The Young Socialist 2.0

2003-01-18T14:36:00.000-08:00

BUSH = HITLER

I found this article on a forum, which didn't list a source, but I like whoever wrote it(I'm thinking The Nation).

On February 27, 1933, a mentally deranged Dutch Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, lit a few small fires in the German parliament building, the Reichstag, in Berlin — not enough to set the building alight, but sufficient to get him hanged as the sole perpetrator afterward. The happenings prior to that fateful evening, and the events following it, carry some lessons for those wanting to understand September 11, 2001, and the subsequent developments.

van der Lubbe, a petty criminal and arsonist, hated the Nazis, and had bragged about intending to set the Reichstag on fire while having a beer in a pub. The Nazi SA, with ears everywhere, found out, and, unbeknownst to van der Lubbe, an SA detachment entered the building through a disused central heating tunnel. While the Dutchman was busy lighting insignificant fires, using his shirt as tinder, the SA planted gasoline and incendiaries, and within minutes, the Reichstag was burning out of control. Why did the Nazis do this?

At the time, Hitler had a problem. Based on the success of the Nazi party in the previous election, Hitler had become Reichskanzler, or Prime Minister, but he lacked a majority in both the government and the parliament. Having no intention of playing second fiddle to his rivals, a coalition of moderate parties, he needed a decisive victory in the March 5 election. He also was uncomfortable with the democratic process, and wanted to proceed directly to Nazi supremacy and dictatorship.

Hitler's solution was to eliminate the Communist party and its 100 deputies, which would give his Nazis a majority in the remaining parliament. By ensuring that van der Lubbe succeeded in destroying the Reichstag, he could pronounce the fire a Communist conspiracy. By the next morning he had secured the signature of the aging President, von Hindenburg, on legislation that changed Germany from a democracy to a tyranny. The one hundred Communist deputies were arrested, civil rights were abrogated, and the country embraced Hitler as its Leader.

In mid 2001, the Republican government in the United States was having a problem. It was seen as merely presiding over a recession, having accomplished nothing of significance, and it faced an uphill battle in getting the largest peacetime defense budget increase approved in Congress. The corporate sponsors of the Bush administration were, no doubt, getting impatient: the stocks of the defense industry were still losing their value, and, lacking a credible enemy, there were serious reservations in Congress against spending more on defense.

During the weeks prior to September 11, 2001, Muslim terrorists made it known that they were going to hit some notable landmarks in America, and hit them hard. These boasts surfaced on the Internet, much the same as van der Lubbe's bragging in the Berlin beer hall. Much as in Germany in the '30s, help was forthcoming, and for the same reasons.

Fully aware of the threat to the nation's aviation from slipshod security in US airports, the government did nothing to improve it; in fact, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) top management intentionally hid reported security weaknesses.

On the morning of September 11, four large passenger jets with full fuel tanks went off course over the US Northeast, and ceased communicating with Air Traffic Control. Flight controllers overheard sounds of a struggle from the cockpit of one plane. Passengers made cellular phone calls from two of the flights, reporting that the planes had been hijacked. Normally, when something like this happens, the US Air Force, which has fighter jets ready to intercept troubled or suspicious civilian aircraft on short notice, begins escorting the offending plane, and, if necessary, forcing it to land, within ten minutes of being alerted by the FAA.

But that day, each of the four planes was allowed to continue off-course for as long as half an hour or more. Finally, after the first one had hit the World Trade Center in New York, a couple of fighter jets were scrambled from Boston, which ensured that they couldn't reach New York before the second impact.

Interestingly, in a TV interview on December 4, 2001, Laura Bush let it slip that already back in July, the White House, knowing that the country would be in mourning at the end of the year, had begun redesigning the 2001 Christmas cards on a more somber note than usual.

So far, the parallels with what happened in Germany in February 1933 are evident. They become clearer still when we look at the results of the attacks. Just as in Germany in 1933, the text of the new US legislation abrogating constitutionally guaranteed civil rights was ready at the time of the WTC and Pentagon attacks. Unprecedentedly, the Federal laws needed were enacted within less than a month after September 11, without significant opposition or debate. Capitol Hill legislators barely bothered to read the bills they approved. As a result, as if by flipping a switch, anyone suspected of terrorism in America is now presumed guilty until proven innocent. The authorities are free to accuse anybody of being or supporting a terrorist. Conveniently, terrorism has not been defined; however, it already has become clear that it includes exercising one's First Amendment rights.

Likewise, the record-breaking Federal defense budget, along with an extra $20 billion for fighting terrorism, was approved by December 8, 2001. The shares of the defense industry began rising sharply and are rising still. Need it be added that Mr. Cheney came from a leading position in the Carlyle Group, a large defense industry holding company, where the Bush family has substantial interests? Need we be reminded that, already in 1998, oil giant Unocal went to the US House of Representatives to demand a "recognized" (read corruptible) government in Afghanistan, so it could build a natural gas pipeline through that country and profit from the booming energy market in the Far East? Could it be that the 4,000 Afghani civilians killed by US precision bombs just happened to live along the proposed route of that pipeline, now conveniently cleared of homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals that used to stand in its way? We'll be watching Unocal and finding out.

Back in the thirties, Hitler proceeded to rearm Germany and attack his neighbors on trumped-up charges of jeopardizing German interests and mistreating German minorities. Germany became the bully of the decade and started the Second World War. Although Germany lost the war and Hitler committed suicide, her arms industry, including the German subsidiaries of US car giants GM and Ford, profited handsomely. The profits due to Ford and GM were paid out after the end of the war.

Following the 9-11 attacks, President Bush readily stepped up to the challenge and declared war on terrorism on the evening news of September 11. His battle cry "If you're not with us, you're against us" is a round statement by a world-class bully, much like the accusations of treason Hitler liked to level at countries that attempted to preserve their independence before the onslaught of the supposedly invincible German war machine.

America has undergone a Fascist takeover, the beneficiaries of which are the owners of big business. The system is rapidly being exported all over the world, and it is intended to become permanent. To prevent citizens from getting in the way of the massive enrichment of the already rich, and to help them accept their new position as mere consumers and sweatshop laborers without the right to uncorrupted political representation,, all objections to the process are labeled "terrorism."

Here's a quote from Douglas Reed, writing about the loss of freedom Germans experienced the night of the Reichstag fire.

"When Germany awoke, a man's home was no longer his castle. He could be seized by private individuals, could claim no protection from the police, could be indefinitely detained without preferment of charges; his property could be seized, his verbal and written communications overheard and perused; he no longer had the right to foregather with his fellow countrymen, and his newspapers might no longer freely express their opinions."

The Bush administration's 2001 antiterrorism legislation, introduced using a similar ruse, effects the same changes in America, and is being copied in every country that has a popular or ethnic opposition to deal with. It is a well proven method: Roosevelt knew about, encouraged, and facilitated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, sending the Pacific Fleet there to act as a target, keeping the local military commanders in the dark, and proscribing all defensive action. He then used the public's outrage over the attack to draw America into WW II and provide the American arms industry with its fair share in the proceeds of that great conflict, along with its overseas competitors.

You may ask: What, if any, are the differences between Hitler and Bush? Not many, but one stands out: Hitler was elected to his office democratically. Bush was installed against the will of the majority of US voters, through the machinations of his brother, the Florida Governor, and the Supreme Court judges appointed by his father. Another difference may lie in the span of their reigns: Hitler killed himself after 12 years in office, while Bush stands under the curse of Chief Tecumseh, and is bound to die before his term expires in January 2005

There you have it. Stimulating, no?

2002-10-24T17:33:00.000-07:00
NON-POLITICAL THOUGHTS FROM TYS

Life is a series of dramas. Anyone who's gone through high school knows this. I'm currently in high school, and let me tell you old timers: it's still drama. Grades, courses, studying, schooling; it's all a background to the real purpose of high school: to learn to interact with and manipulate, or be attacked and ridiculed by, your peers. It's a daily struggle to maintain school work, extracurricular activities, and a careful balance of alliances with those who you share perspective with, and a balance of enemies, who you work to counteract at any possible opportunity.

How do we go through this? How do people continue to live through such a trying time? I must say, I am having a difficult time. Those I thought were friends are not. Those I think are enemies, tomorrow, next week, will not be. Life is hard enough, and now I am thrust into a totally new environment. I am expected to keep up with all of these useless classes, learning material I will never use outside of that classroom. I am expected to deal with the curveballs I am thrown through my life and keep going. What happens if I can't? What happens when I just say to myself, "fuck it." I've been close to there before. Why have I kept going? I always tell people that suicide is the coward's way out. In some ways, I still believe that. Life is just too hard sometimes. I promised someone I love very much that I would stay alive, and that promise to her kept me alive for the week when I was at my lowest. You see, a couple weeks ago, my mother and I had a rather large, multi-day fight, about her alcoholism(which she has promised to give up drinking since then, though she has broken the promise a couple of times). She left, and told my dad to come stay with me for the night, because she wasn't coming back. He called the police, and they told him to come get me and have me in family court the next morning. I talked him out of that, and went back home the next morning after talking to my mom. All this also resulted in me writing a song called "All Alone", but that's another story.

I can see you now. I mention the word 'suicide,' and people start tripping out. I'm sick of hearing the "You have blah blah to live for" cliches. Will I still be alive tomorrow? Most likely. Will I ever find someone to end my lonliness? Hopefully, eventually. That's all from TYS2 tonight. Have a good night.

2002-10-14T13:43:00.000-07:00
GUESS WHO'S BACK
BACK AGAIN
EDDIE'S BACK
TELL SOME FRIENDS..

That's right sports fans, everyone's favorite liberal radical is back to the blogging scene. I hit a dry spell for a while after some personal problems, and honestly this became more a chore than the fun hobby it started out as, but after the many e-mails I got from readers asking where I had gone, I decided it was time to get back into the game. Thus begins The Young Socialist 2.0: Bigger, Badder, and More Liberal Than Ever.

And now, for our first 2.0 post:

The Party of Turncoats

The joint resolution to grant pResident Dubya Bush authority to use military force in Iraq passed the House 296-133, and the Senate 77-23 hours later. Led by such political traitors as Senator Tom Daschle, a large portion of the Democratic representatives and senators votes yes on the resolution, turning their backs on the people they represented, the growing amount of people against this invasion into Iraq. Behind their voting: the desire to be re-elected. Their desire to be re-elected, rather than represent their constituents, rather than vote how they felt was right, influenced them to pass this resolution, allowing the real Axis of Evil(Cheney, Ashcroft, and their puppet stooge Bush) the chance to further increase the size of their empire.

When thousands of Americans are being killed in brutal, bloody, house-to-house fighting against the Republican Guard stationed in and around Baghdad, I hope it rests on the heads of these men and women, who turned their backs on them to further their own goals. The Nation editors summed it up well, in their Open Letter to the Members of Congress where they say:

The silence of those of you in the Democratic Party is especially troubling. You are the opposition party, but you do not oppose. Raising the subject of the war, your political advisers tell you, will distract from the domestic issues that favor the party's chances in the forthcoming Congressional election. In the face of the Administration's pre-emptive war, your leaders have resorted to pre-emptive surrender. For the sake of staying in power, you are told, you must not exercise the power you have in the matter of the war. What, then, is the purpose of your re-election? If you succeed, you will already have thrown away the power you supposedly have won. You will be members of Congress, but Congress will not be Congress. Even the fortunes of the domestic causes you favor will depend far more on the decision on the war than on the outcome of the election.

The Democrats think they will be able to turn the public eye to domestic issues if they quickly vote through this resolution. I hope they realize how wrong they are when they lose their chance at a majority in Congress.

2002-07-19T10:25:00.000-07:00
Can anyone say, Gestapo?

2002-07-18T20:23:00.000-07:00
James Capozzola, editor of The Rittenhouse Review, has very generously paid to have the ads taken off of this site. I can't thank him enough, and I definitely owe him a debt of gratitude.

HUGE thanks to Mr. Capozzola for this.

2002-07-17T23:33:00.000-07:00
Ok, it's not political, but this is one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

2002-07-17T14:04:00.000-07:00
The court ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance has sparked a battle between lawmakers and religious nuts to see who can show their support for the Christian god in the most spectacular, vomit-inducing, and constitutional rights-violating way. Here is an article that makes me wonder how the hell this country hasn't started stoning those who aren't obsessed to the point of no return with christianity.

When public school students in Virginia return to their studies in September, they will find a new poster on the wall.

It will declare, "In God We Trust."

That's the national motto, established by Congress in 1956; a state law that took effect July 1 requires all public schools to post it.

Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah are the only other states with such laws. South Carolina's law, passed this year, fur- ther requires the motto to be displayed in every classroom.

I live in South Carolina and I'm damned if I'm going to go to a school with "In God We Trust" plastered on every wall. Once again, the Southern religious republican morons in Columbia have totally disregarded the rights of others in favor of promoting their own superstitions. I will not stand for this, and I encourage the residents of Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah to oppose these laws born of ignorance as well.

2002-07-16T14:05:00.000-07:00
AN OPEN LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF IRAN FROM THE WEBLOGGING COMMUNITY

To show our support for the Iranian people, we each have agreed to display this letter, in English and—if possible—in Farsi, on our pages from sunrise to sunset today, Tehran time; some are displaying it longer.

We are not politicians, nor are we generals. We hold no power to dispatch diplomats to negotiate; we can send no troops to defend those who choose to risk their lives in the cause of freedom.

What power we have is in our words, and in our thoughts. And it is that strength which we offer to the people of Iran on this day.

Across the diverse and often contentious world of weblogs, each of us has chosen to put aside our differences and come together today to declare our unanimity on the following simple principles:

That the people of Iran are allies of free men and women everywhere in the world, and deserve to live under a government of their own choosing, which respects their own personal liberties

That the current Iranian regime has failed to create a free and prosperous society, and attempts to mask its own failures by repression and tyranny

We do not presume to know what is best for the people of Iran; but we are firm in our conviction that the policies of the current government stand in the way of the Iranians ability to make those choices for themselves.

And so we urge our own governments to turn their attention to Iran. The leaders and diplomats of the world's democracies must be clear in their opposition to the repressive actions of the current Iranian regime, but even more importantly, must be clear in their support for the aspirations of the Iranian people.

And to the people of Iran, we say: You are not alone. We see your demonstrations in the streets; we hear of your newspapers falling to censorship; and we watch with anticipation as you join the community of the Internet in greater and greater numbers. Our hopes are with you in your struggle for freedom. We cannot and will not presume to tell you the correct path to freedom; that is for you to choose. But we look forward to the day when we can welcome your nation into the community of free societies of the world, for we know with deepest certainty that such a day will come.

I found this letter here, and I fully support this sentiment. Opression, whether from capitalists, kings, emperors, or Islamic extremeists is oppression nonetheless.

2002-07-15T21:49:00.000-07:00
I know you're all waiting on my replies to Glenn Frazier and PontifexExMachina but I've had an very bad couple of days(rather nasty breakup with my girlfriend), but I'll not get into that.

Until I get back into the swing of things and continue our fun little debate, everyone enjoy the updated Top 10 Conservative Idiots on Democratic Underground

2002-07-12T23:57:00.000-07:00
The Socialist Party stands for the abolition of every form of domination and exploitation, whether based on social class, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.

We are committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society. Socialism will establish a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers will take responsibility for and control of production, and residents will take responsibility for and control of their homes, schools, and local government.

For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources, for a guarantee to all of the right to participate in societal production, and to a fair share of society's product, in accordance with individual needs.

-Preamble to Socialist Party platform ,http://www.votesocialist.org/platform

Why am I consistently accused of supporting a party believing in dictatorship? Why do people hear the word "socialist" and automatically think of bloody revolutions, dictators, and the hammer and sickle?

