Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Monday, November 13, 2006

Now, Can We Call Them “Socialists”?

James Lewis:


Conservatives are suicidally polite. We feel bound to act nice, and so we go along with whatever euphemism the Left chooses for itself. On their side, Democrats loudly argue for truth in advertising for baldness cures—- but not in the marketplace of political ideas, where telling the truth is a lot more important. That is why the Left constantly seeks new PR labels to disguise itself.

Using the word “socialism” is taboo in American politics, but today the Democratic Party is socialist at heart. Even “liberal” isn’t accurate any more, because today’s Democrats are hardly the party of Cold War liberals like John F. Kennedy and Harry S Truman. Instead, they have fallen back on fuzzy, wishful Marxism. It’s where they feel most comfortable.

The Left is now pushing for yet a new PR label, “progressive,” which gently rings the old Marxist chimes for those in the know. If you call yourself a progressive, everybody who doesn’t agree must be a Neanderthal. But words mean things, and “socialist” is simply more accurate than either “liberal” or “progressive.”

On Iraq the key to Democrat thinking is that they are internationalists—they despise nationalism of all kinds, seeing it as the cause of wars. But the old Communist anthem was of course “The Internationale.” Internationalism is a defining feature of socialism, going back to the 19th century.

[...]

Conservatives see American patriotism as a saving grace. A widespread faith in the goodness of our country brought us through the dangers of the 20th century. Sure we made mistakes, being human, and politics being what it is. But for conservatives, the United States is still the last, best hope of mankind. The anti-American media therefore constantly tries to undermine pro-American feelings. Instead, they look to socialist Europe and the socialist UN; against a century of facts, they would place our safety in the hands of strangers.

That is presumably what Senator Hillary Clinton had in mind last week, when she called for more “internationalism” in American policy.

We stand at a point in time where we are now in the process of redefining both American internationalism and American interests. ... It is essential that we win this war against these borderless terrorists, but it is, I believe, critical that we once again recommit ourselves to that American internationalism that I mentioned in the beginning.


But “American internationalism” Is an oxymoron; it contradicts itself. After 9/11 we know perfectly well what “American Internationalism” really means. It means that we pay for NATO and the UN, protect Europe with a nuclear umbrella for sixty years, and then, when terrorists cause mass civilian deaths in New York City and Washington, DC, the Europeans will scream and yell at us when we try to preempt further attacks.

For socialists, internationalism comes first and America a very distant second. We have no true allies in Europe, except for Britain, and Tony Blair is now losing his job over faithfully sticking by our alliance. Senator Clinton’s “American internationalism” is a slogan for milking Uncle Sam and screwing him at the same time. If you doubt it, consider this story from the Washington Post by Thomas Edsall, June 28, 1998, in the happy days before 9/11.

President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are seeking to take advantage of the unprecedented number of Western governments controlled by center-left parties to turn their “third way” political strategies in the United States and Great Britain into an international movement.


Third Way Socialism means piggy-backing Labour socialism on top of Maggie Thatcher’s capitalism: Taxing the free market just enough to support the socialist state. Today, the free market in Britain is being taxed to sink British sovereignty into the greedy arms of the EU, utterly corrupt and anti-democratic. The people of Britain have now been so deeply indoctrinated that they hardly notice it any more.

[...]

If and when American conservatives decide to call a socialist a socialist, the Left will scream that it’s is a McCarthyite smear. But is the word “socialism” defamatory or just the plain truth? In their hearts the Left believes, it believes fervently (in private), in caucusing with the Elect.

Socialism is a coherent political philosophy, painting a rosy future of peace and equality forever, if only the really good people achieve total power; in reality, the socialist fantasy just keeps slamming into a wall of failures, disasters, tyrannies, massacres and miseries wherever it’s tried.

But conservatives can’t even point to the Left’s endless record of failure if we don’t dare to use the word “socialism.” We have to find the courage to say the s-word.

[...]

Writes Mr. Kelly,

I’m a Socialist who believes in equality, peace and the redistribution of wealth, I oppose Racism, Sexism, Sectarianism, Nationalism and any kind of discrimination. Best wishes for a Socialist future.

There. He said it. It’s just the plain truth. Less than 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the horrific past of Stalin and starvation is flushed down the memory hole. Socialists have not changed even one little bit. Reality has had no impact, because they are a millenarian sect that always has its eyes on an imaginary future. Yet peace and love are hard to find in Mr. Kelly’s high-whine rantings. Councillor Kerry passionately hates America, Israel and Republican “thugs.” His fidelity to “tolerance” does not include tolerance for the ideas of other people. These are the folks who control Europe, and who greeted the Democratic win last week with loud Hosannas.

George Orwell is always relevant. A former socialist himself, he became a passionate advocate of truth-telling. Remember this:

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Perhaps conservatives should think of themselves as truth-telling revolutionaries in a time of wall-to-wall deceit. Using the s-word is a step in the right direction.


Read the whole thing.

It’s time to call the socialists/Marxists what they are, relentlessly and continuously.

Comments

It’s neither here nor there but George Orwell remained a socialist until his death. It was an interesting article but the author seems to have difficulty separating totalitarian socialism from the various strands of leftist thought...it’s quite easy for me to criticise Stalin for example without feeling a sense of hyprocrisy or deceit. The tendency to lump all of us together is a common enough fallacy I suppose.


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on November 13, 2006 at 09:41 am

Now I thought socialists were people who boycotted companies who employed terrorists. That’s what <a href="http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/cat_stevens_funds_islamic_terrorism/#c139356">Robert108 told me</a href>.

Dave_Comet on November 13, 2006 at 09:49 am
Avatar for Bat One

The tendency to lump all of us together is a common enough fallacy I suppose.

Mike,

The basic tenet, that of using force (government) to take from those who are productive to be able to pander to those who are not, all in the name of charity, or if you prefer, “common good,” is no less noxious to those who are productive simply because some on the left are more personable or less bellicose than others.

OTOH, the tendency of those on the left to denigrate, berate, and personally insult those who disagree with them, never mind the simple act of “lumping together,” is at least as common.  Indeed, the farther to the left one moves (how’s that for separating rather than lumping?) the more strident, virulent, and belligerent the adherents become.

That aside, Mike, it is certainly true that the fact that George Orwell remained a Socialist until his death is “neither here nor there.” The prescience of his vision and horror he foresaw in an “Orwellian” world to come, hardly validate his devotion to a socialist agenda.

Bat One on November 13, 2006 at 10:18 am

Bat: Check out the entry in the reader blogs entitled “Now Can We Call Them Socialists?” for some more info on that subject.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on November 13, 2006 at 10:26 am

Bat: My bad; didn’t realize your comment was on this thread.  Thanks for participating.

MikeA: The reason is that socialism always devolves to totalitarianism in reality, no matter what propaganda they put out about being “for the people”.  It’s still about coercion by the govt over individual choice.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on November 13, 2006 at 10:29 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.