism or whatever you want to call it, do struggle to come up with accurate descriptors. Calling them Utopians would probably be most accurate, if anybody knew what that entailed, these days. But most of us find the study of that philosophy (or any other complicated philosophy) to be pretty dry stuff. Even if we do gain an understanding of it, trying to describe it to others in this world of the 5 second sound bites will put them to sleep, if you do somehow manage to make them stay put for long enough to listen. I'll wager that there aren't even ten people who managed to read this very general post. :zzzz:
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Describing American ideologies is

    So, as it pertains to this thread topic, yes, opponents of liberalism/socialism or whatever you want to call it, do struggle to come up with accurate descriptors. Calling them Utopians would probably be most accurate, if anybody knew what that entailed, these days. But most of us find the study of that philosophy (or any other complicated philosophy) to be pretty dry stuff. Even if we do gain an understanding of it, trying to describe it to others in this world of the 5 second sound bites will put them to sleep, if you do somehow manage to make them stay put for long enough to listen. I'll wager that there aren't even ten people who managed to read this very general post. :zzzz:

    Well I am one of the ten who read it and when you add the philosophy of pragmatism to the mix, it gets even more complicated and so hard as you said to get people to even pay attention - because it takes a lot longer to explain and demonstrate the truth than to mislead or be lazy by satisfying the masses with a sound bit or a talking point.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,806 Senior Member
    A truly socialist economy would be something like Cuba, where the government does control pretty much all the means of production and sometimes try to use them for the betterment of the people. However, Cuba shows the flaw of socialism: stagnation. It simply doesn't innovate or advance.....Of course in practice communism tended to end up as similar to fascism.....
    Pretty much describes American progresso-libs. They don't say it, but they want to control our economy through government regulation.

    Sure, there are differences between Nazi's and Communists, but who cares, they are both evil forms of government and have many similarities as well.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement