Posted on 11/18/2020 4:00:52 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Many people ask how we got to this point in our country, where everything now hangs in the balance, and the socialist takeover is quite real. The answer is [...] twofold.
First, neither ordinary people nor public opinion leaders understand what socialism is [...]. However, there are very few academics whose works correctly describe the essence of socialism. Their lonely voices drown in the stream of misconceptions about the subject.
The first misapprehension is that socialism is solely equated with Marxism and Marx's materialist philosophical concepts. The materialist definition of socialism posits communal ownership of the means of production, collective management, and distribution of wealth. However, socialism is a generic notion, and Marxism is a theory of communism, the particular and extreme current of socialism. Therefore, Marxism is undoubtedly socialistic, but it does not encompass the whole of socialism. The materialist understanding of socialism missed a significant subject of collectivization: the individual himself. Since the time of Plato, it has been known that socialism presupposes the subordination of the individual to the collective, which means the construction of a hierarchical society in which the elites rule the state and the commoners obey meekly.
History shows that the collectivization of consciousness is even more critical than the socialization of property. It is no wonder that such socialist trends as fascism, national socialism, and reformism used the collectivization of consciousness as the main path to socialism. But even the theory of communism proposed the dictatorship of the proletariat, first for the violent expropriation of private property into the collective and then for the subordination of the entire population to communist ideology. Therefore, the definition of socialism must surpass the boundary of its materialist understanding and include ideas and practices of anti-materialist, anti-positivist flavors of collectivist ideology.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Ask a freeper about social security benefits and if they should be reduced or eliminated.
That should remove any doubt that “conservatives” in America are socialists too.
RomneyCARE (courtesy of Course XIV at MIT, Grubbering
for the RAT) was a RINO invention as was the
ability to marry any animal (RomneyMarriage).
I am against socialism. My monthly social security monies are very much welcomed. I doubt that I am a socialist. Long live social security. Get back to work you young people. Pay into the system.
Ask a freeper about social security benefits and if they should be reduced or eliminated.
That should remove any doubt that “conservatives” in America are socialists too.
************************************************************
I for one am min favor of a “privatized” SS system in which the citizen OWNS his account and can, within certain parameters determine the investment of his account assets.
If explained properly I believe a majority of Americans would agree to this.
Agreed. I've been paying into SS for 25 years, and I have absolutely no expectation it will be there for me when I retire.
I would rather the government allow us to opt-out of SS. This would completely eliminate any possible use of it for those of us who make this decision. That would free up a substantial amount of money for me to invest elsewhere, and the returns would be far and away better than what I would ever expect from SS.
Awesome time for a circular firing squad.
I view Social Security as an offsetting tax cut since I will have to work till I die.
SS is the perfect example of the trap of socialism. Once dependent on the government handout, few are willing to do without. If everything needed to exist is handed out by the government, the individual has willingly become a slave to the state.
Explain that whenever someone trots out SS as a good example of socialism.
Either push the Republican Party right or form a conservative party. But conservatives don’t seem to want to form a new party because of fear it will be very tough sledding in the early stages, which it will be. The two major parties are powerful things, obviously having a huge advantage vs. any newly-formed party. If conservatives split off a new party, the Republican Party would go downhill fast. The Democrat Party Cabal would then have a choice: Stay 100% united (as it has been in this 2020 election year) and win bigly during the short-to-medium term against a crumbling Republican Party and startup Conservative Party. Or the extremist lefty radicals (BLM/Antifa, Soros, AOC, Bernie Bros, The Squad, etc.) might take a cue from a new Conservative Party and decide to form their own party, calling it the “Soros Borderless Open Society Marxist Squad Party,” and just say the heck with the slightly-less-radical-Marxist Democrat Party.
“I would rather the government allow us to opt-out of SS. This would completely eliminate any possible use of it for those of us who make this decision.”
I see your point but there needs to be a mandatory program for citizens in order for the less disciplined among us to at least partially secure their future. It can be both mandatory as well as free from gov’t control if legislated properly.
The article isn’t about Social Security.;-)
Bush presented this maybe 15 years ago during his time in office and it was shot down like a Zero over Pearl Harbor.
I agree with you though.
.
Everyone should understand that if the socialist current of any flavor is given sufficient run time, all means of production will inevitably be socialized, and the individual will be coercively subjugated to the collective. That is why democratic socialism is as dangerous as fascism or communism.
From the 1930’s into maybe the 1950’s Republicans referred to it as “creeping socialism” then Eisenhower or someone told them to shut up about it....and here we are.
I recall Bush’s proposal and was in favor of it.
The Left used scare tactics as usual and the uninformed fell for it, as usual.
I am always surprised over the ignorance of the American people although I don’t know why after all these years.
So tell me what is the difference between socializing domestic means of production and off shoring them to China and/or the 3rd world?
That's very... socialist of you. Why do I need to pay into a system for someone who can't figure how to save? Force charity is theft.
Only a union steward who hates business would ask that question
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.