Liberalism or Socialism The Democrat Party
69What ever happen to liberalism!
Recently on hubpages, I was having an enjoyable conversation with a very popular and exceptionally accomplished hubber. During and exchange this gentleman questioned my understanding of the term Socialism. At the time I chuckled to myself and responded in what I considered a witty and polite manner. I mean after all, what self respecting, liberal arts educated sociologist, wouldn't understand the term Socialism.
Of course it's been twenty years; okay, twenty five. I had to check, you know, just to make sure things hadn't changed since my intellectual glory days. This other gentleman suggested I find a good high school economics textbook and look up Socialism. But these days my passion for social theory has been replaced by a lazy enjoyment of "Two and a half Men" and "Big Band Theroy", so I Googled it. I found a wonderful website and I want to make sure I give WIKIPEDIA, free encyclopedia lots of credit since most of my information is coming form that site. I visited lots of expert websites, but all of them said basically the same thing just not as well as WIKIPEDIA.
Turns out, I was using, Socialism, exactly as I intended. Just to bring everyone up to speed, I was suggesting that Senator Obama is in effect a socialist. Not a bad guy, you understand, but a socialist. And of course the opposing argument was that I'm stupid, and Senator Obama is a Liberal. I assure you; this gentleman I was...talking with, is much smarter, politically, fiscally and socially than I am. So, since he pointed out the economic difference between Socialism and liberalism and my total lack of understanding, I decided to try and understand. What I think, I know, now, is very interesting.
After studying again briefly both Liberalism and Socialism I say with extreme confidence that today's Democrat Party is a Socialist Economic movement devoid of any, but remote vestiges of economical classical liberal theory. In fact the actual liberal focus of the progressive left is in the form of social and political individualism, which basically means that the rights and desires of the individual are paramount to that of societies.
I'll admit, liberalism has evolved over the years as governments and interpretations of theory have changed. Today's liberals advocate regulation of private business and government control of a social welfare state. Both concepts contradict classical economic liberalism and smell a lot like every day, historical socialism. Look-it-up, Socialism/Liberalism.
CommentsLoading...
Norman Thomas was the last significant socialist politician in the United States. He died in 1968 after running for president six times about as successfully as Ralph Nader.
Mr. Deeds, good morning, like most of the left, you believe your opinion is always completely correct and everyone else (that disagrees with you) is a clown. Name calling is a very sad form of debate and I would be disappointed if not for the usual leftist meanness and arrogance. Again, just because you want it to be so, doesn’t make it so: “Economic Liberalism, also called classical liberalism or Manchester liberalism, is an ideology which supports individual rights of property and freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible.’
‘Economic liberals want little or no government regulation of the market”
This is the definition of economic liberalism, the one you told me to look up, and this is not the fiscal ideology of the democrat party. It’s not what you wanted, so you call me names and change the discussion. Please prove to me that the GOP has historically not supported human right or social rights. That’s the second incorrect claim you made while talking to me.
Both Parties do agree in “some” limited involvement in finance, social welfare and food and drug safety, but the GOP certainly doesn’t serve this country with the ideology and political thought ,the goal being socio-economic control of systems and property by the government
Government telling us what to put in our bodies, government control of health regulations on fat content for goodness sake. Government control on what the thermostat is set on in our homes, how much profit our business is allowed to make. Where and how I can pray, or worship, what I teach my child, or what others are allowed to teach my child against my wishes. I say enough, and your hate and temper can’t be allowed to bully and scare.
Again I say, if Socialism offends, how about communism? I’m comfortable with both.
We are getting nowhere. You are the one doing the name calling, i.e., calling Obama a socialist. That's your privilege. But it's an incorrect use of the term. Actual socialists consider him conservative.
BTW, I called Rush Limbaugh a clown, not you. If you are a Limbaugh fan I guess that makes you a clown by proxy.
Again, may I suggest you would be more credible if you talked about the issues rather than sweeping generalities--for example, the Iraq war, the huge national debt, the recession, the incompetence of the Bush administration, McCain's pathetic ignorance on the economy and the Middle East which he demonstrated last week when he showed he didn't know the difference between Al Qaeda, Shia and Sunni.
Some day you will look back... Ralph.. and probably wish George Bush were back in office. More government control leads to a socialist state .. leads to a communist regime..... step by innocuous step.
