30 votes

In defense of Socialists and Communists (read it before you get twitchy.)

We have been lied to. All of us. On purpose, from the day we were born, by people who genuinely loved us and were trying to teach us truth.
Most folks on this site are familiar with the deliberate attempt to subvert the US with a "progressive" agenda. Most folks in America have no idea. They know something is HORRIBLY wrong, and they rely on what good people who loved them taught them to sort out what the problem is. When they conclude it is the government, they are not that far from wrong.
Unfortunately, the liars (deliberate ones) are experts at taking what is good in people, hooking them into some distraction and them leading them off to do terrible things. The young man who wants to "defend his country" is shipped off to the middle east to invade other countries, for instance.
So now we have this mass of people who understand something is wrong, they think the government is the main problem, and then... They go to college professors, TV newscasters, mainstream "experts," etc. to seek solutions. Well, stop for a minute and consider how GOOD - kind, loving, charitable - the premise of "socialism" or "communism" sounds once you realize that something is horribly wrong and the problem is the government. To change the TYPE of government is a pretty understandable mistake. To label these people "stupid" or "evil" is just stupid, and maybe evil... ;)
There are evil people maliciously causing division among the GOOD-HEARTED people of the earth. They are NOT stupid, make no mistake.
Most of the people who want something from the government want it for EVERYONE. They want a world where people are fed and have a home. Yes, they DO want it for themselves, too, but that does not make the desire "selfish." They see the government bailing out banks, why can't they bail out students and homeowners? It is really not THAT unreasonable a question, especially if you have been lied to about the nature of "income taxes."
Most people feel a duty to pay taxes, feel it is the right thing to help build roads and schools and secure the borders... (that is in there for laughs.) Rather than castigate them for what they do not know, see what is good in them, and appeal to that.
Do you WANT to see homeless, hungry people? I doubt it. Do THEY want the government stealing the fruits of their labor to fund endless wars? Probably not.
Here is my "take home" message: If you hear someone promoting something you consider "socialist" or "communist" stop and listen for the GOOD in their heart, and try to reach that. Bring it home with "Bring the troops home, and then we could afford that" and leave the discussion about the un-Constitutional nature of the income tax for another day.
If you choose to sit and paint labels on your neighbors, especially if you are doing the painting so that you may avoid interacting with them.... You are part of the problem.
This site is all about getting Ron Paul elected, right? Well, I busted my hump in this "Red State" last time and I assure you, every Republican in Idaho has heard of Ron Paul now. NEW VOTERS ARE NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE GOP. (Edit: That is overstated, and may be less true in your state than mine. There are hard core NEOCONS around here.)
Be fishers of men. Socialist and Communist ones.
They have good hearts, and bad educations. Ignorance IS CURABLE. Is the doctor in.... you?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bravo!

I TOTALLY second that! Had a conversation with my mom (who listens to too much talk radio) and explained to her that those people are mostly innocent... but make no mistake, there is people down there trying to make commies out of them and seize upon a moment. I feel that is what WE need to be doing... and I'm so proud of those who are. My mother is a good Christian woman, and she did end up agreeing with me.

best phrase that's ever worked for me

"I can understand how you feel that way."

This is a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY !!!!

Non-violent revolutions are won, not by pushing but by "PULLING".

Pulling means to win the opposition to your side with with better ideology. This strategy is used until the the institutions supporting the current power regime collapses.

The Revolution Business
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Reminds me of a time at a Grateful Dead in the parking lot

The Grateful Dead played most places three days in a row, and so, the parking lot became a little town, actually, a big town, with 80K visitors, and some 20K people vending in the parking lot. One day, talking with someone who was passing out their pamlet, another view of the world, this guy tells me that this community, AKA, "The Zoo", or "Shakedown Street", is a socialist community. I disagreed, I said, this was a perfect example of a free market, there were no rules, no regulations, no taxes, everyone was bartering on the level they were comfortable. I pointed out a guy selling bootleg tees for $5, which undercut the band's tee shirts by $20.00, and that guy was going to ride home with $8K, and plenty of others making tons of tax free money. I never saw that guy again.

