[forest]

The Democrats have a simple concept, actually. The activities of the individual must be subjugated to the will of the state. The state, then, will be directed by leaders like them: Democrat-Fascists.  

Socialism, after all, implies outright nationalization of the means of production. Government would take ownership of all business.

Democrats, as a whole, are into control. That is, instead of government ownership of our nation's agriculture, business and industry, the Democratic Party favors private ownership. The responsibility for operation is then placed in private hands, rather than governments.

The Democrats mutated the federal government into a system of government marked by centralization of authority. The Democrats' programs put forth stringent socioeconomic controls. Now, with their "politically correct" garbage, they are attempting to suppress all opposition through terror and censorship.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

Nazi's then!

[handk]

ARE DEMOCRATS SOCIALISTS

It's called a "question mark". Here's what it looks like:

?

I first learned about it in the second or third grade of elementary school.

[AdamSelene235]

Socialism, after all, implies outright nationalization of the means of production.

No, the communists tried that. It crashes too quickly.

Modern Socialist nationalizes the *results* of production. Income taxes, Social Security, Capital Gains, Auto Taxes, Death Taxes, Sin Taxes, Sale Taxes, Gas Taxes, etc.

Now what is the difference between subsidizing steel and subsidizing medical care?

[weikel]

Yep great post I would like to add something else Democracy and Representive government always leads to socialism( taxes went up after the American revolution a monarchy is a better form of government).

[JessicaDragonet]

If you have absolute control of something...you pretty much own it, don't you?

[Reeses]

Democratic Party favors private ownership

Not really, it's the lawyers, almost all Democrats, that favor private ownership, else they're out of their cash cow.

You could call Democrats fascists, however that implies they have a vested interest in private industry making a profit. That is not the case with today's Democrats, they have a profit envy problem. Socialism more closely describes them. And we must be hitting close to home because it really bothers them. The label doesn't matter too much though. A stinking rose still stinks by any name.

[reillyoburbank]

In a word, YES!

[Movemout]

Central planners have forever failed. The thing that made the USA different was its early implicit trust in the individual to make the right choices, to live his or her life as they deemed fit. Democrats have in recent decades wanted to substitute government choice for individual choice because they believe that some significant subset of the population is incapable of making good choices. This elitist attitude is at the root of nearly all our present problems. Half of our population are convinced that Uncle Sugar can make better decisions for them than they can for themselves. In a nutshell, that is what is wrong with our country.

[The Duke]

Socialists? Why give socialists such a bad name? The Democrats are simply a group of garden-variety gangsters who have learned that demagogery is more potent than the tommy gun.

This is why they are so vitriolic against O'Reilly - because they can't stand the contrast presented by that rarest of all birds, the "honest liberal".

If the US was Russia back at the turn of the last century, the Democrats are the ones who would be nuzzling up to Stalin's sphincter!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Great article on a timely topic since we have a Governor in California that is totally into CONTROL but has botched the job!

[Tacis]

"ARE DEMOCRATS SOCIALISTS?"

Hey, does the Pope wear a funny hat?

[Consort]

Democrats may or may not be socialists, but the Democrat Party has been usurped by Socialists. It is a party dominated by political oxymorons: organized anarchists.

[nightdriver]

"Sure, the Democrats have tried to have government take over segments of business from time to time, but never everything in the country."

Au contraire, my friend. In the late fifties there was a proposal in the house of representatives to do just that. I don't remember the creep's name who proposed it, but he was a democRAT. The democRAT party identified strongly with the communists of the twenties and thirties and have never really distanced themselves form them since.

[mlocher]

i hate it when even conservative commentators get taken in by the democratic rhetoric. democrats are socialists, and they would like nothing better than to nationalize as many industries as possible.

democrats are certainly anti-capitalists. 'capitalists and the greedy' are their favorite terms to alienate people from the conservative ranks and make the democrats seem more compassionate and fair. the accumulation of capital to put people to work and forward the economy is not what the democrats are all about. they despise the wealthy and tax them as much as they can -- so they have much less wealth (capital) to utilize.

democrats are control freaks and try to control the popular news medium -- same as communists and socialists. free speech is out, debate is out. control is in.

democrats want to nationalize as many industries as possible. the most recent has been airport security. but they long for the days of government owned utilities. the democrats simply do it one at a time because it is more palatable to the american public.

the democratic philosophy of fairness, like marxist theory, is based on a biblically flawed ideology. remember the parable of the talents -- and i can give more.

democrats pass laws to have people check up on us. every beaurocracy in place has people checking something, be it the safety of cars, emissions from factories, looking into our lives, etc. the socialists do this to, with an explicit reason to keep power.

yes the democrats are socialists. they are willing to overthrow the government slowly, one at a time, through evolution, instead of through revolution as marxist predicted.

[arly]

socialists...commies...marxist....scum of the earth

[VaBthang4]

Idiotism? Idiotists?

[mindprism.com]

Socialism, after all, implies outright nationalization of the means of production. Government would take ownership of all business.

