Liberalism or Socialism The Democrat Party
69What ever happen to liberalism!
Recently on hubpages, I was having an enjoyable conversation with a very popular and exceptionally accomplished hubber. During and exchange this gentleman questioned my understanding of the term Socialism. At the time I chuckled to myself and responded in what I considered a witty and polite manner. I mean after all, what self respecting, liberal arts educated sociologist, wouldn't understand the term Socialism.
Of course it's been twenty years; okay, twenty five. I had to check, you know, just to make sure things hadn't changed since my intellectual glory days. This other gentleman suggested I find a good high school economics textbook and look up Socialism. But these days my passion for social theory has been replaced by a lazy enjoyment of "Two and a half Men" and "Big Band Theroy", so I Googled it. I found a wonderful website and I want to make sure I give WIKIPEDIA, free encyclopedia lots of credit since most of my information is coming form that site. I visited lots of expert websites, but all of them said basically the same thing just not as well as WIKIPEDIA.
Turns out, I was using, Socialism, exactly as I intended. Just to bring everyone up to speed, I was suggesting that Senator Obama is in effect a socialist. Not a bad guy, you understand, but a socialist. And of course the opposing argument was that I'm stupid, and Senator Obama is a Liberal. I assure you; this gentleman I was...talking with, is much smarter, politically, fiscally and socially than I am. So, since he pointed out the economic difference between Socialism and liberalism and my total lack of understanding, I decided to try and understand. What I think, I know, now, is very interesting.
After studying again briefly both Liberalism and Socialism I say with extreme confidence that today's Democrat Party is a Socialist Economic movement devoid of any, but remote vestiges of economical classical liberal theory. In fact the actual liberal focus of the progressive left is in the form of social and political individualism, which basically means that the rights and desires of the individual are paramount to that of societies.
I'll admit, liberalism has evolved over the years as governments and interpretations of theory have changed. Today's liberals advocate regulation of private business and government control of a social welfare state. Both concepts contradict classical economic liberalism and smell a lot like every day, historical socialism. Look-it-up, Socialism/Liberalism.
Share it! — Rate it: up down [flag this hub]
Comments
Norman Thomas was the last significant socialist politician in the United States. He died in 1968 after running for president six times about as successfully as Ralph Nader.
Mr. Deeds, good morning, like most of the left, you believe your opinion is always completely correct and everyone else (that disagrees with you) is a clown. Name calling is a very sad form of debate and I would be disappointed if not for the usual leftist meanness and arrogance. Again, just because you want it to be so, doesn’t make it so: “Economic Liberalism, also called classical liberalism or Manchester liberalism, is an ideology which supports individual rights of property and freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible.’
‘Economic liberals want little or no government regulation of the market”
This is the definition of economic liberalism, the one you told me to look up, and this is not the fiscal ideology of the democrat party. It’s not what you wanted, so you call me names and change the discussion. Please prove to me that the GOP has historically not supported human right or social rights. That’s the second incorrect claim you made while talking to me.
Both Parties do agree in “some” limited involvement in finance, social welfare and food and drug safety, but the GOP certainly doesn’t serve this country with the ideology and political thought ,the goal being socio-economic control of systems and property by the government
Government telling us what to put in our bodies, government control of health regulations on fat content for goodness sake. Government control on what the thermostat is set on in our homes, how much profit our business is allowed to make. Where and how I can pray, or worship, what I teach my child, or what others are allowed to teach my child against my wishes. I say enough, and your hate and temper can’t be allowed to bully and scare.
Again I say, if Socialism offends, how about communism? I’m comfortable with both.
We are getting nowhere. You are the one doing the name calling, i.e., calling Obama a socialist. That's your privilege. But it's an incorrect use of the term. Actual socialists consider him conservative.
BTW, I called Rush Limbaugh a clown, not you. If you are a Limbaugh fan I guess that makes you a clown by proxy.
Again, may I suggest you would be more credible if you talked about the issues rather than sweeping generalities--for example, the Iraq war, the huge national debt, the recession, the incompetence of the Bush administration, McCain's pathetic ignorance on the economy and the Middle East which he demonstrated last week when he showed he didn't know the difference between Al Qaeda, Shia and Sunni.
Some day you will look back... Ralph.. and probably wish George Bush were back in office. More government control leads to a socialist state .. leads to a communist regime..... step by innocuous step.
Our freedom was bought with a very high price. When will you value it? When it is gone?
Mr. Deeds, I did not realize Socialist was a bad word on the political left or I would not have called Senator Obama a socialist. What I should have said was his political, social, and fiscal views are socialist. I stand corrected. The use of generalizations is an attempt to be kind to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. We certainly don’t want to discuss Senator Obama’s complete lack of any real experience at all. That includes the entire presidential job description. We certainly don’t want to discuss Senator Obama ludicrous claim of bringing the country together, he’s never step across the aisle to contribute to any important legislation. He’ll bring those folks together that already believe what he believes. He believes what he does because of the black experience, and as he so eloquent told me, that’s something I can never understand. You hate G. W. Bush, I get that, and you are not a fan of John McCain, I’m really not either. I respect his service to this country and the tremendous sacrifice he made to his fellow soldiers. I think he’s a good man, as I do Barrack Obama. I just really believe, Senator Obama needs to do something, anything before he is president. Maybe explain to us all, what this “Change” is going to be like.
