A Different Kind of Blog

news and things sacred and irreverent put together by opinionated people.

Caveman and the Socialist Era

Posted by lawman2 on December 9, 2008

 Now with Mr. Obama as our new president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.  This caveman thinks people better stand up and pay attention…especially as we become more and more desperate about our economy.  Conservatives’ excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit is tempered by one thing — outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care.The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama’s past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label “socialist” to be a pejorative. Why hasn’t the American public as a whole taking notice?  To them, it’s just another content-neutral political ideology.  In our non-judgmental age, it falls into images8the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right. THEY ARE WRONG. Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for cooperation and social service. The truly lazy take advantage of it. God I hate lazy, and unproductive people!

Of course the elections are now over, but we really need to watch Obama and his new socialist agenda. 

 

I found this amazing post and decided to post it …even though the elections are over it still eductates the average person on socialism

baracksocialismeyes1

In order to stir ordinary Americans to the sense of outrage those of us in the blogosphere feel, we need to remind them that socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics.  It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.

 

It helps to begin by understanding what socialism is not.  It isn’t Liberalism and it isn’t mere Leftism.  Frankly, those terms (and their opposites) should be jettisoned entirely, because they have become too antiquated to describe 21st Century politics.  The political designations of Left and Right date back to the French Revolution, when Revolutionaries sat on the Left side of the French Parliament, and the anti-Revolutionaries sat on the Right.  Terms from the internal geography of the French parliament as the ancient regime crumbled are striking inapposite today.

 

Likewise, the terms Liberal and Conservative date back to Victorian England, when Liberals were pushing vast social reforms, such as the end of child labor, while Conservatives were all for maintaining a deeply hierarchical status quo.  Considering that modern “liberals” are seeking a return to 20th Century socialism, those phrases too scarcely seem like apt descriptors.

 

If it were up to me to attach labels to modern political ideologies, I would choose the terms “Individualism” and “Statism.”  “Individualism” would reflect the Founder’s ideology, which sought to repose as much power as possible in individual citizens, with as little power as possible in the State, especially the federal state.  The Founder’s had emerged from a long traditional of monarchal and parliamentary statism, and they concluded that, whenever power is concentrated in the government, the individual suffers.

 

And what of Statism?  Well, there’s already a name for that ideology, and it’s a name that should now be firmly attached to Sen. Obama:  Socialism. 

 

Although one can trace socialist ideas back to the French Revolution (and even before), socialism’s true naissance is the 19th Century, when various utopian dreamers envisioned a class-free society in which everyone shared equally in what the socialist utopians firmly believed was a finite economic pie.  That is, they did not conceive of the possibility of economic growth.  Instead, they believed that, forever and ever, there would only be so many riches and resources to go around. 

 

The original utopians did not yet look to the state for help establishing a world of perfect equality.  Instead, they relied on each enlightened individual’s moral sense, and they set up myriad high-minded communes to achieve this end.  All of them failed.  (For many of us, the most famous would be the Transcendentalist experiment in Concord, Massachusetts, which almost saw poor Louisa May Alcott starve to death as a child.)

 

It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis.  Assuming that you’re not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing:  It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience. 

 

Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control.  Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath’s ideas.  Herewith some examples:

 

My favorite example is always Nazi Germany because so many people forget that it was a socialist dictatorship.  Or perhaps they’re ignorant of the fact that the Nazi’s official and frequently forgotten name was the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.  In other words, while most people consider the Nazi party to be a totalitarian ideology arising from the right, it was, in fact, a totalitarian party arising from the left

 

Practically within minutes of the Nazi takeover of the German government, individuals were subordinated to the state.  Even industries that remained privately owned (and there were many, as opponents of the Nazis = socialist theory like to point out), were allowed to do so only if their owners bent their efforts to the benefit of the state.  Show a hint of individualism, and an unwillingness to cooperate, and you’d swiftly find yourself in Dachau, with a government operative sitting in that executive chair you once owned.

 

We all know what life was like in this Nazi socialist state.  Citizens immediately lost the right to bear arms; thought crimes were punished with imprisonment and death; children were indoctrinated into giving their allegiance to the state, not the family; the government dictated the way in which people could live their day-to-day lives; and people who appeared to be outliers to the harmony of the conscienceless government entity (gays, mentally ill-people, physically handicapped people, Jews, gypsies) were dehumanized and eventually slaughtered. 

