Which Socialism are we Talking About?
It has puzzled me for a long time why people want a socialist system in America. They view capitalism as evil and exploitative. They are convinced that they don't have a big enough piece of the pie. They believe that government needs to have a lot more power so as to implement their vision. They want socialism.
But they make a distinction between historic Socialism and its attendant atrocities and another flavor of Socialism with the "Democratic" modifier. It's not Socialism, you see, it's Democratic Socialism. Apparently there is a substantial difference. Or maybe it's a Social Democracy they want. They are actually quite confused on this. Or perhaps they want you to think they support something that isn't a threat to you and your way of life.
But they make a distinction between historic Socialism and its attendant atrocities and another flavor of Socialism with the "Democratic" modifier. It's not Socialism, you see, it's Democratic Socialism. Apparently there is a substantial difference. Or maybe it's a Social Democracy they want. They are actually quite confused on this. Or perhaps they want you to think they support something that isn't a threat to you and your way of life.
So, let's define some terms:
Socialism: "Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. 'Social ownership' may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these."
More accurately, "...socialism had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production."
Social Democracy: "Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, redistribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy."
Democratic Socialism "...rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity. Democratic socialists believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by transitioning from capitalism to socialism, by superseding private property with some form of social ownership."
All three claim to value "democracy." All three want to either eliminate or curtail capitalism. All three want to have central control of the economy and society.
Thus you will note the the distinctions are really pretty subtle. Yet we know that subtlety is not a characteristic of socialists or big government systems. We can rightly conclude that any trumpeted differences are largely affectations, a diversion, in order for the socialist to pursue his agenda.
The appeal to Democracy seems hollow. In actual fact, Democracy is simply a means to an end. They want the majority to vote their way to Socialism. Democracy is continually trumpeted by the Left, but it's merely a buzz word that gets abandoned at the drop of a hat. Because if Democracy doesn't go their way (i.e., definition of marriage), they move on to the courts. If the courts don't go their way (i.e., Citizens United), they embrace executive decree (i.e., President Obama's instruction to not prosecute under DOMA.
Other techniques are embraced when things don't go the way of the budding Socialist, like protests, boycotts, sit-ins, attacking dissent, personal assault, and hyperbolic language. Basically, any technique, any avenue, any tactic is permissible for the sake of the cause. So really, Democracy be damned. Civility, discourse, reason, and logic are alternately embraced (as a bludgeon) or abandoned as the situation dictates. What matters is the goal, to be reached at all costs.
Other techniques are embraced when things don't go the way of the budding Socialist, like protests, boycotts, sit-ins, attacking dissent, personal assault, and hyperbolic language. Basically, any technique, any avenue, any tactic is permissible for the sake of the cause. So really, Democracy be damned. Civility, discourse, reason, and logic are alternately embraced (as a bludgeon) or abandoned as the situation dictates. What matters is the goal, to be reached at all costs.
The reason Democracy is nothing more than a convenience to a Socialist is because there is no way to ensure that the desired system will be what actually ends up manifesting. Democracy doesn't get to decide if America becomes a Socialist Democracy or Democratically Socialist, let alone full-blown, raw Socialism with its inevitable oppression. That is for those in power to decide. The Left can claim they want Social Democracy, for example, and end up with either one of the others very easily.
And, because government is vested with so much power, the journey to tyranny is short indeed. Why is this? Because there is no way to restrain a government that already can do anything it wants. Democracy, equality, and free college, the carrots offered by Socialists, only exist at the pleasure of those who hold the reins. You may like and trust Joe Politician now, but Fred Dictator might come along and wreak havoc. And who's gonna stop him?
How to Install Socialism
Socialism has traditionally been installed via violent revolution, but that doesn't appeal to today's socialists. Or actually, it isn't something they are willing to publicly advocate. That wouldn't palatable among those they want to convince, especially in gun-loving America. So, in an attempt to distance themselves from the atrocity-ridden socialism of history, socialists will mock and shout down anyone who attempts to connect them to the inevitable result of having a socialistic society.
Thus, they pretend that Democratic Socialism, for example, is an entirely different thing, benign and noble. In fact, that's the emphasis. Or smokescreen, if you prefer. Women's rights, economic equality, free healthcare, no unemployment, no eeevil CEOs. It's time you got yours, and they are going to see to it.
Thus, they pretend that Democratic Socialism, for example, is an entirely different thing, benign and noble. In fact, that's the emphasis. Or smokescreen, if you prefer. Women's rights, economic equality, free healthcare, no unemployment, no eeevil CEOs. It's time you got yours, and they are going to see to it.
But revolution is always the goal. Finding bloody overturn unpalatable, at least presently, their revolution is incremental. Little by little, over the course of years and decades, their ideas have been insinuated into society via agitprop, government initiatives, the media, and infiltration. They join clubs like the girl scouts, they obtain professorships, they go to journalism schools, they become pastors, they form coalitions and charities and think tanks and lobbying groups, all for the express purpose of remaking society's institutions for their own uses. Or dismantling them.
Thus we have seen society transformed into a socialist-friendly environment, where language is policed, behavior is regulated, dissent is stifled, and people of faith are driven indoors. People have been fired for supporting the wrong cause. People have lost their businesses because they were on the wrong side of an issue. It is now enough to simply declare something offensive, and that is sufficient to send something down the memory hole.
So, the socialists have been pretty effective in moving society toward their vision. We are no longer a nation that values liberty above all else. We are no longer a self-governed people. We no longer live in a land of limited government and unlimited opportunity. We are descending into slavery, a slavery of approved ideas and disapproved ideologies where stepping over the moving and gerrymandered line is punishable by ostracism and economic sanction.
But for some reason, they have not succeeded in taking it all over.
Why Haven't they Succeeded?
The Left has been frustrated that they can't get social democracy fully installed into society.
It occurred to me that one reason is our poverty rate is too low. Socialism requires a large number of poor, oppressed, and marginalized people who can be manipulated into thinking the reason this is is because of the rich. Rather than offering opportunity, economic growth, education, and moral values, Socialists offer discontent, envy, and greed.
The best way to obtain more discontented poor is to create calamity. And calamity is what we have had. Unrest, financial turmoil, war, and hatred. I'm not saying this has all been caused by socialists, but it certainly has been taken advantage of as an opportunity. Socialists are gunning for the tipping point in the ranks of the poor.
That's why there is the constant clamoring for a living wage, how eeevil corporations are, the income inequality problem, and all the other hysterical hand-wringing. And, that's the reason for the bailouts, the prolonged economic downturn, and the seemingly insane financial practices of government. This all contributes to the swelling ranks of the poor, dependent on government for their all of their daily needs.
More poor and desperate people are needed to effect revolution. Socialists are trying to sow the seeds of discontent, which is a necessary component for motivating the proletariat to rise up against the bourgeois.
There are not enough disaffected people here. Yet.
Bernie Sanders, the Test Case
It occurred to me that one reason is our poverty rate is too low. Socialism requires a large number of poor, oppressed, and marginalized people who can be manipulated into thinking the reason this is is because of the rich. Rather than offering opportunity, economic growth, education, and moral values, Socialists offer discontent, envy, and greed.
The best way to obtain more discontented poor is to create calamity. And calamity is what we have had. Unrest, financial turmoil, war, and hatred. I'm not saying this has all been caused by socialists, but it certainly has been taken advantage of as an opportunity. Socialists are gunning for the tipping point in the ranks of the poor.
That's why there is the constant clamoring for a living wage, how eeevil corporations are, the income inequality problem, and all the other hysterical hand-wringing. And, that's the reason for the bailouts, the prolonged economic downturn, and the seemingly insane financial practices of government. This all contributes to the swelling ranks of the poor, dependent on government for their all of their daily needs.
More poor and desperate people are needed to effect revolution. Socialists are trying to sow the seeds of discontent, which is a necessary component for motivating the proletariat to rise up against the bourgeois.
There are not enough disaffected people here. Yet.
Bernie Sanders, the Test Case
Bernie Sanders has garnered quite a bit of support for president leading up to the elections, and it at first seems puzzling that a self-described "social Democrat" or "Democratic Socialist" would have that much support. He actual makes specific claim to "Democratic Socialism." His position page reads like a Democrat campaign, so it wouldn't be wrong to suggest that there is not a whole lot of difference between Democrats and social Democrats.
Nevertheless, Bernie's appeal is still a minority position. It could be that he is not the young, vibrant, articulate figurehead they need to put a handsome face on the ugliness of Socialism. But he is really the only thing they have right now. There is no other national figure who identifies as Socialist.
Nevertheless, he is part of the conversation people are having. People are seriously considering the seemingly innocuous initiatives he is proposing. And with a willing media, anyone who suggests that his ideas are flawed and dangerous is shouted down and mocked.
So the stage is being set. I believe Bernie will fail, but the next guy has a better chance.
What is the real answer?
In the history of this nation we find the real answer. For more than one hundred years, America was the envy of the world. The highest standard of living, the most innovative, and the most generous, nation in the history of the planet. What went wrong? Well, we started believing the Socialists.
These are the things we must recapture in order to regain the hope, the optimism, the can-do attitude our grandfathers had:
1) Morality - Our abandonment of traditional morality found in our Judeo-Christian heritage almost perfectly correlates to our decline
2) Self-determination - The State does not know best. We are not its wards. We do not serve it, it serves us.
3) Return government to its constitutional boundaries - A lawless government is one to be feared.
4) Value the family - The basic unit of society, its destruction is an invitation to crime, divorce, and abandonment of virtue.
5) Resist tyranny - People have gotten so accustomed to corruption, oppression, and overreaching government that they don't even pay attention any more.
There are other things that could be listed, but it's a good start.
One other thing. The only hope for our nation, and the only hope for people in general, is the mercy of God as shown through his Son, Jesus Christ. We need a spiritual awakening, a revival, a turning from our wickedness and apathy. Ultimately, every answer to every problem is found in Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment