Commie Central

I don't think this is correct.

Skimming through the list of names provided it looks like a list of members of the House Progressive Caucus or of representatives endorsed by DSA. Only four or five of the names jump out at me as DSA members or honorary co-chairs. It's possible the whole caucus decided to join DSA but fairly unlikely considering I think some are SP members, a somewhat rival organization.

I know DSA very well, including knowing almost every person who was a member of my local chapter before it died out. The idea that DSA promotes totalitarianism shows extreme laziness in investigating the history of the organization and lack of understanding of the near century of infighting in the American left. The "united front" died over a half century ago. Find another horse to beat.
 
Since socialism considers society the standard of value and measurement of the good, and requires confiscation of private property to function, its fundamental concepts do not preclude, and often result in, the total state. Socialism, regardless of degree, can accurately be considered a school of totalitarianism.
 
According to my 1942 Webster's (sorry, I don't have anything else handy), totalitarian: Of or pertaining to a highly centralized government under the control of a political group which allows no recognition of or representation to other political parties, as in Fascist Italy or in Germany under the Nazi regime. Democratic socialism has respect for political plurality at its heart and therefore cannot fit this definition. However, to be frank, I'm not thrilled with the Webster's 1942 definition and I think it shows a strong bias based on the dictionary being published during WWII. My definition of totalitarian would be a government that controls all aspects of the individual's life, including economic, political, and social. Democratic socialists are united in opposing at least the latter two criteria, and many oppose the first criterium(sp). Socialism doesn't neccessarily mean government control, it means not using the state to defend the control of a small minority over the majority.

Just saw the last post. What does a list of socialist organizations prove about the existance or non-existance of a united front? Many of the groups you listed would rather work with the republicrats than with eachother.
 
Socialism doesn't neccessarily mean government control, it means not using the state to defend the control of a small minority over the majority.
Click to expand...

Whatever the majority says is what is to be. Mob rule, no individual rights, and yes, government ends up taking over. BTW, this is a bad thing, not a good thing. The links prove that there are organizations alive and well is this Country with the socialist or even worse mind set. With their party members running for political office in every state in this nation, even for Prez, and this seems to be united to me.
 
The idea that socialists (of any stripe) oppose government control of the individual’s political and social lives is simply ridiculous. The Soviet Union springs to mind as an example, as do the "hate speech" regulations currently in place in Canada and Great Britain.

Perhaps the DSA says that they support the individual's political and social freedom, but I submit that their record speaks for itself.

Oh, and socialism absolutely means government control, specifically government control over the means of production and distribution. At least, according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.

Later,
Chris
 
The problem with socialism is not with the intentions of those who espouse socialist ideals, it is with the fact that socialist governments inevitably must descend into totalitarianism. F. A Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" describes this descent in detail, illustrating along the way precisely why totalitarianism must follow socialism; the book rings as true today as when Hayek wrote it about Great Britain in 1941.

Here's a couple of quotes Hayek saw fit to use as chapter introductions in "The Road to Serfdom":

"The socialist believes in two things which are absolutely different and perhaps even contradictory: freedom and organization. Elie Halevy

"The control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself." Hilaire Belloc
 
Sorry I took awile to get back to you all, I've been busy.

walangkatapat, there's nothing inherent in a socialist society that prevents it from being a constitutional republic. It's just different rights that are protected (right of everyone to own part of the company they work for instead of right of 5% of the population to control 80% of the wealth, and therefore power).

The links prove that there are organizations alive and well is this Country with the socialist or even worse mind set. With their party members running for political office in every state in this nation, even for Prez, and this seems to be united to me.

I think you're giving left groups way more credit for being united than they deserve. Many of your links point to CP chapters--they supported the republicrats for president. The socialist party did run a candidate for president (David McReynolds of War Resistors League), as it has many times over the past century (Eugene Debs got over 4 million votes for president in 1920 while he was in prison.) DSA's magazine declared that its membership was deeply divided and editorially endorsed three candidates (the republicrat, Nader, and McReynolds). The socialist-workers party (which I'm not sure you listed) ran yet another candidate. Obviously, the association of state green parties endorsed Nader.

Further, there wasn't a socialist party member running for congress in my state to my knowledge and I live in a "liberal" state so I highly doubt that there were DSA or progressive caucus members running in the other 49 states.

Christopher, many socialists worked actively against the Soviet Union, something that earned them deep hatred from the communist party. And many socialists oppose "hate speech" restrictions (many of the people involved in the ACLU, which is the main organization fighting for the free speech rights of offensive groups, are committed socialists).

