User Profile
Search
Blog Viewer
123
Tuesday, May 25 2010 - 05:10 PM
Socialism: The New Feudalism
Socialism: The New Feudalism
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/socialism_the_new_feudalism.html
“Recently Bill Maher said on his show, “Democrats in America were put on earth to do one thing: drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th…”
This is the type of rhetoric we hear from liberals all the time, ‘the old ways of capitalism and individual responsibility are over and it is time to move into a more collective and social era.’ Hence the name MoveOn.org or the term progressive, coined to signify progression into a new era and away from individual responsibility and greed.
The left should study history and the rhetoric of a distance political system called Feudalism. Many people have a misconception that the early socialist thinkers like Jean Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels were original thinkers, writing ideas about collectivism and equal sharing of property. But one only has to look back a few centuries to see they were simply recycling old failed ideas with some new jive attached.”
“The Feudal system was nothing more than creating a ruling class who owned all the land and wealth and provided security and safety to all the serfs; in turn the serfs provided work and servitude to their master. But many people do not realize the collective aspect of how serfs lived together.”
“Then and then only will the health of the commonwealth be sound and flourishing, when the higher members shield the lower, and the lower respond faithfully and fully in like measure to the just demands of their superiors, so that each and all are as it were members one of another by a sort of reciprocity, and each regards his own interests as best served by that which he knows to be the most advantageous for the others.”
“This is exactly the type of rhetoric we hear from the left all the time. With their ideas of the redistribution of wealth, and a central controlling nanny state, we’re told things such as: ‘You should listen to those who know better. You should care more about the community over your own desires; conservatives are just a bunch of ignorant hillbillies clinging to old ideas and must be forced into a better and more ordered society.’”
Harding Republican says...
They want to rule by the Divine Right of Socialism….oh wait, they can’t do that….most of them don’t believe in God.
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
It’s much worse than that, she said — she suspects I’m turning into a liberal.
I was displaying three common symptoms, she explained, which confirmed her diagnosis. First, I become agitated and angry when confronted about opinions or facts that differ from my own. Second, I get defensive and deflect uncomfortable questions during conversation — a technique not commonly found in healthy dialogue. And last, I’m showing aggressiveness by resorting to ad hominem attacks when someone doesn’t understand that my point of view is always the correct one.
I’m beginning to call people names when they don’t agree with me — similar to what a third-grader does when she doesn’t get her way, my psychoanalyst admonished.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/living_in_obamas_loony_paralle.html
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
“There is not today, and perhaps there never has been, a serious economic critique of the fundamental tenets of capitalism. There are only moral critiques. Even those opponents of capitalism who proposed alternative systems — like the socialists and communists of centuries past — generally offered moral systems, and not genuine economic theories.
The moral critiques of capitalism have tended to fall into two categories. One, popular with those socialists and communists as well as with many less hostile liberal critics, is that capitalism is unjust to the poor. This meant at first that capitalism degraded the condition of the poor: Some early critics of capitalism contended that the circumstances of workers, especially in manufacturing occupations, were worse than anything the poor had ever experienced before the advent of free-market economics and the Industrial Revolution. But no such case could be sustained today. It is true that inequality persists, of course, but the standard of living of the poor has risen dramatically under capitalism, and the potential for escaping poverty is nowhere greater than in capitalist economies. So today, the focus of such critics is on inequality itself. The condition of the poor, they say, generally does not improve as swiftly as that of the rich, so that the gap between the wealthiest and poorest is expanding — to the detriment of social cohesion and basic justice. There is some truth to this, at least sometimes, but it only amounts to a moral indictment of capitalism if we believe that an equality of conditions is the essence of justice. Otherwise it would be foolish to reject the greatest source of material progress for the poor in human history on the grounds that it allows others to progress even faster. Moreover, it is far from clear that some systemic feature of the market economy holds back the poor. Today in America, the causes of persistent poverty have far more to do with culture than with economic injustice."
http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/recovering-the-case-for-capitalism
(
send private message
)
Would you like to comment on this blog post? Login to talk back!
Randy Hall says...
This is one reason I put revolutionaries in the liberal box.
( send private message )