SOME CHOICE: SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS OR FASCIST REPUBLICANS By Pastor Chuck Baldwin October 10, 2006 NewsWithViews.com Whenever some well-meaning conservative Christian takes issue with one of my columns chronicling the abysmal governing record of Republicans, he or she almost always exclaims, "Think how bad it would be if Democrats were in charge." The fact is, however, there has been no redemption in having the GOP in charge of the entire federal government. The argument of voting for the lesser of two evils, meaning Republicans, loses its credence when one examines the record. And the record is clear: the GOP has developed a philosophy tantamount to fascism. Consider the following recent developments. The Republican-led House of Representatives just recently approved a bill requiring school districts around the country to establish policies to conduct wide scale searches of students, including pat-downs, bag searches, or strip searches. I wonder how many parents are aware that their Republican representatives in Washington, D.C., are wanting to require strip searches of their children at the whim of public school employees? Secondly, President Bush has once again defied Congress and pushed the envelope of executive power by unabashedly stating that he has "the power to edit the Homeland Security Department's reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists." Bush made the above declaration in another one of his copious signing statements. Yet, as many legal experts have warned, Bush's propensity to use excessive signing statements is nothing more than a way to expand his power. There is little legal justification for such action, but with Republicans in charge of Congress, who is going to blow the whistle on him? We couldn't even trust Congress to blow the whistle on Mark Foley! Thirdly, the Bush administration has apparently successfully convinced Congress to permanently dismantle the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It's not worded that way, of course, but that is exactly what they are doing. Specifically, according to former Republican congressman Bob Barr, the Republican House has passed, and the Senate appears ready to pass, legislation requested by President Bush that would "allow warrantless surveillance of virtually any international phone call and email of American citizens." The bill also "authorize the attorney general without court approval to order Internet service providers and other types of companies to give the NSA access to communications and equipment regarding information on its customers" without any proof or evidence of those communications being connected to terrorists. This legislation also allows "warrantless physical searches of Americans' homes for extended periods without any evidence presented to a court that the homeowner is conspiring with or connected to terrorists." Barr summarized this proposed legislation by saying, "Taken as a whole, the powers thus sought by the administration, and which have already been given imprimatur by the House, would do irreparable damage to the underpinnings of the Fourth Amendment. "If signed into law, these measures would destroy the fundamental notion that American citizens enjoy a right to privacy in their homes, persons and businesses to be free from arbitrary government surveillance and searches. That may sound apocalyptic, but believe me, it is not. It is a fact." It seems clear that "conservative" Republicans want to save us from liberal Democrats the same way that German fascists wanted to save their country from communists. In the end, both parties seek to dismantle freedom and constitutional government. They only differ in style; in substance they are twins. While fiercely opposing each other, both parties seek but one thing: unbridled power. As things stand now, we do not need to fear al Qaeda, Iran, or North Korea near as much as we need to fear the abuse of power from within our own government. There is no question in my mind that we have the military power and strength to fight off any foreign enemy. The bigger question is, Do we have the moral power and strength to fight off those within our own country who would strip us of our freedoms? How we answer that question will determine our ultimate destiny. © 2006 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved link Democrats and Republican will be the death of this Republic. (It's probably too late already) Welcome to the North American Union.
This is something i was thinking about a few weeks ago, the facists in germany and Italy became powerfull because of the fear for the communists. And they did terrible things with the power. Most bad things happen because of fear for something else. (Just look at wat happened in the USA because of Fear for the terrorists). To bad "leaders"use fear of the people to become more powerful
Fear is an ancient tool of the powerful to remain in power. Bush and the Republican Party have made superb use of it to win the last several elections, despite bankrupt policies. I think the American people are finally catching on to their game. We'll see in a few weeks. Oh, I I think the description of Democrats as socialists is very funny. The party is far more centrist than it was some decades ago. It's certainly not socialist. Keep D&D Civil.
centrist is the European word for socialism its all the same, socialism is statism, the control of property and economics by the state, it's collectivism, Marx defined it as the state control of money, markets, capital and labor. It is slavery with a cream puff name. Communism is the hard core name. We already have a socialist govt. so it is mute to argue about this one. The difference between socialists and fascists is that one proceeds the other. Here is how Marx outlined the fall of a Free Republic (this is a strategy) Free Republic- Capitalism- Democracy-Social Democracy- Socialism- Statist- Fascist-Dictatorship Statism is communism, but this progression is blended and it is not easy to determine differences as a nation progresses throught the process. I would say America is a long way from being a Free Republic- remember Rome.
Come on, Rhester... I've read all that stuff, and so long ago that I've forgotten much of it. You're being far too melodramatic, buddy. I'm worried about what Bush and company are doing to the country, but the Democrats, my party, are too disorganzed to do anything remotely similar to what you're talking about! Keep D&D Civil.
Theoretically socialism is the end. Communism was a stage on the way to the utopian socialism. I disagree that Socialism proceeds fascism. I think we've seen some Scandanavian countries practicing primarily socialism for some time now, and haven't moved toward fascism. The U.S. has had less socialism, but recently moved more toward fascism.
I also thought that to achieve communism you needed A dictatorship first. And that was were some "communist" countries got stuck. Example Stalin. I think that in some way the thoughts of communism is nobel but the execution is not. It is good to want to help the poorer, but people should have their own identity, One problem with the communist dictators is that they do not want to give the power up(altough that is true for all the dictators). So i think starting with a dictator to achieve a communist state is not the good way to go.
That I agree. Since communism is utopia, it really isn't worth discussing. But still, it's always been used as a political tool to either fool people into some unrealistic dreams or irrational fears. Because it's utopia, it should be all good, why would anyone fear of that? Because it's utopia, it's beyond human nature, and can never be remotely achieved, why would anyone dream about it or fear of it? There is talks about communism all the time, most people talked about it never bother to look it up. It doesn't make any sense. If any politician keeps talking about what he would do, if he could go back to history 50 years ago, with current knowledge or technology. That's utopia, that guy will be considered nuts by any sane person. But on the other hand, politicans talking about communism, either pro or con, they always have their firm believers and supporters. Socialism, on the other hand, is really a valid alternative of capitalism. There are obvious pros and cons, but it's realistic and achievable.
I think getting caught up in 'names' and 'words' is one way of missing the point. A fascist control is simply statism with a dictator. It is authoritarian by definition. Melodrama, has nothing to do with government control of the lives of people. And the process from capitalism to socialism is well documented, Marx and Hegel both documented in their works that capitalism was the key to social control- statism. The way I define our brand of socialism is politics. Bush's job is to do empire building, groundwork for a police state, erosion of civil liberty, and strengthening of the executive power. The next president will be a democrat and his job will be to get back on the socialization (toward statism) of private property and capital, gun control which is very important, and further socialization of healthcare and the food supply. It is at this time I think the North American Union will be established leaving us global citizens of a socialistic society. I see the loss of liberty, freedoms and the loss of ownership of private capital, property and labor as something unavoidable in America and long planned. The seeds of destruction were sown from the beginning, I think the next generation is going to reap the consequences. The Social Democracy that we call America is totally different than the Republic that existed right before the Civil War. The Civil War was a huge turning point economically and politically. The industrial revolution gave rise to many leaders of the socialist movement- Ford, Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, Vanderbuilt, Astor, Morgan - aghhh my mind is going blank, you know the names.
Actually, this is where Lenin differed with Marx. Marx was very idealistic, too idealistic. He wanted the power in the hands of the workers, Lenin believed that power should belong to a limited few who would oversee everything. This is also something that was very endemic to Russian society since the beginning, power in the hands of very few while a majority of the population was subject to their decisions. Nothing really changed from monarchy to communism. And on a final note, rhester, whatever it is you're smoking....can I have some?
Sure, this is D&D on the internet, where you can spout off seriously, jokingly, for provocation and amusement or whatever color your mood ring is glowing ... Just how much do you think your opinion really matters to George Bush or Bill Clinton?
What if socialism in the Marxist sense combines with capitalism. That is, a company's stock is entirely owned by it's employees, who elect the board who in turn have the power to fire and hire? Might be an intriguing thing....
What if a democratically elected government controlled all public lands, mineral production, energy production, communications, health care, banking and mortgage instituions and military industries? Would the the trade off of efficiency and innovation be worth the broader distribution of wealth? ssssssssssssssssssssp........aaaaahhhhhhhh.
Sorry, I have, too much as a fact, studied it you may not understand the connection between the concepts of class war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and the attainment of the bourgeoise ruling the proletariat through control of parties and committees as acheived through Lenin and Stalin's State Capitalism (demonstrated in the socialist application). The fact that big industry and big banking control democratic governments is beyond arguing, the method and role of capitalism is indisputable and the resulting Statist socialism is reality- to deny that Marx saw this is simply not understanding the applications he was aware of as they played out in the labor revolutions. Who profited from Communism? Capitalists! That was no accident.
I suppose I most have trouble understanding you and I don't really know why. Regardless, what Lenin and Stalin did really has no bearing on what Marx believed and outlined in his writings. You presented "Marx's outline" as played out by people that were not him. When Marx wrote "Germany" and France were still under imperial rule and he was dead before the real republics took off. For him, his ideal was more along the lines of Imperialism/Capitalism - Democratic socialism (proletarian revolt if needed) - Statism (run by intellectuals, not capitalists...or really workers, for that matter) - dissolution of the State. So, yeah, I don't understand where you got fascism and despotism as the goal for Marx's outline. It certainly became that way and the Fascism of the 20's and 30's owed much to the socialist movement such that Trotsky even lamented their similar development but that, again, has nothing to do with Marx's utopian dream. He willfully ignored the real dangers of his vision, but that is another matter. Again, I don't know what you are saying. Is it that Marx foresaw Capitalism taking over Communism and that was his goal? That seems odd.