Socialism means not having a small number of individuals control the means of production. Worker communes, independent of any government action, have long been a respected socialist path. I encourage you to read about libertarian socialism (anarchism) if you want to learn more about some very anti-government socialists. And here's a link to a discussion between Michael Albert, editor of Z Magazine, and two editors of New Politics on socialism today. http://www.zmag.org/socdebate.htm

Ipecac, one can also say that capitalism eventually descends into totalitarianism in an attempt to control the "masses" and keep them from rebelling. My saying it doesn't neccessarily make it true anymore than your or some author saying it neccessarily makes it true. By the way, I agree with the Belloc quote and it's why I'm a socialist--I don't believe in a tiny percentage of the population holding "the control of human life itself" over the rest of the world.
 
Socialism.

No thank you. I'd rather live off what I earn and not have my earnings forcibly redistributed.

Socialism does a great job of removing the incintive to excel and rewards mediocrity.
 
For my own opinion, I think that socialism is really just a big lie. Any society is really just a collection of individuals. When individual rights are protected, society is protected. The idea that society's "rights" can override an individual's rights is an oxymoron.

Socialism is just an attempt by an elite (usually self-appointed) to have their own interests identified as "society's" and therfore superceed individual rights.

As a question to Folkbabe, perhaps, can the concepts of socialism actually agree with an individual right to keep and bare arms? They seem much more compatible with the MMM worldview of guns.
 
Brady, I know socialists who believe in RKBA, mostly for the "defense against tyranny" reason. Most socialists I know do not support unrestricted RKBA, but then again neither do most people I know. Most people I know are far more intimantly familiar with loosing our young men in "street violence" than with violent resistance to tyranny with small arms working. I suspect (though I'm not sure) that less american socialists than general public supports RKBA because socialists are somewhat more likely to live in urban areas and people who live in urban areas are statistically less likely to support RKBA.
 
Socialest Lists

If anyone has a list of U. S. Senators who are members of the American Socialest Party, please post/publish it.
 
folkbabe go through the list here and tell me which ones are pro Second Amendment: BTW, Furse is no longer in Congress.

Bernard Sanders-VT,Chair, Cynthia A. McKinney-GA, Co-Chair, Peter DeFazio-OR, Co-Chair, Maurice Hinchey-NY,Co-Chair, Major Owens-NY.Co-Chair, Nydia M. Velazquez-NY, Lane Evans-IL, Maxine Waters-CA, Earl Hilliard-AL, Ed Pastor-AZ, Lynn C. Woolsey-CA, George Miller-CA, Nancy Pelosi-CA,
Fortney "Pete" Stark-CA, Henry A. Waxman-CA, Xavier Becerra-CA, Julian C. Dixon-CA, Esteban Edward Torres-CA, George E. Brown-CA, Bob Filner-CA, Diane DeGette-CO, Corrine Brown-FL, Carrie P. Meek-FL, Alcee L. Hastings-FL, John Lewis-GA, Neil Abercrombie-HI, Patsy Mink-HI, Luis Gutierrez-IL, Danny Davis-IL, Julia Carson-IN, John Olver-MA, Jim McGovern-MA, Barney Frank-MA, John Tierney-MA, David Bonior-MI, Lynn N. Rivers-MI, John Conyers-MI, Bennie G. Thompson-MS, Melvin L. Watt-NC, Donald Payne-NJ, Jerrold
Nadler-NY, Charles Rangel-NY, Jose E. Serrano-NY, John LaFalce-NY, Marcy Kaptur-OH, Dennis Kucinich-OH, Stephanie-Tubbs-Jones-OH, Sherrod Brown-OH, Elizabeth Furse-OR, Chaka Fattah-PA, William Coyne-PA, Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo-PR, Robert C Scott-VA, James A. McDermott-WA.
 
Socialism is the dream of lost romantics. The only way to achieve the goals of socialism is through raising the consciousness of mankind - which is generally acheived through religion - something which socialism has no room for.
 
folkbabe, these are quotes from you, do you see the contradiction?

Socialism doesn't neccessarily mean government control, it means not using the state to defend the control of a small minority over the majority.
Click to expand...

there's nothing inherent in a socialist society that prevents it from being a constitutional republic.
Click to expand...
 
It's just different rights that are protected (right of everyone to own part of the company they work for instead of right of 5% of the population to control 80% of the wealth, and therefore power).
Click to expand...

If all are equal where does the wealth come from to start a business to begin with?
 
MADISON, could you remind me of the general politics of the American Socialist Party? There's a lot of divisions within the left and I don't remember that one.

walangkatapat, I have no idea what is the position of most of the representatives. I suspect they aren't pro-RKBA. I said I know some socialists who support it, not some elected representatives who define as socialist. FWIW, I think the congressional progressive caucus's agenda (which was developed in coalition with other groups) doesn't mention gun control but the list of legislation sponsored by members does.
 
The minority has no right to control the majority, just keep from being oppressed by it. A constitutional republic doesn't mean a minority can, say, pass laws that the majority opposes, just that it can block things and be protected on certain levels.

If all are equal where does the wealth come from to start a business to begin with?

In advanced capitalist systems, it comes from loans from banks most of the time. Another option is through the pooled wealth of the future workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top