Posted on 10/25/2015 5:11:57 AM PDT by a fool in paradise
The day after the first Democratic presidential debate, Donald Trump called Bernie Sanders a maniac.
"This socialist-slash-communist," Trump said to raucous cheers. "I call him a socialist-slash-communist, because that's what he is."
Well, no. The terms "socialist" and "communist" are often confused, thanks in large part to the Cold War. Layer on top of that the nuance of the term "democratic socialist," which is how Sanders describes himself, and it's easy to see why people might generally be confused...
To offer America a bit of a primer, I reached out to Dr. Lawrence Quill, chairman and professor of political science at San Jose State University, over e-mail. He explained the difference between communism, socialism, capitalism and democratic socialism -- in very professorial terms...
Socialism was in part a response to capitalism, largely through the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels...
Communism "was the endpoint of Marx's ideas," Quill writes, though Marx didn't delineate what it would look like, exactly...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
These closeted Communists want incremental Socialism.
Bottom line is none of these parasidic deseases will work without the capitolist host and of coarse brute force and control.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I would like to talk about another way because this threat is with us, and at the moment, is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.
It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.
Now , Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.
Walter Ruther said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance. And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American.
Well, let us see what the socialists themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can’t say we haven’t been warned.
Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that in the last decade, 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, “What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?”
That’s ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.
I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time — socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Let’s take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The “majority rule” is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and to our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, “When the American people wants something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it.
Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments don’t tax to get the money they need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system.
You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he's on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from my constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now call your friends and them to write.
If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
- Ronald Reagan (1961)
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. ... We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting people to eat because we do not want the state to raise the grain.”
— Frédéric Bastiat, The Law, 1849
Does this educrat know the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz doesn’t.
Articles like this one are the reason this paper is known as the Washington Compost. Pure crap from the first capital letter to the last period.
Closeted communists?! Are you serious? The Demonic Party has consistently demonstrated through their actions and words that they ARE communists! The problem, however, is the overwhelming majority of clueless, ignorant, apathetic populace too stupid or indifferent to realize what the end result of the Demonics achieving their goal, despite the inordinate level of incremental steps they have already attained.
Communist Party USA endorsed Barack Obaam. Nuff said.
“Communism and social is are the same thing”
Ava R*******, Hungarian refugee who escaped in 1955.
She saw that dragon first hand. Up close and personal. Good enough for me.
And a hell of a lot better than some High school teacher, or college professor that do not know their asses from a hole in the ground.
Them that do, do. Them that can’t “teach”.
Ava was a doer of the Ayn Rand mold.
Google was trending it yesterday. I’m sure it went viral over socialist networking sites like Facebook and Twitter to “educate” the low information voters and to cajole them into accepting Socialism.
FAR LEFT WING politics are being espoused and none of it is called Radical but if a conservative PUSHES BACK against their extremism, they are called “far right”, “radicals” and “extremists”.
I loathe the MSM.
“The Law” is a great book that most people have never read. I had to read it in PUBLIC SCHOOL in 1979 because we had a class that taught us why communism was bad and it was required for graduation back then.
Today, we get lectures on the nuances between Democratic Socialism and Socialism from school teachers.
From what I gather, the difference is that under Democratic Socialism, the productive people are expected to work as if there is no socialism and then happily give the fruits of their labor to the government so that it can give it to those who CHOOSE to be non-productive.
USSR = Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics
A communist nation
Honest communist call themselves socialist
Democratic Socialism presents the illusion of choice “YOU voted for this!”.
It is like moderate Islamic theocratic government. It is ‘tolerant’ of dissenters until the numbers of majority are reached and then it isn’t.
Die hard commies say that Russia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, et al were not REAL Communism. Of course they are still apologists FOR human rights abuses in those countries and all of the Communist countries do prop up the others but we are supposed to believe that they are independent operators.
When the US went into Vietnam, it was supposed to be IMPERIALIST. When Communist nations go there and provide military aid, it is simply being good neighbors.
From the article (section on Communism):
“During the Cold War, though, the idea came to be inextricably and pejoratively associated with the Soviet Union and with the elimination of private property.”
Communism and Anarchist driven Socialism were considered BAD things even in the 1920s. Cold War my tush.
Socialist = Communist
Liberal = Communist
Progressive = Communist
Community Organizer = Communist
Activist = Communist
Trying to define the terms for the modern age is a waste of effort. They lie about what they want and they change the terminology whenever people catch on. It’s all pretty meaningless except for the bottom line: Productive people must be forced to support unproductive people. Which just leads to a society filled with unproductive people because work is for suckers.
The difference doesn’t matter.
Neither are workable.
The Red tide radicals of 1968 took over the Democrat Party, the media, and academia.
Persons like John Kerry and Bill Ayers engaged in treasonous criminal activity in aid of global communism. Today they have the ear of the President of the United States (who himself was reared as an anti-American red diaper doper baby).
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.