I think we’re near a point in history where the terms communist, socialist, capitalist, and fascist have almost no meaning anymore. The word communist has been problematic for a long time. I think it’s popularly thought of it in terms of the USSR and in that sense it means a totalitarian form of government. In Marx’s original theory, however, it meant a state where no government existed at all. The economy and society would have been built to a certain point and government would no longer be necessary. Each member of society would contribute to the society according to his or her ability and take according to his or her need. That’s the theory anyway. The term socialist today most commonly refers to democratic socialists who are completely committed to democratically elected government. Perhaps the most prominent socialist governing party in the world today is Tony Blair’s governing Labour Party in the UK. His party belongs to an international organisation of socialist parties called the Socialist International. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_international There is a popular and politically expedient myth that capitalists oppose government, but how many capitalists do you know who would favour privatising tax collection, for example, or the army or police or fire departments? A few I’m sure would, those who could afford to run the army or the police, but those who weren’t that rich would I’m sure not be very comfortable at all with these propositions. Rhetoric aside, in terms of government involvement I think the question these days is, who is better suited to operate certain services in our society, and can they effectively be held accountable? Does it make sense to privatize sewage collection and have 5 sewage pipes running down the middle of every street? How do you hold a private company or individual with a monopoly in some area accountable? Does the electoral system effectively hold the government accountable? Etc. Another question is, accountable to whom? There are people on either end of the spectrum, if you will, who believe they are right but who don’t want to do the work of earning the support of the public, and so they want to de-democratise the system in various ways and take more power for themselves. This is done by manipulation of the public, or straight lying to the public so they can’t make informed decisions on an issue. It’s done by deregulating an area where there isn’t enough competition or checks and balances to keep it accountable to the people, or perhaps by over regulating in areas where there are enough checks and balances. I think these are more along the lines of the kinds of questions we should be asking now, rather than trying to lean on words like communist, socialist and capitalist. I think it’s extremely important to know their history, but for practical purposes we’ve almost moved past them now, haven’t we? If you say that Tony Blair is a socialist who heads a Labour Party that belongs to an international socialist organisation, what knowledge have you imparted about him? Have you captured his essence and his key beliefs and drivers with that statement? If not then I think it’s time we came up with a better language to describe things that are more important in the context of the 21st century. This was a little off topic, so my apologies for that, but I just find that these words are making effective communication on these issues more difficult all the time as their meanings become more and more outdated and obscured, and I find that somewhat frustrating.
In the era of terrorism and instant communication, the most critical issue is which form of government can provide the best sense of security within their borders. Asian countries have willingly conceded a portion of their freedoms for a stable system. The EU and its people reek of stability and not rocking the boat. In America...9/11 changed everything. The internet infrastructure has allowed large countries (and companies) to expand and control borders unlike any other point in history. I think we're dealing with a stress test on which form of government can handle large economies of scale. Whereas local problems were handled by low to mid level bueracrats, this information can be pipelined directly to the top echelon. For them, there's a higher bombardment of information and a higher degree of micromanagability. Whereas good decision making was a premium, good and quick decision making is a must. As for issues of nationality, history and tradition, if things continue the way they are, then countries will become more like companies, where people search for the best conditions and shop their talent. This will definitely happen if new technology brings along fast and cheap travel, and if middle class divisions continue to deteriorate into a 2 tiered society.
I agree with Grizzled regarding that these terms have lost most of their meaning in regard to how countries identify themselves and how they actually function. For instance the PRC is still technically communist. I don't think this is an either or situation and given the history of attempts at creating absolute communism or absolute capitalism pursuing a purist version of each is probably a bad thing. Further while Rhester sees an inevitable move towards a statists government I don't think that's a given. As the PRC shows there are governments that are moving away from being statist. Given the history of humanity it looks like the most successful governments have mediated between both. Coming back to the US the nature of the US is to enshrine a balance between government and those governed. Specifically regarding the choice between communist Democrats and fascist Republicans, for one both parties are a long way from being communist (although maybe not so far from being fascists) but if you're worried about either the answer should be divided government. That is the best way to guarentee limited government and protection of rights as long as neither party has a monopoly on government and fears the other party getting the upper hand they will keep each other in check. Even if you don't believe there is much difference between the parties both parties will seek to check each other in a divided government, even on things they might agree on, out of partisanship.
