Republicans have no Clue what Socialism and Communism means

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Republicans-have-no-Clue-w-by-Steven-Leser-090308-590.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 8, 2009

By Steven Leser

I return periodically to the topic of how the right wing in America is murdering the English language, one word at a time. For instance, if you listen to them, you will find out that the words "appeasement" or "appeaser" are applied anytime a politician advocates any solution to an international disagreement other than a full military assault on the country with whom we have a disagreement. See an earlier article of mine on this here http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_061013_appeasement___republ.htm

The latest lexical victims are "Socialism" and "Communism". The Republican and Conservative right in America now liberally apply these words to anyone who is center and center left, including all Democrats and President Barack Obama. You can see/hear this happen with regularity on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and on the website Free Republic www.freerepublic.com . In fact, the owner of Free Republic recently issued a missive warning the site's members to stop writing posts threatening President Obama and said missive was laced with proclamations that Obama is a Communist or Communist sympathizer. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2200093/posts . Here are some prime excerpts from this gem:

Regarding salty talk aimed at the president (or other officials) vs visits from the SS
March 5, 2009 | Jim Robinson

Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 3:43:09 PM by Jim Robinson

Unfortunately, we are saddled with a communist sympathizer in the White House. I don't know whether or not he's an actual card carrying commie, but he's definitely an America-hating, anti-capitalist Marxist leftist who thinks communism is the way to go. Now I remember when America used to fight against communism. It wasn't that long ago. Many of us on FR are veterans of wars against communism and some of us believe that American citizens who are communists are the enemy within, ie, the domestic enemy we've sworn to defend against. American citizen? hmmmm... that may be a loophole for Obama.
.
.
.
So now comes the problem. If you feel it's your duty to call Obama a traitor and use salty language in your proposed resolution, ie, suggest the commie be keelhauled, walked off the plank, run up the yardarm, tarred and feathered and run out of Dodge, etc, etc, etc, you may be facing a visit from your friendly Secret Service. And even though your visiting agent may agree politically, and may take his oath to the constitution seriously, he's still sworn to protect the officeholder and it's his duty to take all threats seriously. And that may include serving me with a subpoena to turn over your IP address. Now I'm duty bound to protect your privacy to the best of my ability, but I cannot defend against stupidity.

------------------------------

Here is a generous hint to my feebleminded right wing friends. It is impossible to be a Socialist or a Communist if one is not calling for the nationalization of entire industries. Now, I used a lot of big words there that right wingers reading this may not understand, so I will make my hint even easier to comprehend (note: comprehend means "understand"). If a government or a leader of a government is not taking over complete ownership and control of every business that has a certain function (i.e. does similar things), then you do not have a government or government leader that is Socialist or Communist. There is a similar relationship with property rights. If a government or leader is not advocating or actively taking private property rights away from people, you don’t have a Socialist or Communist government or leader.

The closest we are coming to doing anything remotely like this right now is with banking. There are people out there who are advocating temporary Nationalization of the banking industry, including some Republicans. Obama is an opponent of this idea. (Note to right wingers, "opponent" means, he doesn't like the idea of doing this).

In fact, no Democrats are Socialists or Communists (at least none that understand what it means to be a Democrat). If any of us were, we would leave the Democratic Party and join one of the many Socialist or Communist parties that exist in the US. The fact that we are Democrats means that we believe in Capitalism albeit with appropriate oversight and rules.

An amusing discussion of this entire topic, "Who you calling Socialist" was penned by Harold Meyerson who is a self-proclaimed Socialist http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303207.html the entire article is a masterpiece, but I particularly like:

Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn't that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves.

------------------------------
For more distinctions between what a Democrat like Obama is and a Socialist or Communist, I offer the writings of one of my fellow members of OpEdNews, Richard Mynick. His last article can be seen here http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__080128_capitalism_as_the_en.htm . Richard is an avowed Socialist. The difference between what Richard advocates and what a Democrat advocates is stark.