 

And here’s something important for you to realize as you think about what happened in that socialist state.  While a core group of people, Hitler included, undoubtedly envisioned these extremes as their initial goals, most didn’t.  They just thought that, after the utter chaos of the 1920s (especially the economic chaos), the socialists would calm the economy (which they did), and simply remove from people the painful obligation of having to make their way in the world.  It was only incrementally that the average German bought into the ever-more-extreme demands of the state – and those who didn’t buy in were coerced because of the state’s unfettered willingness to use its vast, brute power to subordinate individuals to its demand.

 

Here’s another example:  the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  In my liberal days in the 1970s and 1980s, it was very popular to downplay what was going on in the USSR and, instead, chalk up fear of the Soviets to the foul remnants of McCarthyism.  This was extreme intellectual dishonesty on our part.  The fact is that life in the USSR was always horrible. 

 

From its inception, the Soviet state brutalized people, whether it was the upper echelon party purges or the mass slaughter of the kulaks — all in the name of collectivism and the protection of the state envisioned by Lenin and Stalin.  Most estimates are that, in the years leading up to WWII, the Soviet socialist state killed between 30 and 60 million of its own citizens.  Not all of the victims died, or at least they didn’t die instantly.  Those who didn’t receive a swift bullet to the head might starve to death on collective farms or join the millions who ended up as slave laborers in the gulags, with most of the latter incarcerated for thought crimes against the state.

 

I’ve got another example for you:  the People’s Republic of China, another socialist state.  One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia:  individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state’s needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die.  Current estimates are that Mao’s “visionary” Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people.  The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes.  The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.

 

Those are examples of hard socialism.  Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn’t the American ideal.  Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism.  Britain’s socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment.  Invariably, the denials arise because the State’s needs trump the individual’s:  Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they’re old.

 

British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards.  As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed

 

The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people’s lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can’t appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good.  In Britain, government protects thieves right’s against property owner’s, has it’s public utilities urge children to report their parents for “green” crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech.  (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)

 

Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people’s lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom.  And that is why Obama’s socialism matters. 

 

Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending.  I don’t want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology.  They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom.  So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America.
by Bookworm
Bookworm is proprietor of the blog Bookworm Room
You should take a few min and visit this great site:

 

 

 

 

 Vodpod videos no longer available.

You can read more caveman’s perspectives from lawman Just A Caveman

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Caveman and the Socialist Era”

  1. tothewire said

    I could not care to finish reading your careless and fallacious article; or can I even call it an article? However, I will just brush up on several things to show you how crap your article sounds in reality without your overwhelmed brain, which seem to shell your thoughts a bit.

    You mentioned that Obama is a socialist and that media works very hard to hide the truth. However, if they are hiding something here, then you must know what they are hiding in order for you to accuse them of hiding the truth about Obama. Can you even give me a good evidence that Obama is a socialist? Also, can you define socialism and what type of socialist Obama may be?

    How crafty of you of bringing the word “animal” to identify socialism. Hmmm…, have I heard that somewhere?

    Your slight suggestion that socialism will bring absolute destruction as you compared it to French Revolution is simply absurd. I am not even sure if the socialism that you are discussing existed during 1700’s French society. I am also not sure if you have noticed the social and economic differences between the U.S. and 1700’s France.

    The fact is, socialism has changed and meaning itself no longer is same as what you might have read in a textbook regarding to the birth of socialism.

    As far as what the founding fathers might have believed, I believe things are a bit different now. Yes, we have to keep the base alive, yet things have to change and they have changed. Simply, we cannot remove powers from federal and state governments. Do you know how many programs are being operated by federal government? How about state governments? Do you think we can go back the way things were when there was literally no globalization, much less population, much less complicated financial systems and including countless things out there theses days?

    I think I have more things to say, but this is where I stopped reading…. well, the word “Marx” popped out to my eyes…. I did read it and I will say something about it.

    What you said about Marx and socialism is wrong and wrong. First, you are quick to jump to a conclusion that Marx believed in a powerful central government as you might be mistaken to compare it with communist party dominance that you have seen in the past. In reality, he believed in communist party, not the central government that Lenin structured as you might be inclined to compare. Of course, I cannot say that whether Marx would have championed Lenin for it or not. If you read it and understand Marx’s argument, you will second guess about your statement regarding to individualism that you like to chant to the world. He does not argue against individualism, but the manipulation of what you might believe to be “individualism”. In a sense, the context of individualism that you believe is not right!! Context!! READ IT!! Manifesto should tell you and it is very short and very easy read!!

    Like

  2. Rj said

    You all are the fun-est people on the blogosphere. I’ve never seen such caring and loving relationships.

    Like

  3. Lawman2 said

    hey there Rj!

    tothewire – i included pictures to encourage you to read more, thought it would keep your attenion and all.was it the big words honey, did they confuse you?i hear kay has a dicionary now,maybe she will lend it to you…hehehe

    Like

  4. tothewire said

    You’re such a nerd lawman. I am not going to waste my time on this one.

    Like

  5. RJP3 said

    Damning Socialism because of how Hitler manipulated it is the same as Damning Christianity because of how Hitler abused it in his power grab.

    Both were used to lure people in.

    Just like the Republican Party uses “fiscal conservatism” to lure people in. Fiscal Conservtism in itself is a good thing. But the Republican Party is not.

    Collective economic cooperation – yes caring for each other – and voting on how to do so is a good thing – Nazism was not.

    Christlike behavior is a good thing. The Nazi’s and their offical church – the Roman Catholic Church. Not so much.

    What a joke article.

    Like

  6. dorian9 said

    well what is there left to say – ttw and rj said it for me. i did a speed read over the article, a habit for anything that has obama and socialism in the same heading but this one really pushed things to the extreme. obama’s “socialist” (really, when was it confirmed and established that america voted socialist??) agenda for our country is compared to the french revoution,lenin, stalin, hitler..hm. this is the 21st century and i’d like to think that people, especially in our country, will not be as easily subjugated by the likes of a hitler. those types will be limited to audience in certain news channels and the tabloids, along with the self-proclaimed progeny of alien lineage.
    and the poor brits suffering from the oppression of their socialist state. hm. last i heard from relatives and friends over the week-end, it’s sounding like they’re still allowing them to stand in soap boxes and declaring whatever it is they don’t like about queen and country.

    good to see rj surfacing. oh. hitler didn’t like the roman catholics either. he was jealous of the church’s power and influence. i don’t like the vatican either but i hear they still give the best exorcism so i still put money in the basket twice a year. i’ve been watching too much paranormal stuff on t.v.
    lawman you do know how to snuff the liberals out from their lair, huh?

    Like

  7. *gets on the soapbox*
    I would like to point out the Nazi Government was a Fascist Government not Socialist. Hitler had a well documented hatred for Socialism. That hatred for socialism at times overridded his eugenics agenda. A socialist government would be the USSR and China. Socialism in itself is where everyone has a government job and everyone makes the same wage. Also everyone has equal say in goverment policies. That is Marx’s cliff notes model, much like a true democracy where every citizen has rights and can speak out against the Government and actually do something about it. Neither political models work. Let’s face it the country has become an Imperialistic Nation which is what Britian is and it is what a majority of so called democracies truly are. Buzz words like socialism, assault weapons, etc. are being used today to incite fear and panic into the general populace. Quick lesson who else uses those tactics? Are people who instill fear and panic into the general populace just to push their policies any better? For the really slow people who do not recognize what I am comparing today’s political tactics to something else. Someone who instills fear and panic into the general populace knowing their actions will on some level do that, this action can be described with one word what is it? Of course I have to agree with ttw on Marxist Socialism and Communism two different things. I understand most of us are children of the cold war era (the cold war ended with the fall of USSR.) and we were taught as children socialism and communism are the same thing. But we were taught wrong, though they are related they are completely different. Just like a democratic government and an imperialistic government are alike but different. Obama has to clean up after the guy who broke the world. So yes we are going to have to borrow more money from china to improve our economy as well as the global economy. We have to bail out the banks and instill regulation on the areas of commerce that have to be bailed out. (A lot of these industries that were deregulated in the 70’s are being bailed out today.) Obama is doing some good he has lifted the ban on stem cell research. (The ban was not only towards Embryonic Stem Cells but all stem cells including the core stem cells that work just as well if not better than the Embryonic Stem Cells. The Core Stem Cells come from the umbilical cord. While some republicans say that there was not an actual ban on stem cell research, the truth is it was harder to get the approved non embryonic stem cells for research than a felon to get a legal firearm. This was what a researcher friend of mine said a couple of years ago. So hopefully in four years things will start rolling again. I do hope that the Caveman has learned something new today and will move from that archaic thinking and actually bring about a new age conservative way of thinking. (Which of course is an oxymoron just like gay republican and Christian Atheist.) Now for the liberal bashing. Assault weapons are defined as a weapon that fires three or more rounds of ammunition consecutively. Which means three round burst and full auto are features that assault weapons have. Also I would like to point out that foldable stocks and muzzle flash repressors are not what an assault weapon makes. As long as there are two settings safe and semi then it is not an assault weapon. Also handguns should not be banned. For all the liberals voting for gun ban in America chew on this before you spread around this poison. (Which is just as bad as the conservative poison Caveman just spewed in this article.) The fact is, the harder it is for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm the easier a criminal can acquire one. Guns do not kill people, it is the finger on the trigger that kills people. Someone getting shot while cleaning their firearm is bull shit because when you clean a fire arm (to truly clean it) you do not wipe it with a rag you take it apart. I would wager that true accidents do not happen as often as the anti-firearm lobbying says it does. Classes on marksmanship as well as basic firearm maintenance and care should be mandatory, and the ability to show that you are proficient through practical exercises. Which should include the proper way to clear a firearm, disassembly for cleaning a firearm and being able to zero and score a certain score in a live fire qualifying exam. As well as a written firearm safety exam. Since simular conditions are being imposed for a drivers license (vehicular accidents kill and injure more people per year than firearm accidents.) When the bill of rights was created every citizen knew how to clean, store and fire their firearm correctly. Since this is obviously lacking in our current culture these things are essential.
    *gets off the soapbox.*