So anytime I see something about socialists, communists, I think of that conversation in a Grateful Dead concert parking lot. Hmmm maybe I'll have a phatty burrito for dinner to celebrate such a wonderful old memory.

Also, in my book, the military is socialist, ranks, classes.. uniform, ugh.

People want to do good

Many want to do good but don't belong to any religious organization or other system to spread the good deeds that need to be done on a scale that is required. They see need, injustice, the rich just getting richer and they know the fix is in. They see government as the great equalizer, and since their government has only done good in the world (according to their history teacher), it is "obvious" to have government make things better, more fair and create the environment where everyone has an equal shot.
Sadly they don't study history with their own eyes. They may not like to face the failures of socialism; they want to think it just hasn't been done quite right.
Power corrupts. It attracts corrupt people like flies to s***. That's why we don't have 500 Ron Pauls in congress.
It's easy to see "progressives" as having exactly the same goals as we have.
Heck, many of us thought the same until some "ah ha" moment we had some time ago in another universe.

Most people aren't bad

they are just misinformed..... Dig for the common ground and try to educate. We are in a LOVE revolution! That means everybody is invited imao.

Everything is profit.

I talked To Some Communists And Socialists, Last Saturday,,,

,,,,At the Occupy event in the city closest to me, while wearing my Ron Paul T-shirt and cap.
I asked them how they would suggest to fund their many varied ideas.
They said more taxation, which totally and completely turns me off.
I own my body and the fruits of my labor, shall be mine, that's why I support the tax payers best friend, Ron Paul !

From My college Professor:
The difference between a slave state and a free state is; OWNERSHIP !

beesting

ideologically very similar

AnCaps and AnSocs... or libertarians and communists (real communists, not Soviet Fascists) are so similar its unreal.

Just a minor disagreement on the legitimacy of property.

Bastiat and Proudhoun are a hairs breath away.

Hoppe used to be a socialist. Block as well.

I'd rather live in a real anarcho socialist society than any other type of society other than an ancap one, all other things (language, culture, climate, etc) being equal.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Most socialists think the same way we do, and unlike traditional Dems and Gops do. They don't look at things from a pragmatic "go along to get along" POV, they like getting to the root issues... stripping away all the B.S. and getting to what it's really about. Just so happens they're "wrong" on property rights.

so it goes.

Let's drop labels and associations

One man's progressive is another man's communist. One man's conservative is another man's fascist. It doesn't make sense to identify with a term or an association.

I registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul, not to become a Republican.

Be yourself, and give others the same respect. All people that call themselves socialist are not the same, nor do they call themselves that for the same reason.

We got to approach everyone as individuals if we want to be treated as individuals ourselves. That is the point of "Liberty." You have to see through people's own rhetoric to see them for their true selves.

Be the change...

Jack Wagner

words have meanings

show me just one communist or a socialist who is not an authoritarian, determined to use the force of government to make me conform to his/her version of how i should live, and what i can or can't do, and who doesn't want to confiscate my property. forgive me for reacting negatively to their desire deny me of my rights and liberty. i see you support the green party? may i know what dr. paul and that group of big government marxist have in common ??

nr

there are several

there are several non-authoritian communistic or socialistic schools of thought.

just like you wouldn't like someone writing off all of libertarianism based on the false belief that the 80s and 90s or the 1800s were "free market", dont use Soviet Russia or any authoritian system as evidence that ALL socialistic systems are authoritian.

in fact, the whole reason ancaps call themselves "anarcho capitalists" is because the label "anarchist" has a history of beign associated with the left: ie: with an anti-authoritian, but non-property rights owning ideology.

Prominent communists who arent authoritians include Prohudhoun and Benjamin Tucker.

