"Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism" Repeat Tonight at 8:05 PM EDT on C-Span2

C-Span2 | 19 May, 2002 | C-Span2

[Intolerant in NJ]

Repeat of discussion of Joshua Muravchik's book Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism, with the author, Irving Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer, is scheduled for 8:05 PM EDT on C-Span2. Forum was held in April at AEI. Socialism is described as an economic system which over-reached in attempting to also satisfy man's spirtual needs and eventually failed...or did it? At one point Kristol talks about his background as a socialist and describes it as a "love affair", saying that he really has no regrets; at least socialism doesn't have "blood on its hands" the way communism has. Finally Muravchik challenges him on this, noting that socialism and those who embraced it really helped pave the way for communism and fascism, both of which were bloody. Thoughtful and thought-provoking couple of hours....

[Intolerant in NJ]

Krauthammer makes the same point that David Horowitz made in his talk on C-Span last night re the utopian/socialist impulse rising from the French Revolution and the belief that people could be guided by a new "Religion of Reason"...interesting stuff...

[Molly Pitcher]

Thanks. This does sound like excellent watching!

[claptrap]

Socialism is communism, we need an in depth study of this, maybe we should interview all the jewish people trying to leave Russia which is under the control of an ex-KGB agent, probably a very enlightened socialist/communist. Heaven and utopia arent interchangable and to equate them is another attempt by the anti-God crowd to delude the unthinking masses who are pitifully blinded- "while having eyes they do not see, while having ears they do not hear.

[IronJack]

Kristol talks about his background as a socialist and describes it as a "love affair", saying that he really has no regrets; at least socialism doesn't have "blood on its hands" the way communism has.

Socialism is just communism's younger brother. If it doesn't have blood on its hands, it's because it's too weak to even accomplish that. It accomplishes its goals by subterfuge, whereas at least communism is honest enough to lie to your face.

[agitator]

at least socialism doesn't have "blood on its hands"

What a load of crap. Ask the survivors of someone who committed suicide after years of harrassment by the socialist IRS whether socialism has "blood on its hands." Every day socialism gets worse in this country and the fact that this idiot could say this with straight face indicates he's not living in the same country I'm living in.

[remaininlight]

Many thanks for the alert. This program was on this afternoon but I skipped it since I didn't know the content. Joshua Maravchik has often been in Commentary Magazine.

[Cicero]

Keep in mind that USSR stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Although the Communist Party controlled the old Soviet Union, they considered themselves to be a Socialist state--as did all the old Communist regimes around the world. Communism was yet to arrive in any of those states.

According to Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and the central Communist tradition, true Communism will only arrive when the state "withers away." In the meantime, you have Socialism, with its dictatorship of the proletariat, gulags, and all the rest of the repressive state apparatus.

Many Freepers have also pointed out that "Nazi" is an abbreviation for "National Socialism." The Italian Fascists also believed in centralized economic planning and control. Hitler and Mussolini were both national socialists, as opposed to the international socialists. So, on the whole, the socialist record over the course of the twentieth century is not great.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any socialist state concentrates power in the hands of an elite. Therefore, it will tend toward corruption and power madness. That's human nature.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Jeez - I was just trying to point out an upcoming program which might be interesting to some of our Freepers - I am not, have not been, and will never be a socialist - I promise!

[Prodigal Son]

No blood on socialism's hands? What about Hitler? If you ever saw the propaganda film "Triumph of the Will" you will plainly see that Hitler, Goebbels and the whole Hee Haw gang go on and on and on about socialism. Check out FA Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for a breakdown on why the National Socialists were indeed socialists. It's a nobrainer- the man says he was a socialist, his party says they were socialists-- they're socialists. The left has tried to pass him off on the right but Hitler was a lefty no different than Stalin or Lenin- just because he disagreed with the communists doesn't mean he wasn't still a lefty.

Never let the left get away with saying that. They've painted us as Nazis for too long. It's time they picked up their mantle (because it is properly theirs) and wear it again. Socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. The only thing the leftists have in store for anyone is serfdom, slavery and suffering.

Not directed at you BTW. Just ranting in general.

[Kerberos]

Watched the program, and found it interesting. However I don't get Josh's premise. He acts as if socialism is dead and gone and now on to the next thing.

Seems to me that the major functions of our current government, redistribution of wealth, is nothing but a blatant progression towards socialism.

Am I missing something?

[Walkin Man]

A Communist is a Socialist in a hurry!

[Intolerant in NJ]

Seems to me that the major functions of our current government, redistribution of wealth, is nothing but a blatant progression towards socialism...I think there were several in the audience who would agree with you, including the man who said he came to Washington to save the country from socialism but found it was too late...I'd guess what Muravchik would claim is that we don't live under an integrated socialistic system, but that we have "symptoms" (my word) of socialism; he mentioned social security specifically at one point. Kristol cracked that FDIC couldn't be socialistic because he liked having his bank deposits insured by the government, which illustrates how seductive these programs can be even to those who profess opposition to the philosophical concept of socialism. The panel also seemed to make the distinction for awhile of the US as being a "social democracy" where the economy is "regulated" vs. socialism where the economy is "controlled", but as you point out, for the government blatantly to undertake to redistribute the country's wealth is a mighty bit step along the road from "regulation" to "control".........

[Reeses]

The left has tried to pass him off on the right but Hitler was a lefty

There is still an active Nazi party in Germany that now call themselves the National Democrats. Whenever they make the news they are labeled as far right extremists yet they are socialists to the bone, just as the Nazi's were, and just as the Clinton era Democrats are today.

They all want to take away our guns for some reason.