Loading Loading
Just for optimization

Politics.comnews

freecreditcheck.com |  creditreports.com |  whois.domaintools.com |  bookclub.com
News Opinion: Republicans rewrite history in crying 'socialism'

Opinion: Republicans rewrite history in crying 'socialism'

Submitted by EmilyR | 1 year ago

Mercury News - There was a time when politicians thought they could learn from history. Today, history is used as a form of profanity.

The favorite historical curse word in Washington now is "socialism." Rather than buy into the rhetoric that "we are all socialists now," as a recent Newsweek article put it, the media need to call out politicians who rewrite the past. Distorting history is a dangerous game that poisons political debate.

Tags: socialism, GOP, history, Obama

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Halowaydrummer (Republican) - 1 year ago

Show full conversation (4 messages)
Reply to MrsPresident
There are also different types of Socialists. Communisism, Marxisim, Nationalization, Libertarian so … Show full comment

Completely agree with you... only I need to add that politicians are people too when we say that "people can not be trusted". For as many Enrons as we are seeing, the waste, fraud and abuse created by government is also rampant. (Visit your local OIG shop and see how many so-called public servants are being prosecuted.)

Emily: Yeah, I agree with your point and the article in the respect that "Socialism" is just being used as a label to paint particular people or candidates. We could say that many republicans are "socialists" when it comes to gambling. My gripe is with the authors notion that what is being done is just "another form of capitalism"... it's not. We should call it what it is and consider the failures and successes of socialist policy throughout history.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

MrsPresident 1 year ago

Show full conversation (4 messages)
Reply to Halowaydrummer
I agree it's moot to debate whether obama is a socialist or not. But it's completely relevant to deb … Show full comment

There are also different types of Socialists. Communisism, Marxisim, Nationalization, Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism), and others. When you look at the true meaning of socialism (not the warped meanings that come into play on communism and marxism) you would see that it's not as bad as what people think it is. The only thing different between socialism and capitalism is that the government controls the capital. Competition technically would be eliminated. I mean we could still have a "choice" but that choice would be controlled by the government.

We do live in a mixed market. I'm all for capitalism when it comes to businesses, however, it needs to be controlled and regulated. It has been proven over and over that people cannot be trusted when it coms to greed. Enron, Fannie & Freddie, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wall Street, and the list goes on. How could all of these companies become so corrupt? In a world where they are no "rules" for business and people can pretty much get away with anything as long as they cover themselves, it's the taxpayers that get screwed because in all actuality we are the biggest investors in this country. Government should regulate the industry, not control it. Pricing should be fair and not drastically inflated. Wasteful consumption should be monitored and controlled. I could go on and on but I won't.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

EmilyR 1 year ago

Halowaydrummer: You raise some good points, especially about Socialism as state ownership of industry.

My concern, I suppose, is that "socialism" is being use a political curse word, and nothing else. People are so busy calling Obama a socialist, that the meat of the economic recovery plan is lost.

I'm sure that many people who'd say they oppose Socialism are all for government intervention in the current situation...

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Halowaydrummer (Republican) - 1 year ago

Show full conversation (4 messages)
Reply to EmilyR
I appreciate the writer's distinction between what labels mean and if/how they add anything to polit … Show full comment

I agree it's moot to debate whether obama is a socialist or not. But it's completely relevant to debate what is considered "socialist" and whether such policies have a place in our government.

"But this is not a debate about socialism; it is a debate about what kind of capitalist society we want to live in."
WHAT? The guy admits earlier in the article that the government buying banks is part of a socialist theory, then goes on to say that it's not socialism, merely a "different type of capitalism"?
It's about as capitalistic as the DDR was democratic.

Socialism can readily be defined as "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry." I'm sorry - the government buying banks is a socialist policy. But then again, so is the Federal Reserve Bank. It comes down to whether you believe socialism has any place in our form of government or not.. but let's start with calling it what it really is. That doesn't mean it has to be a bad word.

But that said, it didn't exactly work out very well for the USSR. Why should we label it as "other capitalism" and give it another go-around?

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

EmilyR 1 year ago

I appreciate the writer's distinction between what labels mean and if/how they add anything to political debate.

We can debate whether "Obama is a socialist" all we want, but it does not necessarily add anything constructive.

Anybody else agree?

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

1 - 5 / 5