Just like our ideology isnt as easily distilled down to "ZOMG RICH CORPORATIONS JUST FUCK EVERYONE LIKE THE ROBBER BARONS IN THE 1800s!!!!!11one" despite peoples attempts to do so, communism and socialism isn't all distilled down to "Stalin killed a bunch of people".

live and let live

i can't imagine how you might have a live and let philosophy that doesn't include private property rights. what would be the characterists of such a society? how would you prevent people from constantly fighting over resources that they think belongs to everybody?

nr

Ultimately I don't think it

Ultimately I don't think it would be a very effefctive or efficient society, and a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist one (no state, but with property rights as being legitimate) would far outpace it.

Hence, I side with the an-caps over the an-socs.

However, just as most libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are striving for a soviety that has yet to be given a chance to work, not one that "worked" in the past and has been abandoned, the the an-socs are also claiming that their society, if implimented, would work.

(Incidentally, and this is probably a point for a whole 'nother post of its own, I believe libertarianism is better off positioning itself as a true "progressive" ideology which abandons the crony capitalism of the robber baron 1800s as well as the crony capitalism of the fed-era financial favortism and strives for a yet-to-be-tried future where evey indivuals self-ownership is respected in all matters, personal and ficnancial. Positioning libertarianism as a "return" to some better era is not only defeatest, but also historically incorrect.)

I guess Proudhoun and Tucker are the best ideologues of an authority-free socialist society, to the extend that you're curious about how they claim things will "work".

To be crystal clear: I don't think their society will "work", but in rejecting socialism in all its forms, it isn't necessary for me to believe it will ALWAYS have a strong central state. Even the schools of socialism without one would be inefficient and suffer from poverty compared to ancap or libertarian ones that respect private property and allow for complicated divisions of labor and extensive structures of production.

It's all about uniting the

It's all about uniting the anti-war, anti-corporate welfare, anti-institutional, pro-freedom 40%. As long as it's a third force big enough to counter the two statist left and right movements IT"S GAME ON!

Don't write anyone off.

I agree with everything you said except for the conclusion that there are no more GOP votes to be had.
If that were true we would be totally screwed, anyway.
Why be tolerant of "socialists" and dismiss "neocons"?
There are good-hearted people at every point of the political spectrum.
They may be harder to convince, but it is only because the "liars" have worked especially hard on the conservative GOP to mess them up.

******************************
The Virtual Conspiracy

The dirty little secret

is that the Neocons ARE the left, too.

The history of neocons is that they were hawkish liberals from the 1970s, influenced by Trotsky, Wilson, and Strauss(among others), who purposely infiltrated and took over the control of the GOP, and are running it for their purposes.
This is why the neocons are not fiscal conservatives and are wearing the "big gov't compassionate conservative" clothing, so that they can spend spend spend like the leftists that they are. They just want more wars to spend on too.
And this is admitted in Irving Kristol's article "The Neoconservative Persuasion" in The Weekly Standard. Kristol was the "godfather of neocons" by his own admission, also de facto.

Notice that prior to this neocon takeover of the GOP, the wars were always started by Democrats. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc, ALL started by the left.
Now they are still doing it, but masquerading as the "right".

3/4 of the political spectrum in the US is made up of the various factions of the left. There is almost nothing remaining of the old right(paleoconservatives), except the Ron Paul faction. The truth is that we are under control by the left to an alarming degree in this nation.

"Take Home Message".

FC, love your take home message - its very valuable -
"Bring the troops home, and then we could afford that".
We have got to set our priorities right, ending the unjust wars takes a higher place, = firstly, the wanton killings and destruction has to stop. Second, its wasteful even for those who are waging wars, U$ govt. The same resources could be put to better use within the country, there are so many sectors that need resources.
many thanks.

A long, long time ago

in our nation's infancy, there was a little upstart community called Jamestown. It started out with a socialist mindset - everyone was supposed to contribute to the common store, working for the good of the community.

Well, they almost starved to death because only a handful of the people did any work. Others sat back and let the few do the work for the many.

Soooo...John Smith took this verse from the Bible:
He who does not work, neither shall he eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10) and made it a kind of law for the community. Things somewhat improved after that.

Marx calls this a "defect" - I call it an unavoidable fact attributed to the nature of mankind.

