Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Conservatives—Republicans—are socialists too.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Raleigh NC, USA

    Conservatives—Republicans—are socialists too.

    L. Neil Smith is an author I've been reading since the late 80's. Most of his writing is classified as Science-Fiction, but if you look deeper, it's actually Libertarian Science Fiction. If you can find some of his books in print, I highly recommend you start off with "The Probability Broach". He's won four Prometheus Awards over the years.

    Anyway, he's still writing today, only it's usually essays on politics. His most recent one points out that Conservatives (Republicans, mostly) are socialists, too.

    Conservatives—Republicans—are socialists.

    True, they may desire to hold you down atop the stone altar and cut your still-beating heart out with an obsidian knife for a set of entirely different reasons—national security, Judaeo-Christian traditions, "common" decency—than the liberals or "progressives" or Democrats do, but to you, the important part is cutting your heart out with an obsidian knife, not whatever excuse they may offer for doing it.

    His home page can be found at:

    Chip H.

  2. #2
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    The Land of The Edentulites
    I am trying hard to spread the word that Republicans of the Bush-Palin type are not socialists. They are statists - corporatists and authoritarians.

    It's an important distinction.

    Similarly, we should quite calling liberals "liberals." They are also statists - only of the socialist-Marxist type.

    Republicans want Big Government for the warfare state and military industrial complex, "security" and the special treatment it can shower on big business. They view all of the latter in religious terms and worship the state for the "values" it can impose.

    Liberal Democrat types want Big Government for the welfare state and racial spoils system; to assuage white guilt and promote race-based privileges and the destruction of the white/Western tradition. They view "diversity" and a heterogenous society in religious terms and worship the collective (as administered by them) over the individual.

    Both groups are the enemy of human liberty. That is the awakening; that is what must be understood.

  3. #3
    Senior Member grouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    [quote=Eric;122872]Similarly, we should quite calling liberals "liberals." They are also statists - only of the socialist-Marxist type.[quote]

    Actually, Marxism and Socialism are totally different. To call them similar is disingenous to say the least. Marxism, strictly defined, not how it's been applied, is "from each, his ability, to each, his need". Socialism is more Platoism. In his book "The Republic", Plato discussed the state taking over schools (just like Baby Bush), child rearing and so on. In practice, Marxism is state ownership of everything. Socialism is ownership of people. Too many people today use what they've heard a talking head, usually on conservative talk radio, mention without actually knowing what they are talking about. N.P.R. (National Public Radio) and Rush Limbaugh are about as diametrically opposed as it is possibly to be. In a series of stories about talk radio and the neoconservatives, our man Rush said that he says what he says so he can "charge the usurous advertising rates that he does".

    In WW2, Hitler was a socialist. Stalin was a Marxist. They hated each other with a passion and both wanted to draw the U.S. into the war on their side. That was one reason Hitler attacked Poland when he did. When Japan attacked the U.S. a couple of years later, the political climate had shown that Hitler could forget U.S. support. He then declared war on America. One of the only times he actually declared war on anybody and didn't just attack.
    Honk if you love Jesus.

    Text if you want to meet him.

  4. #4
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Socialism is best described as a milder form of Marxism. It is less overtly militant, for instance - but it accepts the basic premise; the individual is relevant only as a component of the collective. Only "society" has rights.

    National socialism differed from Soviet communism chiefly in that national socialism elevated the race/nation over everything while Soviet communism was international - in theory anyhow.

    In practice, cutting through the verbiage, all these systems have one thing in common: A small elite presumes to represent the "collective" and directs society according to its will, which is represented as the will of the people/collective, race and so on.

    Fundamentally, all these systems are the same. It is just a question of degree (and of window dressings).

    Keep in mind, "the state, " "the people," "society," etc. are just constructs. They have no real meaning other than as abstractions. Only individual people have substance. And "the state," in reality, in practice, is just a small elite that controls the mechanisms of power. There is "people" or "society," either. Just millions of disparate individuals, each with their own opinions, needs, goals and so forth.

Similar Threads

  1. Conservatives Lost More Than An Election
    By swamprat in forum Secession Talk
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-13-2008, 07:42 AM
  2. Conservatives Are To Blame
    By Mase in forum Secession Talk
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-13-2008, 07:06 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-21-2008, 09:54 PM
  4. Why are Conservatives Conservative?
    By misterdecibel in forum Secession Talk
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 01:51 PM
  5. Pelosi Set to Attack Conservatives
    By ColleenC1 in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-03-2007, 08:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts