« Ruminations - 14jul2010 (updated) | Main | It Ain't Working »

15 July 2010


Barry Pruett

Very well written piece that explains very succinctly socialism. The Democratic Party is not you momma's Democratic Party. They, for the most part, have become Democratic Socialists. Socialists achieving socialism through the electoral process. This has been going on for almost a hundred years and has been happening right under our noses very, very, very slowly. It is like watching the stars move through the sky...without time lapse photos you just do not notice.

Todd Juvinall

What is hat saying about "doing something over and over again and expecting a different outcome"? To me that is the mindset of a liberal/socialist/communist. It has not worked except through force of arms and dictatorship. Then only for a short while until people either have a revolution or the dictator croaks. Hugo Chavez, the darling of liberals on these threads, is the latest example of a liberals misguided love. He gets elected by the people, then immediately starts changing the underlying laws to m ake himself president for life. He shuts down radio, TV and newspapers which are contrary to his policies. He nationalizes industries and then gives his friends te reins to those industries. Jamaica is another place that socialism is a bust. I visited there 15 years ago and stayed at a walled-in resort outside of Montego Bay. I befriended a young black waitress at the resort and we talked about Jamaica mostly. I asked her what her goals were and her number one goal was to be able to lease a piece of land from the government to build her home. That opened my eyes! No private property! Our system is not perfect but it is the best one created in human history.

Dixon Cruickshank

George this a brillent piece by both of you, short and to the point and easy to grasp as socialism is usually thought to be closer to communism and its not - 2 different animals.

"What is hat saying about "doing something over and over again and expecting a different outcome?"

Todd this statement is irrevelent, the success or failure of the system is not the actual endgame - the endgame is to aquire the power in the first place, the process takes a long time. Nancy won't be around long enough to see whether it fails or not and she could care less, currently she jets back and forth across the country and has an 18,000 a month office and gets to tell people what to do - and if she gets to do that another 20 yrs she's fine with that - what happens to me or my son Doug is irevelent.

D. King

There are three parts to this.


The channel comments are quite telling.

George Rebane

DKing - this series is a marvelous find and so complements this post. Thanks for sharing it.

Mikey McD

It should be pointed out that many (most?) socialists/progressives/social democrats have good intentions. The definition of each term does not imply an evil heart.

D. King

What are their intentions?

Mikey McD

-To solve perceived injustices like poverty and neglect of some fractions of society (or the environment). Desire to raise the standard of living for the outlier population (for example, feeding, clothing, providing health care for the poverty stricken or elderly)
-To provide a 'level' playing field (affirmative action, bias to minority scholarships, etc)
-To protect people from themselves - 'security' through government promises (i.e. SS, Medicare, Welfare, etc)

I don't believe that government control = solutions to the perceived injustices. I am just saying that the end goal of the individual collectivist (oxymoron) can begin with good intentions. The ends do not make the argument, it is the means that 'we' disagree on.

D. King

Well, I don't think their stated goals are their
intended goals; too many Alinsky types for that
to be true. So, just lies that may suck in a few
naive, good hearted people, but for the most
part insidious ideologues. I have posted this
before, but listen to what happens to the
stupored utopians after they vote away their
freedoms and liberty for security. Listen for
“Social Justice.”

Scan forward to 2:45

I recommend the whole series.


Mikey McD

Pulled from the KVMR thread...

Paul Emery, let me join the crowd in complimenting your radio show, well done. I hope your productive and informative shows continue long into the future.

I often use the phrase "card carrying socialist" to describe folks who publicly believe in the tenets you cited above "national health care, graduated income tax and social welfare programs" 9among others). George (and I) wrote follow-up pieces on "Who is a Socialist?" (July 15th). I think this debate (socialism/slavery vrs free market capitalism/liberty) needs to take place NOW for our country to strengthen. We are drowning in debt and losing our liberties daily becuase of the ills described in "The Tragedy of the Commons" and "The Peter Paul Principal."

Were you dancing around the 'label' of "socialist" ("I am proud to be a Socialist if that's what you think I am"). Your beliefs label you as a "socialist" (not me), yet it sounds like the term may offend you? A productive debate is difficult when one or some sides feel offended. I hope this is not the case.

I would enjoy hearing your 'defense' of the progressive tax system (which I feel is as immoral/discriminatory/demeaning/enslaving as racism/sexism/etc)?

Melinda Crawford

Any form of governing is destructive to human aspirations and the human spirit. People need to be left alone, people need to be able to have their own opinions and act accordingly. I`m not saying that basic rules should not be respected, but basic is not drastic!

Michael Anderson

"It should be pointed out that many (most?) socialists/progressives/social democrats have good intentions. The definition of each term does not imply an evil heart."

Especially if you're married to them, or if they happen to be a Giants fan, etc.

The comments to this entry are closed.