For the liberals, who deny?

Question

For the liberals who deny, or don't realize, that they are socialists, or communists, I have a question.

If I showed you that you political views were that of the socialist or communist party, would you reevaluate your views?

Read the Communist Party USA's "program", and tell me how you differ:

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/758/...

(I realize some of you admit you are socialists. This question is not for you. If you know you are a socialist/communist, and still accept that, after viewing the failures of it over the last few decades, there is no hope for you)

---

beardog, I'm sure I am more knowledgeable on them than you are. You can't (like all the other bush haters) site anything specific he has done validating your claims.

---

next person,, my point is clear. I would like to know if you (or someone else who is a liberal) realizes that they are fighting for the teachings in the communist manifesto.

-----

how is this an insult? Im asking you to read the communist political parties agenda, and see if it is the same as yours. Why are you afraid to look?

Answer 1

Have you actually taken a close look at the policies of the Bush Administration? I understand if you haven't- it's damn near impossible to stand behind him when you see what he does...

Actually, I was just trying to keep the post short. But, if you insist. To be honest, I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative, which is WHY I despise President Bush- for the damage he's done to the GOP, and moreso for damage he's done to the country.

*How much larger has the federal government gotten with the addition of the Department of Homeland Security? Has the extra layer of beauracracy actually helped? The Homeland Security Report presented to Congress last week says no.

*No matter where you stand on the Medical Marijuana issue- the democratically elected representatives of twelve states have issued legislation allowing it. You've got to admit that George Bush's use of the DEA this week has been yet another b!tchslap to State's rights by his administration. Remember when he didn't like the direction the State's were headed in, so he threatened a Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage? As if the Federal Government has anything to do with licensing marriages. Perhaps you agree with him that homosexual marriages are somehow a threat to the institution, but you can't deny that it was overstepping the reasonable bounds of federalism.

*Reinstating defecit spending is NOT fiscally responsible, by any standard.

*The man stood before Congress and lied about the war-readiness of Iraq before the war. Later he claimed that faulty intelligence was to blame, but he'd fired anyone who disagreed with his previously established views. How could he possibly have obtained reliable intelligence when he fires people for dissenting opinions?

*The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th amendments have been completely thrown out in criminal proceedings, as long as the word terrorism is included somewhere in the investigation. The Constitution of the United States of America is not negotiable- not the second amendment, and not the rest of them. I don't care which small-time criminal is planning what- those rules are binding, and exist for an important reason. Get a warrant. Hasn't he twice now sworn to uphold that document?

*In November of '05- the Bird Flu was on everyone's lips. Television, The Whitehouse, Congress, WHO, CDC, Radio, and Newspapers were all full of advice on how we could protect ourselves from this horrible plague. Incidentally- the H5N1 virus has yet to infect a human with a healthy immune system, and there have been no transmissions from human to human, because of the way it imbeds itself in the lungs. Some pandemic. So how to combat this non-problem? Well, President Bush committed $8 billion of federal funds to stockpile Tamiflu. According to WebMD, H5N1 is already resistant to Tamiflu. So why invest so heavily in an ineffective treatment? Because Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was Chairman of the Board for Gilead Sciences, the company that invented Tamiflu. So President Bush cheated his own Federal Government out of $8 billion dollars buying a cure that wouldn't work on a disease that doesn't exist, just to make his friend's stock prices jump.

While it may not be illegal, do shady cons like that instill confidence in the leader of the "Moral Majority"?

*Government Bailouts of large corporations are NOT the actions of someone who believes in a Free Market. They are the subsidizing acts of a socialist leader. If, for example, an Airline is unable to turn a profit; then that airline should go out of business. Smaller, leaner companies will fill the niche- that's how a free market system is meant to work.

Answer 2

Stunning how few actually read it. You could have been more polite, if only to avoid giving them a way to avoid answering the question.

I'm especially surprised at the person who felt it was an insult to call them socialist! I'm pretty sure at least one friend I had that was socialist would be rather upset at that.

I'm a democrat. I have looked at the site. There are few differences between the agendas of the present Democratic leadership and the Communist Party USA's program.

They will never admit this. It isn't an insult. It just isn't for America. When people can see how far some of us have slid in that direction, we'll change course. It's one of the benefits of free speech.

A more effective question would be to take pieces of it and ask who is against it! THEN tell people what it is.

Answer 3

Can you tell us why peace and social justice are such radical concepts? The paper you link is expressing an ideal, but it lacks substance in terms of how to achieve that ideal. However, you shouldn't be against something if you can't express in a substantive manner why you are against it. Just because it's "like the Communist Manifesto" is just finger pointing. Be specific, otherwise, you are just as bad as the article you are citing.

Answer 4

Liberal is NOT the same as socialist.

Yes, many liberals are ALSO socialists.

Buy many liberals are also libertarians, who don't want any govt funded charities, minimal taxes, no govt subsidies or welfare. Liberal is a philosophical and social platform. It has nothing to do with fiscal spending.

Just like conservative is a social and philosophical platform, and includes both fiscal conservatives who want small govt, AND neo-cons who want big govt and big govt spending.

To answer your point-by-point comparison..
Communists want govt control over all property. Socialists want govt-control over industry and govt-sponsored charity. Nothing in the liberal social agenda requires or prohibits either of those. Hence, the liberal philosophy is independent of those economic mandates.

Communists demand equality. Liberals treat everyone as unique individuals. True equality requires conformity, which is the opposite of the liberal vision for personal freedom.

Equality of rights is not the same as equality of status or equality of identity. Being allowed to make your own choices leads to differences, which is opposed to the communist view of uniformity and consistency.

Communism and socialism require govt control over industry. Liberalism, by definition, supports a laissez-faire system of self-regulating markets without govt control. Hence the liberal vision of business is directly opposite that of communists, and very difficult to reconcile with that of socialists.

If you care about actually understanding the difference between liberal and socialist, and why they may overlap but are not the same, the above examples should start you on the way to analyze specific issues.

Answer 5

lots of countries are socialist
they are a far cry from communism
most of them provide free health care
and transportation for everyone .
They also dont usually get involved in wars


you might want to re-read the definition of socialism
you group these together like they are the same

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

the Socialist Party of France, describes socialism as "an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity"[6]


Robert Owen advocated the transformation of society into small, local collectives without such elaborate systems of social organization. Owen was a mill manager from 1800-1825. He transformed life in the village of New Lanark with ideas and opportunities which were at least a hundred years ahead of their time. Child labour and corporal punishment were abolished, and villagers were provided with decent homes, schools and evening classes, free health care, and affordable food.[17]


http://www.wsws.org/
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Wsws.Org.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/WarCrimes.shtml

Answer 6

This is equally as believable as about the current administration as what you are saying about liberals.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Both the republican and democratic parties are necessary to even things out. Without democrats, you would eventually have no middle class and therefor, no more democracy.

Answer 7

How can you harp on liberals when the republican admin of Pres Bush has crapped all over the integrity of the Office he holds?

The repubs have offered us nothing, so it;s time for a change. The past is the past, and we need to look forward. That's the problem with most people they dwell on what should have been unstead of what needs to be done

Answer 8

Liberals are not socialist or communists.
There is Nothing on that site that reminds me of the way liberal Bill Clinton ran this great country for 8 years.

you are full of crapola

Answer 9

Only if you admit to being a Fascist or Nazi.

Answer 10

Labels solve no problems. I could just as easily accuse conservatives of being Fascist...what's your point?