Silverstar, you gotta' be kidding. Many people think Bush is the worst president in our history. He's certainly the worst since Calvin Coolidge. He lied to get us into an unnecessary, foolish and costly war. Instead of calling for sacrifice, he cut taxes for the very richest Americans and spent money like there's not tomorrow, ballooning the national debt. He gave a windfall tax break to the big oil companies although they were already making record profits. In order to suck up to the religious base of the GOP he based many of his policies on religion rather than science, denying global warming until very recently. He alienated nearly of our most important allies.
Mr. Blangrehr, you still don't get it. Obama is a not remotely a socialist. He's a slightly to the left of center Democrat as is Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and his predecessors. You are displaying your ignorance when you misuse the term. Both Clinton and Obama are supporters of our democratic, free enterprise system. The only difference between them and run of the mill Republicans is that they support more government regulation. Only polemical commentators like Rush Limbaugh call them socialists.
Mr. Deeds, you’re starting to repeat yourself, slightly left of center? President Clinton, I’ll buy; I like him and voted for him, the second term. The other two, that’s like saying The Daily Kos, is slightly left of center. Senator McCain is slightly left of center. Come-on Sir, you didn’t believe that when you typed it. But don’t you think President Clinton would be a blast to hang-out with, you know, play golf, hit Vegas. Mr. Deeds I really do appreciate your time and opinion. Thank you Sir, for taking part in this hub, I hope to at some point, be able to respectfully respond to your writing,
YOU KNOW WHAT I ALWAYS REMEMBER SINCE i WAS A YOUNGSTER? the statement the communist made saying "they would take us from within" and it sure sounds like they are getting closer all the time. G-Ma :o) hugs
G-Ma, there may be communists under your bed. Watch out or they may "take you from within!"
Silverstar8 - Are you suggesting that the Bush-Cheney hegemony is not usurping the powers of the govenment? Cheney for one has rewritten the rules to be both an elected official and not an elected official, all at the same time! He has done this to avoid being brought up on charges of doing the very things that, in my opinion, make him crave more power. He has done things which make Clinton's escapades look like a Kindergarten prank.
I always marvel at how much the Republican Party has changed over the past 30 years, yet the same, old, tired talking points of "small government" and "avoiding foreign entanglements" are still being touted as Republican values, yet have somehow been dropped from the agenda.
In my view as an Independent, the Republican Party is no better than the Democratic Party.
|
Ronald Regan Mask 10497/205 Adult Overhead
Current Bid: $9.88
|
|
Ronald Regan & Gerald R. Ford Signed Personal Pict.
Current Bid: $9.99
|
|
Political Matchcover - Ronald Regan for Governor, Calif
Current Bid: $1.99
|
|
GOT FREEDOM?~USS RONALD REGAN (M) T Shirt NEW!
Current Bid: $4.99
|
|
Ronald Regan Mask 10497/205 Adult Overhead
Current Bid: $9.88
|
|
THE QUOTABLE RONALD REGAN-Peter Hannaford, 1st Edition
Current Bid: $1.95
|
|
Stand Up Regan: The Funny Side Of Ronald Regan
Price: $9.95
List Price: $16.98 |
|
President Ronald Reagan Mask
Price: $13.95
|
|
American Experience - Reagan
Price: $29.99
List Price: $24.98 |
|
The American Experience - Ronald Reagan
Price: $5.58
List Price: $24.98 |
working
Ralph Deeds says:
5 months ago
"Liberalism" is a term used differently in England and the U.S. In England classical liberalism has meant reliance on the market system with a bare minimum of regulation. In the U.S. the term liberal tends to mean the opposite. Here, "liberals" generally favor greater government intervention in economic and social matters.
Wikipedia says "The term socialism is used to refer to an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution." No one in the Democratic or Republican party advocates economic socialism.
You can call goverment regulation of the banking system by the Federal Reserve or industrial health and safety by OSHA or the production and sale of drugs by the FDA socialisim if you wish, but both parties and the three remaining presidential candidates support these and other governmental regulations. To call Obama a socialist is a misuse of the term. Moreover, if you compare the policies he is supporting with those that Hillary Clinton is supporting you will find very few differences. Neither of them comes close to being a socialist in the common usage of the term. You are using it in an innacurate, pejorative way as does Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing clowns. That usage is innacurate in the same way it would be innacurate to call John McCain a libertarian or a fascist, a warmonger or a cromagnon. The GOP has traditionally been less supportive than the Dems of government regulations like the Civil Rights Act, the Voter Rights Act, OSHA, etc. These regulations hardly constitute socialism. The GOP traditionally has supported states rights on issues where the Dems have supported federal regulation.