I do not coerce anyone into sharing my beliefs. I present my beliefs; if someone disagrees, fine, that's what this nation is all about right? Well, for my beliefs I am constantly attacked as a communist and as a follower of old Soviet Union doctrine. That is simply not the case.

What I want is not Marxian Socialism. It is not totalitarian Communism. It is not fascist Nazism. It is Democratic Socialism. Democratic Socialism, by my personal definition, is:

a style of government in which industry and business are democratically controlled by the workers, where health care, education, and other social needs are provided by the government, where the separation between haves and have-nots is smaller, where people are not discriminated against because of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Why am I constantly crucified by conservatives for my beliefs? Because of the red empire that was the USSR. I am forced to carry the burden left by this failed ideology, which was begun as the hope of the socialist world, and was in practice far from socialist. Pontifex writes:

In the rubbel of the U.S.S.R., we saw the result. Millions killed, a country in shambles, a nuclear sword of Damocles o'er the whole world, and a people betrayed by the "dictatorship of the people."

That is socialism.

Dictatorship of the people: this is the key phrase. There was no dictatorship of the people. It was, as was common in Bolshevik(and, thus, Leninist and Stalinist) doctrine, a dictatorship of the Communist Party General Secretary. Under Soviet rule, the Communist Party was the only legal party. Under Democratic Socialism, the republic of the United States would function as it does now: with elected representatives and senators, and an elected president. Party leaders are not put in power by a revolution, they are put in power by the people. The ruin that is modern Russia is a result of tyrants, not of socialists.

Pontifex also states that Democratic Socialism can only become popular by coercion. This is untrue. We strive to spread Democratic Socialism by teach its principles and giving people a choice. That is one of the purposes of this blog.

Alas, the USSR failed, but the USSR was not a true example of Democratic Socialism. Here's another newsflash for Pontifex: Libertarian ideology was tried, and it failed. It was called the Articles of Confederation.

2002-07-11T22:06:00.000-07:00
PontifexExMachina decided to join the Socialism debate with a nice little post quoting from the Communist Manifesto.

First one thing to comment on:

AND AS THE DEVIL SHALL CITE SCRIPTURE...
...so the capitalist shall cite Marx.

That makes the capitalist sound like the devil....

Pontifex cites the reference in the Communist Manifesto to a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and says:

So, Eddie, that's why all socialist states so far conceived have been dictatorships -- the bougoisie is not about about vote their own damn selves into having all their capital torn away by the proletariat.

Democratic Socialists do not strive for a dictatorship of the proletariat. The majority of the goals in the Communist Manifest are no longer pursued. It isn't 1848 anymore. Times have changed, and so has the Socialist movement.

2002-07-11T14:25:00.000-07:00
Apparently, Popshot Magazine has posted a "less...um...nice" article against socialism. I wish I could see it, but the URL doesn't work. Hopefully they'll put it back up soon.

In other news, while reading through Vaara I noticed a post on an "ashamedly pinko commie blog" posted by Sandra Culley called Take It As Red. I especially like this little quote:

Bloody Trident Ploughshares - middle-class individualistic hippy treehuggers. I can just see them, sitting there in the Peace Garden, playing tomtoms and wearing ethnic jumpers knitted by Guaracha indians from the foothills of the Andes, eating vegan salads and discussing their lactose intolerance and how wonderful their cranial osteopaths are.

It's all very well doing sit downs and peace camps and being nice: HOW THE FUCK IS THAT SUPPOSED TO GET RID OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS? SEND POSITIVE GODDESS VIBES TO HALLIBURTON INC AND DICK CHENEY WILL SUDDENLY HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART?

Take It As Red is much more revolutionary than my Democratic Socialist self, but nonetheless a good read.

2002-07-06T12:50:00.000-07:00
Glenn Frazier actually read over my response and, even more surprisingly, put up a link. Needless to say, I didn't think I would get that much. Thanks for that, but I'd like to make a small reply to his reply.

It seems to me that what The Young Socialist wants isn't realy socialism, but liberalism, or perhaps the Socialism Lite of a Third Way sort. He is still pro democracy, and is against forcing equality of outcome on the people.

