Posted on 10/04/2008 7:57:55 AM PDT by Pontiac
If conservative Republicans are right and the $700 billion financial-sector rescue plan signals America's slide into socialism, you'd think Seth Dellinger would be celebrating.
"They can reorganize capitalism in different ways, and they will," says Mr. Dellinger, a college graduate turned working-class meat cutter. "But it is above all with a view toward continuing a system in which a small minority of super-rich families controls everything."
To Mr. Dellinger, 32, capitalism's crisis may be socialism's opportunity. He's making the case to anyone who will listen that the U.S. should adopt a Cuban-style government before the Bush administration and Congress empty the treasury in order to keep workers from storming the barricades. "What they're trying to do, above all, is prevent millions of workers from lining up outside banks all over the country, because they know they'll have to send troops and cops," says Mr. Dellinger. "That kind of scenario could unfold quicker than people think."
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a conservative Texas Republican, warned his colleagues on the House floor Friday not to react in panic, jettison free-market principles and start along the "slippery slope to socialism."
"This is not socialism," says Sam Webb, national chairman of the Communist Party USA. "Bailing out the biggest financial corporations in the country is a far cry from what we have in mind when we think about socialism."
The left wing faces fissures of its own. The Socialist Workers, Mr. Dellinger's party, considers itself the true heir of Marx and Lenin and seeks to emulate the Cuban model of Fidel Castro. It argues that the Socialist Party is laboring under the false impression that capitalism can be reformed, and the Socialist Workers members scorn the American Communist Party as a cross between closet Stalinists and closet Democrats.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Nationalizing AIG shows that we are socialist.
Well, what frightens me is that if the hard lefties/socialists/commies are saying it’s NOT socialism, that pretty much means it is.
Hoss
He should also be quite confident that he has not a prayer of winning because he is not on the ballot in at least 45 states.
Anybody know which states allow non-citizens to run for the Presidency?
Always love that one.
Yes and now does it make any diff who wins election. Real estate and finance are now already socialism. Next will be health insurance comanies and oil companys. It’s over.
That's all this article is. A cheap attempt at saying, "see see! even the commies don't think this is socialist! its ok! give us the taxpayer cash!".
This is the end of the line, maroons. The government is running a soup line for the rich. Think the rest of the gang won't chime in for some?
Next up: 5 year plans from Paulson.
Next will be health insurance comanies and oil companys.
in 2009
This is why the doctrinaire socialists ("Progressives" as they call themselves) joined with conservatives in voting against the "bail out". They will support only those policies that increase individual dependence of government and that weaken free enterprise. They are waiting for a complete economic collapse so a communist system can be built on the ruins.
At the core of our problems today is a lack of transparency in finance which perverts the forces supply and demand and denies most people of the opportunity to participate in a market they do not see or understand.
“This is not socialism,” says Sam Webb, national chairman of the Communist Party USA. “Bailing out the biggest financial corporations in the country is a far cry from what we have in mind when we think about socialism.”
I don’t mean to split hairs, but you’re a communist, not a socialist. Socialism is one of those nebulous terms that can translate as anything between minimally-fettered capitalism and a dictatorship of the proletariat, so long as the drift is toward more government.
“Mr. Calero said in an interview that should the party win, he is confident voters would approve a constitutional amendment allowing him to take office.”
I’m no Constitutional scholar, but isn’t it too late to pass the amendment after he’s elected? I mean, who’s gonna be in office during the ratification process? And what assurance is there that that president will step aside after the amendment becomes law?
You got him down.
If you read the rest of the quotes from this loon you see that he wants a Cuban style of government; The worst sort of totalitarian Marxism.
It’s not over until the emaciated Gulag inmate sings.
Yes and now does it make any diff who wins election. Real estate and finance are now already socialism. Next will be health insurance comanies and oil companys. It’s over.
heh...we 'started' on the "slippery slope" when we elected FDR to a 3rd term!
When did we ‘nationalize’ AIG?
Did you read the article or just the excerpts?
The gist of the article is that both the left and the right have been brought to the same point of opposing this bill for different reasons. (and some of the same)
I would say you are correct. Besides that from history’s view point; his term would expire before the amendment was ratified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.