36 thoughts on “Trailer: Big Scary “S” Word”

  1. And yet 90% of Canadians and Americans believe Socialism is a big brother to what they call communism–but even that belief is wrong!
    Capitalists, especially the Coen Brothers, did a real propaganda scare of what they wanted people to believe but which is so inaccurate as to be another Big Lie. Socialism, or some hybrid of it, is what our nations need, immediately. But will we ever get it? Not in this generation.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    • Yep! You’re absolutely correct with that last statement.

      All the “oldsters” that were exposed to the “Communism Scare” will have to pass on before it can even be discussed, let alone negotiated. And even then, the influence of that generation will be felt for many years to come.

      BUT! I do think the movement will grow over the years — provided the capitalist movement can be kept at bay. My only concern are those who are pushing an “extreme” version. IMO, it has to be done gradually.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      • I don’t agree it has to be done gradually, that will leave too much opportunity for wealthy capitalists to reframe the misframe. But, having said that, it must be done sanely. I have never studied how the Scandinavian countries accepted socialism, but I think that might be a good place to start.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

          • I knew the Scandinavian countries were not true socialist nations, that was my laziness that wrote my reply that way. But they are more socialist than any other nations on earth, and that is the important fact. They are successful at it.
            Thank you for the website, it was a very interesting read, until the comment by Forbes. Forbes would not be able to admit any even democratic socialist state could be successful because it works. Still, the difference between, say, Sweden and the USA is that the owners of production are more humane and compassionate than American owners of production. They do not have the greed that most Americans have, the need to own all the money. And, Sweden wants their workers to be happy and healthy, whereas in the USA workers are a dime a dozen, and if one gets injured or sick, they are immediately replaced by someone else who is just happy to get a job, no matter how they get it. The Swedes work for the good of the nation, AMERICANS WORK FOR THE GOOD OF THE INDIVIDUAL!

            Liked by 2 people

  2. A recent Medium.com post hit the nail on the head “I was shocked but admittedly not all that surprised that this is how American culture was handling the events from the past few years: slapping on capitalism like a Band-Aid and sweeping the real issues under the rug.”

    So now we know what capitalism is really . . . a cover-up for greed. Anytime things look bad, slap a Band-aid on that wound; it will heal!

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

  3. We can’t even get these people to wear a simple mask or get a shot that could save their lives.

    At work one day I asked a couple of my windbag workmates to define a liberal. “What is a liberal?” These
    were college grads (Penn State and U of TX, Austin. Both Engineering majors) with Master’s degrees.

    First silence. I swear a heard a cricket. They looked at each other for a while. Then one said, “People who don’t support family values.”

    Now I wanna play the theme song from Loony Toons….”that’s all folks.”
    Somebody define “shallow.” Quick.

    Liked by 7 people

    Reply

  4. Haha. Whatever. Bernie, AOC, and the gang can make us just like Venezuela and Cuba! Yay! Can’t wait for the long food and gas lines!

    Good to see since you’ve rejected God, you’ve found a new religion. This propaganda piece will play well among the faithful. But don’t worry. Socialism is already alive and well in all our institutions.

    “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. …In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” (Antonio Gramsci, ‘Audacia e Fide’ in Avanti!; reprinted in Sotto la Mole, 1916-1920, p.148)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

        • Of course not. In fact, IMO, disagreements that maintain proper decorum add to the value of the blog.

          After reading your initial post for a second time, I was intrigued by the contents of the quote you offered. Particularly the part where it talks about “transforming the consciousness of society.”

          From my former teachings, isn’t this is the ultimate goal of Christianity? Many bible passages make it quite clear that Christ’s directives were based on the idea of the common good.

          –If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
          –Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal.
          –All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor.
          –Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?
          –If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

          I don’t think I need to provide the passages that these quotes are from. As a pastor, I feel confident you immediately recognize them.

          I fully recognize that political socialism isn’t exactly what the bible teaches, but at its core, the philosophy of the socialist movement far surpasses the characteristics of capitalism.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          • @ Nan.
            You’re right about these teachings. And I agree. That would be nice if everyone followed them, even if they didn’t believe in Him. Socialists trade on these biblical values, like compassion and mutual care, but in an immoral way because their answer forces people to do what the “hivemind” decides is best (or what a handful of those in power think is best). These two philosophies end up being very different. In fact, in practice, they end up being the very opposite. Some of the most brutal and repressive regimes in the world have been under the banner of Socialism. And they always gain power through the guise of equity. On the other hand, in spite of how humans have behaved under it, everything that Jesus taught was based in freedom of choice and voluntary cooperation.

            If we all actually followed Jesus’ teachings we wouldn’t have greed, wars, poverty, suffering, etc. All people would act out of other-centered, self-giving love. Not acting out of other-centered love is at the root of all the evil perpretrated by humans against other humans.

            But everything that Jesus is talking about is not based on forcing everyone to do the “right thing,” rather it’s doing these things motivated by other-centered love. And you can freely choose to walk away from Jesus, choose not to believe in Him (as you well know). And no government in the world is going to induce other-centered love in human beings. This is one of the major blindspots of Socialism (Marxism). It fails to understand the darker side of human nature and what incentivizes individuals to do the right thing. And our society, at the end of the day, is made up of individuals, not a hivemind. I would just rather people understood this up front before deciding to the do the same thing over again and expecting different results this time around.

            Like

          • because their answer forces people to do what the “hivemind” decides is best

            Isn’t this essentially what Christianity hopes to accomplish? You can’t deny that there is a constant and ongoing “drive” by believers to incorporate biblical teachings into pretty much every arena of life — most notably in schools where it is hoped “the young” will be persuaded.

            Sure, the teachings of Jesus were exemplary — and at its core, I believe this is what socialism is about. The hang-up comes about because SO MANY people can’t seem to get around the idea that Socialism = Marxism. In its purest form, it is NOT the same.

            Are you old enough to draw Social Security? Or take advantage of Medicare? Are you familiar with Medicaid? Have you heard of CHIP? How about the Affordable Care Act? Or rental assistance programs? Head Start? SNAP?

            Hmmm. Seems there are a few government “socialist” programs that help the less fortunate.

            Like

          • Snap?
            First, no, that is not what “Christianity” hopes to accomplish, at least by force. You are talking about Fundamentalists and bad actors in history, actually not acting according to the basic principles of Christianity. Again, that’s human problem.

            This is why our Constitution works. It mitigates human nature through checks and balances, keeping power away from the rulers. The more power you give rulers, the more tyrannical they will become.

            Second, government programs in the U.S. are social programs instituted under a capitalist socioeconomic system. That is not the same as having a Socialist government. And even then, we have to question whether some of these programs, like the last 60 years of welfare, have been the best way to help people. It certainly didn’t bring them out of welfare, only perpetuated it, which make it evident that there’s political factors behind keeping people dependent on them.

            As I noted in another comment, it’s interesting how these social engineers need capitalism to fund their programs. But if Bernie and AOC got their way, that would deincentivize their golden goose, killing the weath-generating engine, and everyone would end up worse. This has played out, over and over again, in history. I don’t know why we think this will work. It’s not like it hasn’t been tried many times.

            Like

          • Just wanted to clarify something — I’m not a fan of Bernie or AOC. Their version of socialism is not what I’m talking about.

            Welfare programs may not have made profit-producing individuals, but at least it helped feed families and put roofs over their heads. Too many “capitalists” look down on these people and say they just want to live off the government. This may be true for some, but not all. Some were simply born into conditions and circumstances that prevent them from advancing and/or becoming self-supporting. (And a big part of this “prevention” is related to race!)

            A totally socialist government probably isn’t the be-all to end-all, but neither is one that is based primarily on Capitalism. Hopefully, future generations will become more in tune with the needs of ALL people and develop a more generic form of government.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Then I have no idea of what type of socialism you’re advocating, that would not require the generation of capital to make it actually work. Certainly not one that exists today.

            Like

        • Capitalism can be many things, even good things, but when the capitalists decide their only goal is money, and the more money the merrier, then it becomes immoral and inhumane, which defines American Capitalism. GREED! Nothing but pure unmitigated greed!

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

          • @ rawgod.
            I would agree with your assertion. If the capitalist’s only goal is money and greed, that would be immoral. But there are many entrepreuers under a capitalist system who don’t only think of money. Many are very generous and have contributed many good things to society through their philathropy (Carnegy, etc). That’s one of the reasons why free enterprise capitalism has helped more people than any other socioeconomic system.

            But greed is a human problem, not because of capitalism itself. Under capitalism, we can mitigate against greed by incentivizing them benefiting others. On the other hand, Socialism is immoral by design.

            Socialism makes the pretense of being “fair,” but it’s immoral because it’s immoral to steal from people, even if you voted to steal from them (Democratic Socialism). As the founding fathers said, pure “democracy” is two wolves and a lamb deciding what they will have for dinner. Socialism also makes government “god” by giving it all the power to coerce others and to say it’s good to covet your neighbor’s possessions. The minority opinion is always subjegated by mob rule. It has always turned out to be an ugly thing in human history. We should know better by now. We have plenty of examples.

            I would think we all want the individual freedoms afforded to us under a free market system, and mitigate against greed and abuse of power (which will definitely happen under a Socialist government). After all, you wouldn’t want the “majority” to decide they should outlaw anyone who isn’t a Christian. We are all better off in a free and voluntary society, not under the whims of mob rule forced on us by the State.

            But what’s really funny about the argument is that Socialists need wealth from capitalists to make their grift work. Without the engine of capitialism, the Socialists among us could not have established the welfare state.

            While there are corupt people who do immoral things under capitalism, Socialism is immoral by design.

            Like

          • You have such a biased view of socialism itself, or even democratic socialism, that to contest your assertions would be a total waste of my time, and the time of any free-thinking person who reads it.
            Enjoy your life, Mel. No one I know could.

            Liked by 1 person

          • @rawgod.
            That’s funny that someone who appears to embrace Socialism is appealing to free thinking. Some cognitive dissonance going on there! I am biased toward freedom of choice for everyone, which Socialism will never provide. And my view of Socialism is based on the evidence, on history, not on some faith-based fantasy that people will do it right this time. I would think an agnostic or atheist would agree with that.
            Anyway, I wish you the best.

            Like

          • @ rawhide.
            You are making a faith-based claim, not one based on the historical evidence of Socialist regimes.
            Where is it true that a Socialist country allows people to do and think as they please?

            Like

          • Looking at the page you linked to, it says that … China is driven by socialist ideals and
            Cuba practices socialist ideologies. Of course, both countries have bastardized the philosophy, but at some point, they must have recognized the benefits of socialism.

            Further, I find it rather interesting that the graph delineates between “Marxist-Leninist” and “Socialist Party.”

            Like

          • “Of course, both countries have bastardized the philosophy…”
            How do you know that they didn’t follow the ideology faithfully to its logical conclusion? Have you read the works of Marx, Engels, Nechayev, Lenin, Mao, and others like Gramsci? I would say that they were faithful to the vision. And China is one of the worst human rights violators in the world. But they are an example where allowing Western corporate capitalism keeps them viable (for a small percentage of people).

            The difference is that “Marxist/Leninism” is considered a Communist country, and one run by the Socialist Party could be considered Democratic or just Socialist country. Although, in practice, they aren’t much better. Unless you prefer to live in present-day Venezuela.

            Like

  6. Well, coming from a country, that has actually fought a war against the Communist regime of our neighbouring Soviet Union, and a war in wich one of our Socialist presidents fought when he was young, I’d have to say, the general panic reaction to the concept of Socialism in the US has always seem strange.

    If our Socialists had not stood side by side with our Conservatives and our Liberals during WWII we might still be a part of Russia – that has not been a Communist country for decades, but is not much better today, than when it was not yet Capitalistic.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • The USSR was never truly communist, but I presume you have a much better understanding of that than most Americans do. The USSR gave their people “shared poverty” while their leaders lived in fantastic luxury. And if you did not like that truth, you disappeared. A lot of people disappeared. Their leaders were no less greedy than American Capitalists are.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      • Yes, I’ve even been to our bordering country, the USSR a few times, as well as to Russia – later. So, I have some notion of what kind of countries are we talking about. I’d say the “shared powerty” is a bit of a myth.