I realize that most of this is going to be ignored by many of those at whom this is directed, but they should consider this. The irony of what the conservative right is doing with regard to terms like appeasement and Socialism and Communism is that they are using the words so often and so inappropriately that they are going to take any kind of stigma away from them. Obama is probably going to improve relations with Russia, China and Iran. People are probably going to like the effects of this. If Right wingers call this "appeasement" then calling anything in the future "appeasement" is going to stop having a negative connotation. Similarly, if Obama's economic policies work, and I think they are, if they are termed "Socialism" or "Communism" then the next time people call someone's policies Socialism or Communism, it wont cause such a stir. THAT could be extremely destructive if it turns out that someone is really appeasing another country or taking us down the road to collectivism.

Moreover, if Republicans ever again hope to become more than a marginalized and regional party, using this kind of rhetoric is exactly the opposite way to do it. Anyone who has had any college level political science class knows well the real definition of these terms and is going to be turned off by people misusing them so badly.

Here is one more freebee to JimRob and the other folk at Free Republic who entertain me so. After eight years of trying to tell me and every other Democrat that any attitude other than getting 100% behind the US President, no matter who he may be, means you are a traitor, your frenzied antipathy toward Obama makes you all seem like the most ridiculous of hypocrites on the American political scene. You might want to think about that some.

[Joe the Liberal]

1. 9 times out of 10 the right wingers who call liberals/dems socialists/communists.........

don't even know what the fuck they are talking about, much less know what a socialist/communist is. They just repeat whatever their leadership and fellow repukes are spewing. This goes to show a lot of things but most of all shows they can't think for themselves, they are sheep. They would follow their party leaders/talking heads off of a cliff. Good article.

[old mark]

9. There were a lot of them who called us all socialists or communists,

thought Obama was a communist and even thought Arlen Specter and John McCain were socialists!

You have to be to the right of Newt Gingrich to be on their approved list, and it seems the more power they lose, the less they understand reality. I am really enjoying watching them kill themselves, and I only hope they make a thorough job of it.

mark

[treestar]

25. When McDope suspended his campaign to fix the economic

crisis they should have called him a socialist! They include any government regulation or help at all as socialism, communism and Marxism. Even Palin is a socialist.

[POAS]

2. I love the ones that cannot understand the difference

between a Fascist and a Socialist or Marxist.

"After all," I've seen it penned, "the Nazis called themselves the 'National Socialist Party'."

In some sense I can see them conflating a Marxist with a Socialist but how the hell they mix Fascists in their is beyond me!

[mwb970]

13. "Islamofascist terrorists" is another right-wing idiocy.

Fascism involves imposing the power of a corporate state on the citizens. Terrorists are characterized by having no state and no corporations. Therefore "fascist terrorists" are.....?

[POAS]

24. I was going to mention

that bit of idiocy but after a few minutes of thinking about all the ways they fail to connect with reality my brain tends to freeze up.

[Webster Green]

3. They don't have a clue about anything..

Fuck 'em! :silly:

[Wetzelbill]

4. They still frame their ideas around Cold War rhetoric

They use a few things to make this work. First they find an enemy and then they use an emotion that they have stoked and prodded so that people will have an immediate reaction. For example, in this case the enemy was the Soviet Union, so they drilled the idea that Communism/Socialism was bad into people's heads for so long over the decades that they usually have some visceral reaction to it like fear.

They do a similar thing with the Civil Right's era improvements. The enemy in that case are women and minority straw men types and they drill sexist and racist ideas into people's heads to the point of resentment. Terms like feminism, welfare, affirmative action, they all find ways to make people resentful of those.

It's probably more impactful that most of the people using the words and most of the people who buy into it don't know what Communism/Socialism means, because it's more the knee-jerk reaction to the terms than any actual knowledge of them that is important.

A big problem for the GOP is that what worked 20 years ago doesn't work anymore. Those kids who voted Obama in droves this year don't even remember the Cold War. Many of them were just infants when it ended. People my age, 34, saw the Berlin Wall fall before we were even in high school. We never had to live through the Cuban Missile Crisis, McCarthy, or most of the big Cold War events or hateful rhetoric. It was all winding down by the time any of us started paying attention, that same tired old rhetoric doesn't work on most of us. (meaning under 40 voters)

But what we do know is that the Clinton years were pretty good economically, and we were essentially at peace and prosperous. And we watched 9/11 get exploited for political gain and our country go downhill. Fearmongering about the Cold War doesn't even register when you've seen what a disaster fearmongering over 9/11 turned out to be.

