Don’t allow Socialists to define the terms

Socialism is a dirty word in America.  It is an epithet and it deserves to be.  The core of the philosophy – that you are owned by the State – is inherently immoral and completely contradictory to the principles on which the American system is based.  Additionally, the idea that our entire system should be reoriented to be most conducive to the needs of the least ambitious and least successful among us is intellectually bankrupt and destructive to the amazingly prosperous society that we and our predecessors have built.  While expecting different results from doing the same thing over and over again may not be the “definition of insanity” as the oft-repeated quote says, it is asinine to continue retrying socialism in hopes that this time it will work.

I have noticed a trend in America since the last election cycle.  It started on that morning when then-candidate Obama uncharacteristically dropped his guard and let his inner Marxist slip out in that famous exchange with Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher.  Obama made the mistake of admitting that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”  Hearing that sort of clear collectivist-speak immediately evokes images of a damp, gray, Orwellian society to me:  part Animal Farm, part 1984.  Whether Obama is Orwell’s Big Brother or just a member of the politburo of elite pigs is irrelevant because the eventual miserable outcome is the same.  What I have noticed since the Joe the Plumber moment, however, involves the oddly consistent reactions of many people to any accusations of socialistic programs and philosophy.  I was reminded of this by a ridiculous article at CBSNews.Com penned by self-labeled socialist Frank Llewellyn, who played the typical hard-left games with the language to run interference for his allies in collectivism.

From the CBSNews article, titled Socialism And The Politics Of Fear:

“Socialism” is now an active part of the Republican lexicon, among the litany of routine charges to be trotted out whenever they cannot come up with a substantive critique of policy initiatives they oppose.”

“Republicans and their media allies never really define what they mean by socialism. To some, it is an expansion in government spending (although many capitalist nations funnel more of their GDP through the public sector than the U.S. does). This past February, Fox TV host Glen Beck informed me on the air that Canada must be a socialist country because it had a universal health care system. That would be news to Canada’s socialist New Democratic Party, which has occasionally held power at the provincial level but has never won a federal election.”

That is shallow talking point nonsense intended only to obfuscate and distract from the real issue.  Let me provide my definition, though in conversation I typically prefer to use the umbrella term of collectivism because it covers all of the slavery-isms that statists like Llewellyn worship: Marxism, socialism, communism, Maoism, fascism, etc.  Socialism has become an epithet for a good reason: simply put, socialism is slavery.  It is not different from slavery in kind but only differs in degree: in both cases someone claims ownership of you and will decide how that resource will be utilized.  Contrary to the disingenuous claim quoted above that to “Republicans” socialism is just “an expansion in government spending”, there is an obvious distinction.  When people acting with the alleged authority of government take property from the people who own it and redistribute it to those who did not own it we rightly call that socialism, at least those of us who do not play manipulative games with the language.  It does not matter that it does not completely follow the pure socialist rhetoric of Obama’s mentors or the class warfare rants of some unhappy French guys in the 19th century.  I do not give a rodent’s posterior whether a statist agrees that it fits his definition of socialism.  People who approve of such soft-slavery do not even accept that socialism is immoral.  Why should we care about their strict definition of the word?  Shouldn’t we wisely assume that someone who follows that egregiously anti-freedom ideology would be willing to lie and cheat to obtain desired goals?  Why would a socialist ever admit that a system was socialist while it was still only 50 or 75 percent socialist, before it has hit its utopian critical mass?  Let’s not be naïve about our ideological opponents.

Whenever anyone claims that a government program or a particular ideological position is “socialism” there is an immediate chorus of condescension from people who are suddenly highly concerned with a strict definition of the word.  I have noticed that socialists of all degrees, from the hardcore Marxist down to the local Obama supporter who greedily wants something for nothing, have been increasingly running interference for the Left on the use of the S-word.  A good look at it shows that there are two basic groups of people who will reliably mock accusations of socialism, one side pathetic and the other sinister.

Clearly some people, particularly the myrmidons still sporting Yes We Can t-shirts, have convinced themselves that redistribution of wealth is not socialism, partly because of their class-warfare stoked greed and partly because they know implicitly that there is something anti-American about it.  They cannot accept that they are a part of the looter/moocher class so well defined by Rand in Atlas Shrugged.  These non-thinkers metaphorically put their fingers in their ears and chant la-la-la rather than accept that they are in fact societal parasites, ticks on the neck of productive America.  They have become comfortable with the idea of living off of others – as long they can be in outward denial of that fact – but remain mostly unwilling to call it socialism, perhaps showing a remaining microscopic sense of shame.  Incidentally, these people positively love the idea of socialist medicine in America.  Let’s call them the loser-socialists.

The other group mocking every claim of socialism has an agenda and should never be trusted for one moment.  This group, the benefactor-socialists, is larger than you might want to think because it includes all degrees of socialists, from admitted socialists like Llewellyn down to charlatan statists like Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama.  Though these people are a diverse group, from limousine liberals who all attended the same elite schools to their empty headed Hollywood allies to even the tenured college professor who could never make it in the private sector, they all share a lack of common sense and a tendency to deny any history that does not support their ideology. If you read the article linked above you may have noticed that the author’s main thrust is against Republicans and in defense of Democrats for the obvious reason that socialists and the Democrat party are on the same side of the collectivist ideological divide in America.  The Democrat party in America does not differ in ideological substance from hard-core socialists, they simply offer a more watered down version for palatability purposes.  In effect they know that they cannot put too much poison in the water or their victims might taste it too soon.  But just watch them when they get too much control and get drunk on their power, as is happening now, and see how far they attempt to take us all down the road toward their socialist utopia.

Three men who believed in socialism

Three men who believed in socialism

Socialists have to be able to own the word in terms of its definition so that they can dishonestly arbitrate claims of socialism made by their ideological opponents.  As stated above, the loser-socialist will reject the label while implicitly accepting the system that it describes because deep inside (if only unconsciously) they know that socialism simply isn’t right.  The benefactor-socialist however, a modern day slave master harnessing the productivity of the people less likely to support him in order to subsidize the loser-socialists who will, has far more sinister motives that are more about power and control than any sense of fairness or compassion.  Because of their need to obfuscate their real motives and the historically-proven results of their theoretical system they must strenuously reject that S-word whenever it is uttered.  Just like NAMBLA members strive to redefine pedophilia into a “May-December romance”, socialists will continually attempt to redefine their slavery into “fairness and compassion.”  Don’t buy it in either case.

This entry was posted in Collectivism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Don’t allow Socialists to define the terms

  1. Vision Tom says:

    Well written. Sadly both socialist groups will not give you a reasoned intellectual response. They will respond with emotion. That is why supression and name calling are high in their response play book. They are so intellectually bankrupt that those forms of responses are all that are available. We are now wittnessing the centralization of power in a “Federal” government that is insationable in its collectivist need to control America and its people. The Nanny State must save us from ourselves after all.

    Sadder still is that we were warned. Over 200 years ago Samuel Adams wrote: “The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods [central ownership of all the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic and in our government unconstitutuinal.”

    I doubt such words are taught in schools today or that such thinking is even considered in Washington, DC. “Utopian schemes” are the bread and butter of all bureaucrats. They are the “experts” and the rest of us don’t know what we are talking about. We will soon reach the Orwellian Big Brother state that none will be allowed to speak, publish or think independant ideas if we are not careful to protect those liberties. The American Founding Fathers thought those liberties, and a government answerable to the people of this country, were so important that they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for us. How dare us give it all away now! It may be time for the producers to start to withdraw from society and starve the government’s craving for more and more control.

  2. Rob says:

    Agreed, though I am not ready to go Galt just yet. I think that Alexander Tytler predicted it best:

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship…. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from great courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again to bondage.”

    Where do you think that we are in that progression? I think that we are in the “abundance to selfishness/selfishness to complacence” stage. Though, contrary to what an Obot would claim the selfishness is not that of the rich but of the losers who want to use government to seize the property of others to subsidize their lifestyles. Socialized medicine is perhaps the best example.

    Only slightly tongue in cheek: I think that we should have a public discussion about the wisdom of allowing societal parasites to vote. If you are a perennial net tax-consumer then it is clearly a conflict of interest for you – you will always vote for the person who will take others’ property to redistribute to you. I think that you should have to be footing part of the bill in order to get a say in where the money goes.

  3. Vision Tom says:

    A public discussion would be wonderful if public apathy were not so high. We have become a complacent people willing to let others lead us like lemmings. We are falling upon the rocks of; ever increasing bureaucratic control, welfare programs and taxation to pay for it all. Congress votes to put a cap on spending and then votes to break the cap due to some “emergency need.” Self justification after the fact is always easy. Self control is hard. Our county’s leaders clearly have little self control when it comes to spending other people’s money.

    You are correct to use the quote on democracy’s progression. It is a good one even if its actual origins are uncertain. The Founding Fathers understood this progression. The following three examples can be found in W. Cleon Skousen’s book The 5000 Year Leap.

    In the Federalist Papers, No. 9 Hamilton state that nations are always “in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy.”

    Washington also refers to the human struggle wherein “there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny.” (Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 26:489)

    Franklin noted that “there is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly government. He said it gives people the illusion that somehow a king will establish “equality among citizens; and that they like. Franklin’s great fear was that the states would succumb to this gravitational pull toward a strong central government symbolized by a royal establishment. He said: “I am apprehensive, therefore – perhaps too apprehensive – that the Government of these States may in future times end in a monarchy.”

    Prophetic words. The gravitational pull in our country is into a black hole not of royal but bureaucratic establishment. This is why the Founders did not give us a Democracy but a Republic, if we can keep it. I fear it is a hole from which there is no escape unless Americans wake up and realize that WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be in control. WE control the means of production. WE control rules of governance. WE have the right draw the line in the sand and tell our elected officials; this far and no further.

    But, having that right and the will to exercise it are two different things. Exercise takes work and we avoid work. We have become a distracted busy people and do not take the time to stop and think. It takes time to engage in public discourse. It takes time to read enough to understand what you meant by the phrase “to go Galt.” It takes time to think and write replies such as this. I deem it important enough to take the time. I’ve got a dozen other thing I could, and probably should, be doing. But, I know our liberty was born from the words of the men who took the time, over 200 years ago, to think, discuss and write the principles that established this country. I feel I owe than a piece of my time to preserve it.

  4. Rob says:

    You and I are on the same page.

    I feel that I owe it to the founders, to the Americans who have paid the ultimate price, even to my brother currently serving in the US Army, to do my part.

    I hate it when I hear patriots talking about bailing, going to Costa Rica or New Zealand. It always reminds me of this quote from noted rabblerouser Sam Adams:

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

    Keep your powder dry.

  5. Pingback: California Democrat loves Castro and Guevara « The War on Socialism

  6. Pingback: Does the government own you? « The War on Socialism

  7. johnrj08 says:

    All western democracies has some socialist policies. The United States has had them since the Revolutionary War. States left to their own devices would be unable to provide highways, bridges, school systems, aid in the wake of natural disasters, sufficient law enforcement, and protection of a banking system. Take away the federal government and some states would be grotesquely rich while others would be impoverished and anarchic. Some might even still have slavery and no women’s suffrage. Your grandparents would never be able to retire, but they probably wouldn’t live very long anyway without any kind of decent medical insurance or social security. And, speaking of the Revolutionary War, there wouldn’t have been one because there wouldn’t have been any treasury to finance an army, or treaties with foreign powers to negotiate assistance. Only the ignorant squeal about socialism because they don’t really know what it is, or how they depend on “socialist” programs for their survival every single day. Today, it is simply being used as one of many scare tactics by people who have an irrational hatred of this particular president.

  8. Rob Waterson says:


    I am not arguing against the federal govt, nor have I ever, I simply contend that the federal gov’t should bear a strong resemblance to what is spelled out on the US Constitution. You know, Federalism.

    With all due respect, it is you who is seriously confused about socialism/collectivism.

    Paying taxes for common infrastructure does not qualify. Transferring wealth from some people to other people does.


    1) building highways: not socialism.
    2) law enforcement: not socialism
    3) taking money from productive people to pay for the health care of the less productive: socialism.

    Can you see the difference? It is true “General Welfare”, meaning that it is something for all of us, versus the very specific welfare of people who are using the government to seize *someone else’s* property.

    Glad I could help clarify that for you.

  9. johnrj08 says:

    There is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government building an interstate highway system. There is also nothing in the Constitution about subsidizing state and local police, fire departments and school systems. Any operation that is instituted, owned and operated by the central government is a “socialist” program. Among many others, this includes Medicare, Medicaid, social security, the Veteran’s Administration, the CDC, NTSB, FDA, FTC, NASA, EPA, FBI, CIA, HUD, FEMA, FDIC, SEC, and, of course, the Supreme Court.

    Taxing the top 5% of this country who possess 50% of the country’s wealth is NOT socialism because the rich get a return on their investment. What you call “collectivism” lies at the core of American values, which entails having compassion for and caring about those who are in need. How about the inscription on the Statue of Liberty? Anything that a central government does is a transfer of wealth. The graduated income tax is a transfer of wealth.

    The self-absorption and greed of the 1980’s was replaced in 2000 by corporate malfeasance and fraud which was accompanied by obscene profits for the rich and stagnant wages for the poor. To say that the “general welfare” should be applied equally to a person earning 5-figures per month and those who are barely earning 5-figures per year simply lacks any morality or public conscience.

  10. Pingback: GALLUP: Americans think gov’t doing too much « from the foothills

  11. John Doe says:

    im commenting on the picture, Hitler was a fascist not a socialist the two political parties are different you dumb ass

  12. Rob Waterson says:

    Typical brilliance from the kind of commenter who is afraid to use his real name.

  13. Laz says:

    John Doe,
    FYI, the Nazi Party was in fact called the National SOCIALIST German Worker’s Party.

  14. Passingby says:

    Laz, and FYI, what it is called doesn’t always represent what it actually is. China called itself a “republic”, I hope you don’t agree with its own definition of “republic”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s