        No, the USSR was never as rich as some of the Western countries in many ways. Yet, one has to consider the level from wich they started from. Imperial Russia of the Tzars was incredibly rich. Or some people in that Russia were so rich, that the rich of the colonial superpowers of the time (France and Britain) regarded them extravagant, with diamonds on the buttons for their waistcoats. On the other end there were people so poor, they did not own their own lives. Much of that wealth was spent on the long war against Germany and when the Soviet Union emerged from the “Great War” (WWI) and a bloody civil war, there was not much more than powerty be shared. It was not helped by the embargo they faced in the aftermath. They made economic reforms, some of wich were poorly designed and even more poorly conducted, but they also made great progress, even though they were the nation worst hit and least helped by WWII.

        Lenin said, that Socialism is electricity to the people. What he meant was that the main idea of the communist party is to raise the average person and indeed everybody from the terrible poverty the Russian population had suffered from. This they actually achieved, though there were constant shortages of consumer products. The USSR was turned into a competing industrial power from an agricultural backwater, with free healthcare, free higher education, total job security and no taxes.

        The Soviets were not nearly as poor as most people in the “Capitalistic” countries globally. I do not know if it is some form of racism, that we take it as granted, that the living standards of the Soviets (as white Russian people) have always been compared to Western Europeans and White Americans, when most of the “developing world” is just as Capitalistic as those.

        Russia was never a colonial empire in the same terms as Spain, France,GB, their satellites have been, or even the USA and her satellites are today. Drawing on the cheap labour and raw materials from Africa, Asia and South Americas. That the billions of Indian people (both in the Native Americas and in actual India), not to mention Africa are living in a Capitalist system. – A lot of good it has brought to them?

        The USSR is often remembered by the fact, that they had labour camps, but at the same time it is conviniently forgotten, that they inherited the system from their Feodal Capitalistic predecessors and indeed it was the Soviets who finally discontinued that long standing Russian tradition.

        They did a lot of terrible things and mistakes along the way and indeed during the rule of Stalin, there was not much to talk about Communism. He and his cronies mostly persecuted and killed idealist Communists, you know. But even then, most of the Soviet leaders did not live in the lap of luxury.

        On the whole I agree with you, though. The lack of democracy made the USSR a non Communist country and weak. The very idea of Communism is based on Democracy and without it, it is just a pretence.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        • Thank you for a great reply, R. I saw a bit of what communism could go in Poland prior to the fall of communism, and it was not pretty compared to western civilization, just just like in Cuba too, which I visited in 2004, the people were happier than the West wanted us to know. They might not have had the luxuries we Westerners had available to us, but down deep we were much more stressed out than were the common folk of Poland or Cuba.
          I was already anti-democratic by the time of those visits, and while I am anti-communist as far as what they called communism, I am pro-socialism in the way I would like to be able to live, and the way I hope all people will eventually be able to live. Democracies want us to believe we are a classless society, but really we are not as free as they would have us believe. Even the super-rich wealthy are not free, because they have to depend on poor people to create that wealth for them. They might think they are better than the rest of us, but we have more spirit than they have. They would have no idea how to cope if that wealth suddenly disppeared.
          And as far far as I am concerned, the sooner that wealth disappears, the better off we all will be!

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  7. The bottom line for me says, “do we take care of our own?” On the next rung up, do we care about other people, life in general, or what some might call “God’s Creation?” Both new and old biblical testaments support such as do other non-Abrahamic religions.

    Many, mostly on the right, do not seem to support science, masks, immigration (sojourners) and our treatment of those people, logic, or the public/common good in general.

    I like the phrase/slogan, “No masters, no gods,” which originated circa mid-1800s as an anarchist and pro-labor slogan in Europe. It was later adopted by the feminist movement (1914) and more recently by the punk movement. I’m no anarchist. But I am antifascist, antiauthoritarian government (I think the previous administration was), and antireligion.

    I support various tenets of different political and economic philosophies such a capitalism and socialism. I follow no dogma or manifesto. My support of things democratic reconciles with “no masters.” I see the role of government as servant of (by and for) the people. I confess to slight cognitive dissonance with this due to the history of the trope. “No gods” is easy at face value.

    The irony I see is that so many (anti maskers/vaxers, etc.) using virtually the same sort of ‘no masters’ logic when railing against temporary restrictions for the good of the world, community, workplace, business, or family. I suppose it’s no masters except for… “Hooray for our side.”

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.