Our freedom was bought with a very high price. When will you value it? When it is gone?
Mr. Deeds, I did not realize Socialist was a bad word on the political left or I would not have called Senator Obama a socialist. What I should have said was his political, social, and fiscal views are socialist. I stand corrected. The use of generalizations is an attempt to be kind to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. We certainly don’t want to discuss Senator Obama’s complete lack of any real experience at all. That includes the entire presidential job description. We certainly don’t want to discuss Senator Obama ludicrous claim of bringing the country together, he’s never step across the aisle to contribute to any important legislation. He’ll bring those folks together that already believe what he believes. He believes what he does because of the black experience, and as he so eloquent told me, that’s something I can never understand. You hate G. W. Bush, I get that, and you are not a fan of John McCain, I’m really not either. I respect his service to this country and the tremendous sacrifice he made to his fellow soldiers. I think he’s a good man, as I do Barrack Obama. I just really believe, Senator Obama needs to do something, anything before he is president. Maybe explain to us all, what this “Change” is going to be like.
Silverstar, you gotta' be kidding. Many people think Bush is the worst president in our history. He's certainly the worst since Calvin Coolidge. He lied to get us into an unnecessary, foolish and costly war. Instead of calling for sacrifice, he cut taxes for the very richest Americans and spent money like there's not tomorrow, ballooning the national debt. He gave a windfall tax break to the big oil companies although they were already making record profits. In order to suck up to the religious base of the GOP he based many of his policies on religion rather than science, denying global warming until very recently. He alienated nearly of our most important allies.
Mr. Blangrehr, you still don't get it. Obama is a not remotely a socialist. He's a slightly to the left of center Democrat as is Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and his predecessors. You are displaying your ignorance when you misuse the term. Both Clinton and Obama are supporters of our democratic, free enterprise system. The only difference between them and run of the mill Republicans is that they support more government regulation. Only polemical commentators like Rush Limbaugh call them socialists.
Mr. Deeds, you’re starting to repeat yourself, slightly left of center? President Clinton, I’ll buy; I like him and voted for him, the second term. The other two, that’s like saying The Daily Kos, is slightly left of center. Senator McCain is slightly left of center. Come-on Sir, you didn’t believe that when you typed it. But don’t you think President Clinton would be a blast to hang-out with, you know, play golf, hit Vegas. Mr. Deeds I really do appreciate your time and opinion. Thank you Sir, for taking part in this hub, I hope to at some point, be able to respectfully respond to your writing,
YOU KNOW WHAT I ALWAYS REMEMBER SINCE i WAS A YOUNGSTER? the statement the communist made saying "they would take us from within" and it sure sounds like they are getting closer all the time. G-Ma :o) hugs
G-Ma, there may be communists under your bed. Watch out or they may "take you from within!"
Silverstar8 - Are you suggesting that the Bush-Cheney hegemony is not usurping the powers of the govenment? Cheney for one has rewritten the rules to be both an elected official and not an elected official, all at the same time! He has done this to avoid being brought up on charges of doing the very things that, in my opinion, make him crave more power. He has done things which make Clinton's escapades look like a Kindergarten prank.
I always marvel at how much the Republican Party has changed over the past 30 years, yet the same, old, tired talking points of "small government" and "avoiding foreign entanglements" are still being touted as Republican values, yet have somehow been dropped from the agenda.
In my view as an Independent, the Republican Party is no better than the Democratic Party.
Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said that the American people would never vote for socialism but he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
there...a direct quote from a "socialist"....as to the "link".......label it what you want its the outcomes and actions that are the "connection"
Socialism is just a pit-stop on the road to Communism. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America. Our President now owns a world bank and he’s only been there a month…here we go!
Ralph perhaps you will change your tune now that
1. Obama's government has taken over major auto companies and looking to expand ownership.
B. Obamanation is setting salaries and pay structures for private industries.
3. Obama is trying desparately to pass state-run health care.
This tends to match your quoted definition: "The term socialism is used to refer to an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution."
You are wrong about nobody advocating that, by the way, although liberals have tried to hide their true intentions, and even their true identity, i.e. Obama, some have slipped up in recent terms and have been caught on tape advocating socialism by name.
Drink some more kool-aid.
Mr. Crow,
Thank You for taking the time to read and comment on my post. I’m afraid; however, you are wasting your time on Mr. Deeds. He is merely and spin doctor for the socialist movement in this country. It is really the only possible conclusion considering Mr. Deeds obvious intellect and education. You know the old saying; people do something for two reasons, they don’t know or they don’t care. In Mr. Deeds case; he does know and could care less about the subjugation of freedom and choice in America. He believes he is part of the elite ruling class that will live completely on the backs of an equal but common general population. Thanks again for your comments.
wow the progression from when you first posted this till your last post is amazing. youve gone from "i dont think Obama is a bad guy" to "THERE IS AN ELITE RULING CLASS OUT THERE TRYING TO FORCE SOCIALISM DOWN OUR THROATS!!!AHHHH!!" Ronald Reagan had higher taxes for the rich than Obama has even proposed.
Anyone who votes is a moron out of hundreds of millions of potential americans we just happen to choose george bush and his son and then bill clinton and his wife come on wtf wake up I dont vote because i dont believe in monarchys but yeah im just a conspiracy nut hmm who just happened to be the last two most wanted men in the world by our government saddam hussein and osama bin laden, barrack hussein obama yeah this shit is rigged and they are laughing at us all the book smarts in the world can't replace a good nose for common sense.
Justin, thank you for your comments; now to substance. You are an idiot. Don't vote, they win. Of course its a fixed product; of course the powerful have been the same people for the last couple of generations. But to think you are some how fighting and winning by giving them the power is just juvenile. You are doing exactly what they want you to do...you are a coward and you make me sick. Having common sense is much different than being to afraid to fight. Anyone who doesn't vote is a pathetic, spineless waste of humanity. Even those I debate and argue with daily believe and fight for something. People like you are either to stupid or to lazy to care about anything but themselves and just try to use made up anger to rationalize cowardice.
Check with socialist sources (spcialist web cites and socialists magazines) to see what the socialists think of Obama. They think very little of him and his ideas. Check for yourself. I subscribe to two on-line socialists magazines. Both reject the political and conomic ideas of Obama.
A conspiracy?
And your point is? I guess our President is even failing at being what he is.
|
Ronald Regan Presidential Library Simi Valley California
Current Bid: $1.25
|
|
SOLID YELLOW GOLD 1981 RONALD REGAN 40TH U S PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL MEDAL
Current Bid: $1.29
|
|
PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL COVERS HONORING RONALD REGAN 1981 STAMP BOOKLET
Current Bid: $9.99
|
| No Photo |
RONALD REGAN: A MAN TRUE TO HIS WORD by
Current Bid: $4.97
|
|
Metal Treating Institute Bronze Medallion Ronald Regan
Current Bid: $20.00
|
|
OFFICIAL 1981 RONALD REGAN PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL MEDAL 2.5 OZ. OF .999 SILVER
Current Bid: $99.99
|
 | Amazon Price: $2.52 List Price: $25.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.17 List Price: $32.00 |
 | Ronald Reagan: 100 Years: Official Centennial Edition from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation Amazon Price: $1.64 List Price: $35.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.99 |
Ralph Deeds Level 6 Commenter 4 years ago
"Liberalism" is a term used differently in England and the U.S. In England classical liberalism has meant reliance on the market system with a bare minimum of regulation. In the U.S. the term liberal tends to mean the opposite. Here, "liberals" generally favor greater government intervention in economic and social matters.
Wikipedia says "The term socialism is used to refer to an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution." No one in the Democratic or Republican party advocates economic socialism.
You can call goverment regulation of the banking system by the Federal Reserve or industrial health and safety by OSHA or the production and sale of drugs by the FDA socialisim if you wish, but both parties and the three remaining presidential candidates support these and other governmental regulations. To call Obama a socialist is a misuse of the term. Moreover, if you compare the policies he is supporting with those that Hillary Clinton is supporting you will find very few differences. Neither of them comes close to being a socialist in the common usage of the term. You are using it in an innacurate, pejorative way as does Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing clowns. That usage is innacurate in the same way it would be innacurate to call John McCain a libertarian or a fascist, a warmonger or a cromagnon. The GOP has traditionally been less supportive than the Dems of government regulations like the Civil Rights Act, the Voter Rights Act, OSHA, etc. These regulations hardly constitute socialism. The GOP traditionally has supported states rights on issues where the Dems have supported federal regulation.