I would use a more fundamental definition: Socialism is the dilution of individual personal strife, a risk management system, akin to a marriage.

Liberty is the idea that the individual belongs to himself and the earth first, and cannot be 'born into' such a marriage.

A free nation is one that acknowleges there need be no other impetus to an individual other than his local investment in the earth (property) and the love of his neighbor to insure the commitment of his very life, his grand asset, in defense of these.

These free people, sovereign men, create a mechanism to protect that 'way of life', to manage the overlay of civil functions so that these functions themselves remain congruent with the ideal of liberty.

Such a government does not 'force', the overlay provides the system of justice and law where the individual is supreme. That is all.

[vannrox]

---

The Project Gutenberg EText home page gives information on how to access electronic texts in the Gutenberg Project. There is also a page describing other etext archives.
The ETEXT Archives.
The Seventh Seal has extensive links to ideologically oriented sites, including anarchy, communism, conservatism, libertarianisn, liberalism, nazism, and social democracy.

---

• Foundations of Political Theory Organized Section of the American Political Science Association.
• A cyber-companion to Political Philosohy
  • Political Philosophers in the World has links to sites
  • A List of On-line Journals relating to political philosophy.
• Thinking Politica's Political Theory page
• Suffrage Universel is a newsletter about relations between citizenship, democracy, ethnicity and nationality, in French, English, and Dutch.
• The Marxism Page includes pointers to texts by Marx and other marxists, information about contemporary marxism, etc.
• The Marxists Internet Archive
• Marxism Made Simple
• Communist Manifesto - Marx & Engels
• Systematic Ideology.
• Capitalism FAQ.
• World Citizenship and world law
• www.liberalismus.com is a German website featuring Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism. There is an English index.
• Adam Smith Institute.
• Free-Market.Net Directory is an extensive database of links to libertarian and free-market thought.
• Fabian Society.
• CyberLeninism.
• The Neo-Comintern electronic magazine
• The Anarchy Ring
• Anarchy Now!
• Anarchy Archives
• The Nadir Archive. A German left-wing political text archive.
• The Noam Chomsky Archive.
• The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
• The McLuhan Probes published by the Herbert Marshall McLuhan Foundation.
• Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935.
• Aristotle. - Politics and other works.
• Discourse on Reason - Descartes
• Institute for American Liberty has links to literature relating to American liberty.
• Federalist Papers
• The papers of George Washington
• Links to the writings of US Presidents
• Reflections on the Revolution in France. - Edmund Burke.
• Machiavelli Online
• Thoreau
• Republic - Plato
• Essays on John Locke & Jean Jacques Rousseau
• Second Treatise on Government - Locke
• The Hume Archives is a repository of electronic texts by and about David Hume.
• The Hume Society
• The Bertrand Russell Archives at McMaster.
• Durkheim home page.
• The Durkheim Page from Thinking Politica
• Links on Libertarian Socialism and Cooperative Enterprise.
• Libertarian.nl, in Dutch.
• Spark is a site for those active in left-wing politics, though it includes links of a wider interest.
• An annotated bibliography, on freedom of expression in the US, by Dorothy Bowles.
• The Demonisation of Edward Heath. A discussion of the relationship between Thatcher and Heath.
• Brown Electronic Article Review Service on moral and political philosophy.
• Nozick's Principle of Rectification and the case of German Unification, paper by Ulrich Giessel and William J Ball.
• The Theoretical Analysis of Policy Arguments, paper by William J Ball.
• Basic texts on the English Server.
• The M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence.
• Mahatma Gandhi page.
• Hegel by HyperText
• The Nietzsche Page.
• Pirate Nietzsche Page.
• The Idea Channel a forum for the discussion of political ideas.
• The UBC Library has links relating to political philosophy
• The Jon Elster Page.
• The Friedrich Hayek Scholar's Page.
• The Occidental Pan-Aryan Crusader Texts Archive
• The Study of Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism
• Mein Kampf
• The Centre for Conspiracy Culture aims to facilitate the study of conspiracy and conspiracy theory by providing a set of resources, both physical and electronic, and by networking interested academics.
• Social Criticism Review offers selected readings in social criticism.
• Nazism Exposed
• biography-center has over 11,000 biographies (5,400+ in English).
• Michael Oakeshott Association
• The Left Directory: left, radical and progressive information.
• Logos Logic
• The Roots of Sunni-Shi`i Differences in Fiqh
• Why Muslims Should Vote and Be Involved Politically
• The Green Book by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi
• Società Libera, in Italian.
• LALKAR, bi-monthly anti-imperialist newspaper of communists of Indian origin in the UK

---

[ned]

Everyone shares the same philosophy: Everyone just wants the government to do what they want the government to do, and nothing else.

[Torie]

Oh my, what a silly post/article. The fringe elements on FR have it right; on the big economic and redistributionist issues, the two parties are not all that different, which is understandable since they compete for the same swing voters. Both parties are on the 45 yard line on opposite sides of the 50 yard line maybe. Other than abortion, most of the emotionalism we see here and elsewhere is over symbolic issues and personalities.