[POAS]

6. It isn't just you "under 40 voters"

Many of us that did live through that time (I'm in my sixties) never bought into the whole "commie conspiracy" hype because we recognized that for the most part it was fear mongering and political hype. I'd point you to movies like "Dr. Strangelove" for cultural evidence of the skepticism shared by many about the "Red Menace".

Republicans today are living prove that fear still sells. A "commie under every bed" has been replaced by the "Islamo-Fascist" coming to a Mosque near you.

Socialist, Marxist and Fascist are thrown around interchangeably because their true meaning is insignificant to the fear they still raise in some who cannot even give a rudimentary definition of the terms.

[Wetzelbill]

7. well yes some never bought into it

But as a demographic older voters tend to vote Republican in a higher percentage than younger voters, and they difference in the last few elections was as stark as ever. What I'm saying is that the arguments that Republicans used to put forth to get voters 20-30 years ago don't work anymore, especially with younger voters who don't have an emotional reaction with to those arguments. There is a lot more than Dr. Strangelove to show skepticism. Whole movements were built on that. That's why they had to be nullified and demonized as well.

[POAS]

10. There is a segment in every population group

that will be susceptible to fear mongering.

While I am encouraged that the younger generation today seems to be rejecting that message of fear in large numbers it must also be acknowledged that the rejection is far from universal.

As I told some young volunteers for Obama last summer, my generation let down our guard and the fear mongers regrouped, polished their message and attracted a whole new group wiling to follow their message of hate and fear.

If the current generation lets down its guard as we did then the future will see another recurrence of the kind that got us into the pickle we are in today.

Saying that the tactics used by Republicans 20 to 30 years ago don't work today may be a bit of naivete. The hate/fear mongers know how to push buttons and they know how to adapt their message.

What I'm saying is that the next generation of progressive voters and leaders must maintain their guard and not be complacent the way much of my generation did!

[RoyGBiv]

5. Yes they do ...

... at least their leader do.

The actual meaning is irrelevant, however. This is about labels and connotative meaning. The important thing is that Average Joe has no clue what those terms mean.

[jefferson_dem]

8. On his teevee show this past week, Glenn Beck was actually trying to convince us that Hitler...

was a communist because he was a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Good gawd. Could demagoguery get any denser?

[Clio the Leo]

11. lol, trying to reason with these folks? oh how cute!

I fear that may be about as effective as me telling my kitten, "now honey, please dont jump on the counter." lol

[Ikonoklast]

23. It is a well known fact that all kittens are anarchists.

Plotting while you sleep.

[Clio the Leo]

27. No, mine is named "Tucker" so obviously, he's a Republicat. :-) NT

[Vinca]

12. There is a scene in Alexandra Pelosi's HBO film where she asks

a young guy ranting about socialism to explain it to her. He tries to weasel out of the question by dragging out his handheld whatever to get a definition off the web. She tells him she wants to know his own definition. Needless to say, he doesn't have a clue.

[Exilednight]

14. To be fair, OEN doesn't ...........

truly understand the meaning of communism or socialism. The two are very distinct, but different ideas. Even Karl Marx understood that socialism was only a bridge to communism - and although socialism was invented long before Marx and Engels was born, the word communism was their own invention. The problem with communism is that Marx outlined in detail how to get their, but never stated how the economical mechanics would work.

If a government or a leader of a government is not taking over complete ownership and control of every business that has a certain function (i.e. does similar things), then you do not have a government or government leader that is Socialist or Communist.

Actually, neither call for a complete nationalization of entire sectors in the beginning steps. In fact, in many socialist philosophies small and mid-size businesses are allowed to be owned by private individuals. On the other hand, in a truly communist society, no one - not even the state - would own anything. Everything would be held in commune. In a truly communist society, government would disappear over time thus creating a utopian type nation.