Man is too selfish to live equally in a socialist society. And in particular, those who promote such a society are the ones who usually reign over the populace.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Yes, and the fable of the

Yes, and the fable of the Little Red Hen.

I have yet to see socialism work beyond a small tribe of like-minded individuals (family level, really).

Over any reasonably long time

Over any reasonably long time horizon, no form of social organization beyond small tribes of like minded individuals have worked.

Once you take away the ability of subjects to personally and directly assess the qualities and motivations of the ruling caste, it's only a matter of time before the structure they builds becomes parasitic. It doesn't even matter whether he means well or not. He's simply too far removed from his subjects to receive the required feedback.

Therefore, the thing to work towards, is local autonomy, and federal anarchy. That way socialists can live in a socialist tribe, neocons in a neocon tribe and ancaps in an ancap tribe (or no tribe).

Thanks to all who understood

It was quite a shock to get back online and find my thread still running, and because of POSITIVE comments! Thanks to all who voted, commented, and thought. Even if you disagree, at least taking the time to see what I said shows a certain openness to new ideas and I appreciate that.

But even better than that was watching that Marine tell those cops how the cow ate the cabbage... Good day on the DP for Fishy!

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I think it's in OWS's best

I think it's in OWS's best interest to support Ron Paul

I sometimes don't see eye to

I sometimes don't see eye to eye with Fishy, but I think this is good advice. I was once a socialist, too, though I didn't know it. I thought libertarians were silly hippies and conservatives were heartless and greedy. That was B.P. With people like what I was (in college), END THE WARS resonates like nothing else. Ron Paul is the only candidate serious about this, and that in itself will win us voters.

Such a breath of fresh air fishy! Thanks,

Part of the reason the "progressive" movement is popular is that they actually respect the rights of all and believe in equality. There is still a lot of disenfranchised people in this country and the "progressives" actually stand up for them.

For instance, as a gay man I am still treated as a 2nd class citizen, and while I may be a huge Ron Paul fan and supporter, I will still consider other political parties (unless Ron Paul is a choice) so long as they believe in my equality.

I wonder who voted this comment down?

And why?

It happens other times too to me and others.

I've seen the most harmless comments get voted down when all they say is "share Ron Paul's message with other" or something to that affect....doesn't make sense to me :/

I didn't vote it down, but I

I didn't vote it down, but I would suggest it might be because you said "Part of the reason the "progressive" movement is popular is that they actually respect the rights of all and believe in equality."

I don't agree. The progressive platform does not respect the rights of others, nor does it respect individual liberty. Progressives, in my experience, don't understand why their beliefs do not result in equality. Equality, as the progressives would define it, would be that everyone has the access to the same stuff (usually for free). Equality, as the libertarian might define it, is the right to your life and your freedom with no other promises -- in other words, each individual is recognized the same by government.

If a progressive votes for someone to raise my taxes because they feel a moral obligation to make sure everyone has free health care and education, they are not respecting my rights. They are tacitly stating that the government or the society owns me. The masses will decide what is best for me. That is not respecting my inalienable right to my life and liberty.

Ok, But can you name any non-progressives that

believe I, as a gay man, should have the same rights as anyone else?

--- This is what I am talking about. (but I do understand your point)

Yes. Ron Paul.

Yes. Ron Paul.

Who??? Just kidding

Yeah he does on the *state level* but he doesn't believe I deserve equal protection under the constitution.

Please let me know if I am wrong.

I believe you are wrong. He

I believe you are wrong. He has said time and again when asked about the rights of GLBT Americans that the federal government is based on identifying everyone as an individual. The government shouldn't see sexual preference, the government shouldn't see ethnic difference, the government shouldn't see class difference.

Yes, he has said that he believes marriage is between and man and woman, but he also said that the government ought not to be involved in marriage at all. It ought to be up to the churches or whatever institutions believe in this. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of marriage (even for heterosexuals), nor do I believe in a super-human-like God that dictates our affairs and has a plan for us. RP says he believes in these things, but I am not the least bit worried about it. His platform represents the greatest defense of liberty that I have seen in my lifetime.