Democracy and freedom are building blocks of socialism. Most of my beliefs will be listed at http://www.votesocialist.org/platform (for some reason I can't get a link to work). Just a note: I do not agree with Socialist Party stances on the military.

If you respond to nothing else in this post, by the way, I think the most useful thing you could do would be to educate me as carefully and fully as you can as to what the difference is between your political goals and those of the Democratic party in the United States. Taking out the word "socialism" from your arguments, most of what you say comes across as merely the American moderate liberal argument. So what is the difference between modern liberalism and socialism?

Read the party platform. Socialists want to go a lot farther than moder liberals, although I do fancy myself a sort of radical modern liberal.

Eddie, you've definitely earned your link.

Yay!

2002-07-04T13:49:00.000-07:00
Just when I need a topic to post on, Here is one. As is written in his post, I asked to exchange links with Glenn Frazier. I knew my views didn't exactly go along with his views and the views of his readers, but I figured I would try. He first posted a section giving me quite a bit of praise, and I thank him for it. Then he posted a response to this section of my first post:

I believe that the main reason anyone is involved in politics is because they believe an injustice has been done. Their feelings about this injustice they see are so strong that they become involved in politics because they want to right this wrong. Socialists are no different. All through human history, the upper classes(Chiefs, Emperors, Kings, Dictators, Fuedal Lords, and now, Capitalists) have used their vast wealth and power to oppress the lower and middle classes all throughout human history. But I'm not here to give a history lesson.

I see this injustice in our society today. As I learned more about politics, I became more and more interested and passionate about my beliefs. I believe that the lower classes are being constantly subjected to injustices by the upper classes.

If you think about childhood, you start to see that socialist values are taught from a very early age. Children are taught to share their toys with others. They're taught to put others before themselves and not to be selfish. They're told stories like Robin Hood, who takes from the rich and gives to the poor, which is the main socialist ideal.

Many of you will say, "If someone starts a business and becomes rich, they should be entitled to keep what they earn." I believe that, if you are lucky enough to be rich, the humane thing to do would be to share your wealth with other less fortunate people.

I leave you with this: With great wealth comes great power. With great power comes great responsibility.

He says that if I reply to his post, then he'll link to me. I guess I'll give it a go, then.

You start off by saying that political people are mostly motivated by the desire to right the wrongs of the world. That is not the case. Some certainly are, but there are others who wish not so much to "fix" the world as to preserve the good that already exists in the world. This is part of the origin of the notion of "conservatism". Classical American conservatives believe that the foundations of our nation are basically good and that, despite the fact that life is hard and sometimes unfair, those foundations (political, economic, religious and personal freedom embodied in the rule of law and a cultural respect for individual dignity) are precious. Any solution that abandons them will result in worse circumstances, regardless of the solution's intent.

The workers who are paid next to nothing while the rich corporate owners would disagree. The world as it is in the US is ok. We have one of the best, if not the best, condition for the people of the country. However, 'ok' is not good enough. I, and other socialists, strive to make the world better. We strive to preserve the freedom and improve the conditions of the people.

It is that very notion, by the way, that it is our government—not my government, not your government, and certainly not a government that serves only itself—that I fight hardest to conserve. We are the government, and such a government is essentially a collective agreement to enforce a set of rules. And I do mean enforce. At its ultimate, every law is a statement that, if you disobey me, I will kill you. As we are the government, we are saying that if you live within our sphere of control but disobey us, we will try to punish you, and if you resist punishment, things will get progressively worse until you either flee our country or are shot.

That's a bit of a violent way to think. We don't use firing squads anymore, but the basic thought is true.

Socialists in no way wish to abolish the democratic government. A truly socialist government must be democratic to survive, because it is the people who ensure the government and economy is socialist. Production and industry are democratically controlled by the workers. The leaders of the country are democratically elected(much as they are now). [Note: I could make a crack about how the current leader of the country was not democratically elected, but I won't. :) ]

In the end, socialism is a belief system, and should no more be forced on people by the government than any other belief system.

Which is why I try to educate people on the merits of socialist thought. Socialism is not about forcing itself down the throats of the people. It can only succeed if the majority of the people believe in it.

But that's where socialism as a political movement first fails. Socialism is not just the belief that everyone should be more economically even, but the belief that everyone should be forced into behaviors that theoretically will make everyone more equal.

Once again, socialism is not about forcing anyone to do anything.

At the extreme end, Marxist socialist experiments in places like Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc., have pointedly not resulted in an economically fair, "classless" society. In order to truly force economic equality (which cannot occur naturally, on its own), government must be given extraordinary powers. Government, though, is made up of mere people.

THOSE COUNTRIES WERE NOT, ARE NOT, NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN, NEVER WILL BE, SOCIALIST.

I'm ok. I just hate it when people use Soviet Russia as an example of failed socialism. Soviet Russia, as are all the countries you named, was/is a totalitarian dictatorship. It is the complete opposite of what socialism wants.

Government is made up of people. In socialism, the government is the people. Without the will of the people, the government would not last.

Whether as communism in the Soviet Union, National Socialism in Germany, or Social Nationalism in Syria and Iraq, the Marxist idea when given full rein has historically resulted in pogroms, massacres, torture and slavery. One could argue—on paper, in theory, ideally—that it doesn't have to be that way. However, I would counter that it always has been that way, and thus we're foolish to think trying it "one more time, with feeling" will produce anything better than what all past attempts have given us.

Once again, you haven't named a true socialist nation. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship. Nazi Germany was a right wing dictatorship. Iraq is a dictatorship. Do you notice the common word in these? Dictatorship. Socialism is not a dictatorship.

"What about Sweden?" Not an uncommon question, but let's look at Sweden. First, the notion that Sweden represents a socialist system is itself a bit of a canard. 90% of the Swedish economy is privately controlled. Still, they are more socialist than we are, and perhaps that Third Way, or "socialism lite", is what you are really after.

What about the New Labour party in England? What about Social Democrats in Australia? What about Finland?

Basically, governments derived from English Classical Liberal philosophy—which embodies ideals celebrated in America by conservatives, libertarians and moderate liberals—are established in order to prevent the powerful from forcefully taking away the property, liberty and dignity of those with less power. Where a socialist system would force the wealthy to give to the poor, our current system uses force to prevent the wealthy and powerful from taking from the weak and poor.

I sound like a broken record, but socialism doesn't force the wealthy to give to the poor, per se. It uses tax revenue from all of the people to provide free health care, education, college, and other things to all people. So it is not 'forcing the rich to give to the poor.' It simply provides free social services for all people.

Finally, when you make the comparison between government and parenting, you hit upon a major flaw common in political philosophy. Being only fifteen years old yourself, it is more understandable than when it is committed by fifty-year-old professors, to be certain, but it is still an error. Adults and children are not the same. A four-year-old is not capable nor equipped to make the right choices in all circumstances, and thus needs guidance, education and enforcement to a much greater degree than full adults do. A parent's job is to help put their child on a path that leads them to a socially responsible, morally fulfilled adult life. The government, however, is not Mom. We are the government, and its laws are a collective agreement amongst ourselves to behave within certain minimal boundaries. Adult human beings are quite capable creatures.

I never said adults and children are the same. I said that, as a child, most people are taught to share, and people would do good to remember this into their adulthood.

Socialism does not live up to its promise. Truly socialist governments inevitably bring more misery into the world than liberal democracies do.

Evidently, you refer to Soviet Russia and the like when you say 'truly socialist governments'. This country was NOT truly socialist. It was a totalitarian dictatorship.

Equality of opportunity is more valuable, useful and attainable than equality of outcome.

Socialism strives to improve equality of opportunity(free health care, education, etc.) and equality of condition(higher minimum wage, worker control of production, etc.)

I am a conservative.

No one is perfect. :)

2002-06-30T14:01:00.000-07:00
Vaara has kindly added me to their blogroll, and also made a kind post for my site here. I especially like this quote:

"Anyway, I'm proud to add Young Socialist to my blogroll. If for no other reason that being a self-proclaimed Socialist, aged 15, in South Carolina, demands an degree of chutzpah to which we in blogdom -- not to mention the the punditocratic élite -- would do well to aspire."

Big thanks for the post and the recognition. :)

2002-06-30T12:27:00.000-07:00
PontifexExMachina has provided a nice posting opportunity with an article in which he asks the question, If people don't believe in God, why are they so incensed about having to say something about him in the Pledge of Alegiance?

His answer couldn't be further from the truth. Personally, I don't care if someone wants to pray or practice their religion in any way, and I don't run to the ACLU if I see someone praying in school, but I take offense if someone tries to force me to. Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance forces children to pray to the Christian God. Proof? Read the CNN News article section titled Legal reasoning cited. In the third paragraph there is the following quote from President Eisenhower after signing the act in 1954 that added under God to the Pledge:

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

This proves that the phrase was added for the sole purpose of counteracting "Atheistic Communism" in exchange for safeguarding Civil Rights.

2002-06-28T19:10:00.000-07:00
A friend of mine, who shall be known as "That Dang Right Winger", and who owns PontifexExMachina.com put a post up for me, so I thought I'd do the same.

Colin's a right winger, but he's about the most intelligent one I've me(which, of course, really isn't saying much). But I would like to clear up a misunderstanding:

He could at least avoid mistaking a parody for truth on his first outing, don't you think?

He could at least avoid mistaking sarcasm for being serious, don't you think? :)

2002-06-28T13:33:00.000-07:00
Anyone looking for a good laugh?

Of course you are. Today while browsing the Democratic Underground I found a hilarious little article, which dares to voice the real stances of the right wing cause.

I quote: "How will children learn to appreciate freedom unless they are forced to recite a pledge that mentions God? If they are atheists, let them sit down in class and say so, and then they can be beat up during recess as they should be."

I salute this man, because, despite being an ignorant, bible-thumping, right wing lunatic, he is not afraid to speak his mind.

2002-06-26T20:52:00.000-07:00
Ok, I haven't posted in quite a while, but I came upon something that is just eating at me.

Here is something that made me proud of our legal system. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has made a ruling which, if allowed to stand, would prevent children from saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school in the 9 states within the district.

According to the ruling, "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'"

I couldn't agree more. The presence of "under God" in the pledge forces children to acknowledge the existence of God, whether it is their religion or not. It is a violation of the separation of church and state. With the conservative majority in the Supreme Court, this ruling will not stand there, but it is a remarkable step.

With this ruling, will "In God We Trust" be the next to go? I hope so.

2002-06-01T16:03:00.000-07:00
I'll start off with a small introduction. My name is Eddie. I'm 15 years old. I live in South Carolina, USA. I'm a socialist.

Many people have asked me, "Why are you a socialist?" It's always hard to explain. Even if I try to tell them, they end up even more confused. It's hard for anyone to just tell someone why they are what they are.

I'll try to answer that question in detail here. I believe that the main reason anyone is involved in politics is because they believe an injustice has been done. Their feelings about this injustice they see are so strong that they become involved in politics because they want to right this wrong. Socialists are no different. All through human history, the upper classes(Chiefs, Emperors, Kings, Dictators, Fuedal Lords, and now, Capitalists) have used their vast wealth and power to oppress the lower and middle classes all throughout human history. But I'm not here to give a history lesson.

I see this injustice in our society today. As I learned more about politics, I became more and more interested and passionate about my beliefs. I believe that the lower classes are being constantly subjected to injustices by the upper classes.

If you think about childhood, you start to see that socialist values are taught from a very early age. Children are taught to share their toys with others. They're taught to put others before themselves and not to be selfish. They're told stories like Robin Hood, who takes from the rich and gives to the poor, which is the main socialist ideal.

Many of you will say, "If someone starts a business and becomes rich, they should be entitled to keep what they earn." I believe that, if you are lucky enough to be rich, the humane thing to do would be to share your wealth with other less fortunate people.

I leave you with this: With great wealth comes great power. With great power comes great responsibility.