I find it funny (more in a crying, not laughing way) that many people, regardless of political affiliation, do not understand the difference between political philosophies even though they use words to attempt to describe them every single day.

If the author is upset about the Republicans destroying the English language, maybe he should take a look in the mirror before berating someone else.

This article doesn't really teach anyone anything, all it does is stir the pot of ignorance.

[tsuki]

15. You could have stopped at "no clue." nt

[polichick]

16. The only thing they know is fear - everything they say reflects that single attribute.

[AllentownJake]

17. Freepers have no fucking clue about anything

Because Freepers don't read books that don't have a picture of Sean, Rush, or Savage on the front of them. They don't even read the Bible themselves. They buy someone elses interpretation of it, instead of reading an interpreting themselves. They are intellectually lazy creatures who need to live in a black and white word to feel comfortable.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. All they really need to know is that, all those years ago, Karl Marx OWNED them,

when he predicted this hyper-capitalist, economic, Gadarene stampede over the cliff edge, explaining how they would cause it.

Not that I'm really a Communist. Atheism is barmy. But Socialism, with a mixed economy and reconverted to Christian values is imperative.

[WeDidIt]

19. Whenever a REpublan calls a Democrat "Socialist" the appropriate response is

"Tell me what Socialism is."

It'll be like that time Chris Matthews had that Republan tongue twisted over not knowning what an appeaser is.

[Jennicut]

20. Perhaps they need history class refreshers. We learned this in junior high, high school and college

How do they not know the difference? Every Dem is for capitalism except for maybe Bernie Sanders. God forbid capitalism should actually have some regulations and limitations put own it....it still does not magically become socialism. Duh.

here are some basic definitions for the Freeptards that come by:

CAPITALISM:
Definition: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

COMMUNISM:
Definition: Communism is total state capitalism, in which all or most means of production are owned and controlled by "the state", and few or no means of production are owned and controlled by individuals.

SOCIALISM:
Definition: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state c: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

FASCISM:
Definition: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Ok but your definitions are grossly oversimplified and inaccurate.

Ignoring your description of Communism as State Capitalism, which any Communist (if you can find one) would tell is just plain wrong, take a peak at the issues involved in a simple definition of Democratic Socialism over on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

The variance here ranges from your 'collective or government ownership of the means of production' to FDR's New Deal, any of the democracies of western europe, to libertarian socialist grass roots decentralized worker managed systems.

Within the real world there seem to be two strains of socialism: the totalitarian variety as it still exists in North Korea and Cuba, and as it existed in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, etc. and the democratic reformist variety, as it exists in essentially all of Western Europe, Canada, some Latin American nations, and to a lesser extent in every advanced democracy including our own.

It is the reformist strain of Democratic Socialism that really terrifies Freepertown and the Rushlicans, it terrifies them because it works.

[Jennicut]

29. Well, it was from Webster dictionary so blame them! LOL.

Socialism is the toughest to define because like you said, the range of it is so large.

[dansolo]

21. They don't even know what capitalism means

The policies they promote don't encourage open markets. They stifle innovation and show favoritism to select companies and industries in exchange for political contributions. True free markets would not offer favoritism to select companies and industries with tax breaks and no-bid contracts.

[leftofthedial]

26. their entire schtick is utterly divorced from truth and reality

always has been

[mvd]

28. K&R

BTW, if President Obama is a socialist to them, I wonder what I would be? LOL.

[WinkyDink]

30. The ones in power most decidedly do. THAT is why they hope to dupe the hoi polloi with these terms.

[Zhade]

31. Hell, neither do some of the "centrist" idiots on this site!

NT!

[Naturyl]

32. Agreed, it's ridiculous.

Obama is a CAPITALIST through and through. Even Dennis Kucinich is a committed capitalist. With the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, we have no one in government even remotely approaching socialism.

Republicans are once again counting on abject stupidity, deception, and ignorance to win the day. How did that work out in the recent election?

[Orsino]

33. Lazy filmmakers don't know what pale-skinned children with dark eye shadow mean, either.

But they'll wave them before our eyes to scare us, anyway.