| SUBMAN1 |
04-30-08 06:10 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbeast
Not getting into this again Subman, but what you think socialism is and what the rest of the world understands socialism is are apparently two different things so we'll leave it at that eh?;)
|
But can we do this? Of course not! :D That is why we come to subsim is to understand points of view! :p
I'll spare you my opinion, and leave you with a Communists opinion then:
-S
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_53349795
Quote:
Blair's `Third Way' Masks the Same Old, Tired Socialist Thinking
Insight on the News, Nov 30, 1998 by Balint Vazsonyi
The wolf sports a brand-new suit of sheep's clothing called the "Third Way." It has been tailored by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, and by President and Mrs. Clinton in the United States. The newly elected chancellor of Germany and the prime minister of France have hastened to add their affirmative vote. Approval from Italy is a foregone conclusion.
"Third Way, Better Way," writes Blair in the Washington Post (Sept. 27). Better than what? There only is confusion as he recalls a profusion of agendas from the recent past. He carefully avoids any mention of political philosophies, let alone principles. He knows why.
We already are drowning in labels forced upon us as much by muddled thinking as by specific agendas. We have accepted as rational that opposite economic, social and "cultural" attitudes may reside within one and the same bosom. Now we are instructed that opposites are bad altogether, that we must all agree to meet "in the center" (the Germans call it the "New Middle"). Thus we shall enter paradise led by men who have at last liberated themselves from all guiding principles and believe in nothing whatsoever. Nothing to vote for, nothing to vote against.
As the years go by, we simply would publish that our leaders have received 93 percent of the vote. That's how they did it in the Soviet empire, which included Hungary where I grew up. It was never 92 or 94 -- always the same number, just like Clinton's job-approval rating.
Come to think, it was back there also that I first heard about the "Third Way." Hard to believe, but the Russian Revolution of 1917 was hailed by many European intellectuals as the "Third Way." No lesser authority than George Lukacs, doyen of communist thinkers in this century, welcomed it thus. Yet his was just one of countless instances during many centuries when third-way rhetoric and labels were deployed to conceal true intent.
Unless a thorough cleanup of all deceptive rhetoric and labels is undertaken, we will be swallowed whole by the wolf. And once the United States has been swallowed, there will be no one left to cut us out of its stomach.
First, "right" and "left." By designating the Third Reich as "right," Soviet propaganda in the 1930s revived use of this dichotomy to conceal the fact that Adolf Hitler's Germany was a socialist state, just like Josef Stalin's Russia. Today, socialists use the same deception to insinuate "Nazi" overtones in the thinking of anyone who believes in this country's founding principles, in God or in the United States as a nation.
Thus the use of "right" and "left" inadvertently promotes the socialist agenda.
Next, "conservative" and "liberal." What, we must ask ourselves, was conservative about America's Founders, to this day the most forward-looking men in history? Why do we accept the preposterous notion that Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Lenin and Stalin were more "progressive" -- unless progressive equals "socialist"? And why do we countenance expropriation of the word "liberal" by socialists, as they had done with "liberty" (the official salute of the Bolshevik Party), or "peace" (the battle cry of communists)?
The use of "conservative" and "liberal" helps to conceal the socialist agenda.
Finally, "capitalism" and "socialism." Capitalism was the brainchild of Marx, something to demean and to attack. Serious publications, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, did not even print such an entry until recent times. In any event, capitalism as defined by Marx simply has not been applicable to American conditions. Our free-enterprise economy is the exact opposite of a rigid class system.
Describing the American way as "capitalism" perpetuates the hoax.
On the other hand, we ought to use "socialism" and "socialist" where appropriate. And it entirely is appropriate to say that the "Third Way" is the new sheep's clothing for that old wolf. Cats have nine lives, but the wolf in our midst has as many lives as it can invent disguises. And its ability to dress up in the attire most suited to the place and time explains its continuing attraction, despite its history of failure upon failure. If expedient, it will validate man's most violent impulses (as in Russia, Germany, China) and just as deftly feign an appeal to the best in us, as in America today.
The proponents of a "Third Way" are Europe's socialists and communists (actually known as such over there), and America's presidential couple, longtime admirers of the European socialist model. And Blair, Mr. Third Way himself, has just given us a practical demonstration. By arresting Chile's Gen. Augusto Pinochet, he has thrown overboard 783 years of British legal tradition, the sole secular source of our mutual liberties.
But above all, the perpetual search for a third way confirms that, for the time being, we have only two. Check your local library. The same two have been defined and redefined countless times. Underneath a profusion of labels, they all derive from the European socialist model on the one side, and its only true opposite: the principles of America's Founding on the other.
Balint Vazsonyi, concert pianist and historian, is author of America's 30 Years War: Who Is Winning? published by Regnery.
|
|