    Like

  8. yay I used a buzz word that Kay uses

    Like

  9. kay~ms said

    A couple of comments…

    Clearly, capitalism is not the answer either … look at this mess we are in now!!

    EE… it is true… people kill people, not guns… but how do you explain the successful decline in gun deaths in Britain because of their ban on hand guns?

    Like

  10. I can answer that easily because the ban on hand guns means that even people that do not use their heads for anything more than a coat rack cannot get them. Also Britian is a much smaller country than ours and is surrounded by water so the British Customs can actually catch 95% of illegal firearms that come into Britain. On the other hand America makes a good percentage of the firearms used today in multiple allied countries. Our borders are not as secure as Britians so we can catch a fraction of what Britain catches. The anti handgun ban for America would not be effective because criminals in America will still be able to acquire a firearm that a law abiding citizen cannot. Also the second amendment guarantees my right to defend my property and my family however I see fit. Jeb Bush passed what has been deemed as the Castle Law which means if anyone intrudes in my house I can shoot them and have no legal ramifications as long as I can prove that person has come into my house by means of forcible entry. Or they represented a threat to mine and my families well being. But I think that education on how to use a firearm properly from the storage to the actual shooting will decrease our firearm related “accidents” by a big margin. If the public, especially someone who wants to own something that can kill someone if carelessly used, stored or maintained, can be educated on how to reduce these accidents than it would be more plausible for our country. Britain’s policy works because of it’s location. As long as America has illegal aliens, then our borders will not be safe from smugglers or the black market. This fact would put our law abiding citizens that can own a hand gun for protection (because in a close quarters environment (i.e. Your house) a rifle is not as effective as a pistol.) in danger and we will see more armed burglaries, rapes, and other crimes as well. A criminal will do these things to someone they know for a fact cannot defend themselves which is what keeps our armed home invasion crime rate down for the most part. The fact that a majority of the country can own a fire arm also keeps other countries from trying to invade the US, it is part of our National Security and the duty of every American Citizen in the even of an invasion. Also statistically most anti-gun lobbyists have been victims of violent crimes involving firearms. These people are blinded by their want for “justice” and does not see the way from the non criminal side or psychologically on some level think everyone should be a victim and should not be able to defend themselves. Everyone who does not fall into those categories usually think that if there was no guns then criminals will not be able to get them either. That in itself is a wrong assumption. Because there are two ways to acquire a firearm. Legally and Illegally. Criminals will still have access to the guns where law abiding citizens will not giving Criminals the advantage.

    Like

  11. kay~ms said

    I admit that I don’t like the idea of not being able to legally own a gun but the criminals will always have one anyway. And I didn’t think of that… that it is easier for Britain to control their borders because of their geographical situation…I always wondered why they were so successful with the gun ban law and why we couldn’t do the same… thanks for answering that for me…

    Like

  12. An American said

    I spit on Obama.

    Like

  13. EE is right. So that means that gun control is irrelevant and America is just a murderous and violent place: in which case gun control is probably a good idea. Q.E.D.

    Like

  14. It may be a good idea but gun control will not help protecting the citizens as it is harder to get into law enforcement than it is to get into the army. We do not have enough members of law enforcement meaning that we need to protect our property and homes. If I had a butcher knife and the robber had a firearm who do you think would win?

    Like

  15. The fact that you are imagining that scenario just proves my point about America: I never give any such possibility a thought: anyway unless the robber is trying to kill you, you don’t get to kill them, or even shoot them a bit. Last time I looked burglary wasn’t a capital offence.
    Aren’t far more innocent people killed accidentally by guns in the home, or by family members in moments of madness, than by robbers?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: