Congressmen Fail to Disclose "Democratic Socialists of America" Membership

[FrankRep]

DSA-Members: American Socialist Voter - Democratic Socialists of America - Oct 1, 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35733956/DSA-Members-American-Socialist-Voter-Democratic-Socialists-of-America-10-1-09

American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/


http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/dsa-new.jpg


CONGRESSMEN FAIL TO INCLUDE ‘DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA’ MEMBERSHIP IN THEIR ELECTION CAMPAIGNS (http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/CONGRESSMEN_FAIL_TO_INCLUDE_DEMOCRATIC_SOCIALISTS_ OF_AMERICA_MEMBERSHIP_IN_THEIR_ELECTION_CAMPAIGNS/32227)


The Cypress Times
August 13, 2010


Sheila Jackson Lee (Dem, TX 18th) serves as Vice Chair

An article appeared nearly one year ago in the Canada Free press outlining the intertwining relationship between the progressive movement, the socialist movement, communism, the Democratic Socialists of America, The Congressional Black Caucus and elected representatives of the United States House of Representatives. The article was completely ignored by the U.S. press.

On August 13, 2009, JB Williams of the Canada Free Press (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13696) wrote the following:

“After decades of failed attempts to take over America via their third party initiatives that couldn’t break America’s two party system, leaders of both the Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA chose a new strategy.

“Both being the ultimate 'party of the working class stiff,' they joined forces in a new venture that would work within the US two party system, by hijacking control of one of the two primary parties. As the Democrat Party had already spent years identifying itself as the “party of the working class,” engaging in socio-economic class warfare as its primary method for expanding its political power, it was ripe for the hijacking.

“Together, Communist Party and Socialist Party leaders established the Democratic Socialists of America (http://www.dsausa.org/), and they share a common ideology which is now the platform and mantra of today’s DNC – CPUSA.

“To gain full control of the Democrat Party, DSA leadership established two congressional legislative bodies, headed by DSA/CPUSA/SPUSA members. Today, these are the two congressional bodies in control of congress.

“They are the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/) established by Socialist Party member Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and the Congressional Black Caucus (http://www.house.gov/kilpatrick/cbc/) established by Communist Party member John Conyers of Michigan.

“ALL members of these two congressional committees represent the Democratic Socialists of America, as both committees are the creation of, and operate under the control of DSAUSA.”

Is Mr. Williams way off-base in reporting that the DSA is working with the hope of dramatically changing America? The answer to that question is found in the stated beliefs of the Democratic Socialists of America.

A publication written by the DSA titled “What is Democratic Socialism? Questions and Answers from the Democratic Socialists of America” explains their agenda for America.

The DSA’s view of private corporations – (emphasis mine)

“In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.”

On the notion that a Socialist society would create a lack of desire to work:

“Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy.”

Targeting America’s youth in promoting a socialist agenda:

“Young people are needed in today’s struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and predatory multinational corporations. Schools, colleges and universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young socialists.”

How does the DSA propose to pay for a Socialist USA?

“Most advanced industrial democracies provide these goods through progressive taxation, control of health care costs (either by providing publicly funded national health insurance or regulated insurance options offered by nonprofit health care providers), and the expenditure of a smaller portion of their GDP on the military than does the United States.”

Sound familiar yet?

Regarding separation and differentiation from the Democrat party, the DSA both asks and answers the question emphatically.

“Aren't you a party that's in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?

“No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

What is the Congressional Progressive Caucus? The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest caucus within the Democratic caucus in the United States Congress with 83 declared members. A list of all 83 members, broken down by state is available HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus#House_members).

The membership includes these notable Representatives:

Sheila Jackson-Lee - (TX-18, Houston)*

Eddie Bernice Johnson – (TX 30, Dallas)*

Charles Rangle - (NY 15, Harlem)*

John Conyers – (MI 14, Detroit)*

Barney Frank – (MA 4, Newton)

Alan Grayson – (FL 8, Orlando)

6 Representatives from Illinois are members –

Bobby Rush - (IL-1, Chicago)*

Jesse Jackson, Jr.- (IL-2, Chicago Heights)*

Luis Gutierrez - (IL-4, Chicago)

Danny Davis - (IL-7, Chicago)*

Jan Schakowsky - (IL-9, Chicago)

Phil Hare - (IL-17, Rock Island)

California has the most members with 15 –

Lynn Woolsey (CA-6, Santa Rosa) - Co-Chair

George Miller (CA-7, Richmond) – Chairman

Barbara Lee (CA-9, Oakland) – Chairwoman*

Pete Stark (CA-13, Fremont)

Michael Honda (CA-15, San Jose)

Sam Farr (CA-17, Monterey)

Henry Waxman (CA-30, Los Angeles)

Xavier Becerra (CA-31, Los Angeles)

Judy Chu (CA-32, El Monte)

Diane Watson (CA-33, Los Angeles)*

Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34, Los Angeles)

Maxine Waters (CA-35, Inglewood)*

Laura Richardson (CA-37, Long Beach)*

Linda Sánchez (CA-39, Lakewood)

Bob Filner (CA-51, San Diego)

There is also one stand out former member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus:

Nancy Pelosi (CA -8) who resigned her membership upon becoming minority leader of the house.

There is a great deal of overlap in the membership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus as noted above by an “*”. These two powerful Caucuses within the United States Congress have combined forces to push the agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America.

The Democratic Socialists of America also boasts an impressive list of your elected representatives, currently seeking your vote again in November.

CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm)

Co-Chairs Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)

Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs

Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)

Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)

Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)

Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members

Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members

Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)

Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)

Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)

Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)

Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)

Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)

Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)

Hon. André Carson (IN-07)

Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)

Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)

Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)

Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)

Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)

Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)

Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)

Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)

Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)

Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)

Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)

Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)

Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)

Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)

Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)

Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)

Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)

Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)

Hon. John Hall (NY-19)

Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)

Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)

Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)

Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)

Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)

Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)

Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)

Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)

Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)

Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)

Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)

Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)

Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)

Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)

Hon. George Miller (CA-07)

Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)

Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)

Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)

Hon. John Olver (MA-01)

Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)

Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)

Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)

Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)

Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)

Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)

Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)

Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)

Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)

Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)

Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)

Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)

Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)

Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)

Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)

Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)

Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)

Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)

Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)

Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Since all of the elected representatives listed above have made the decision to give their time and energy to serving in one, two or all three of these groups, how come little is mentioned about this particular activity in their individual campaigns?

A search of both Sheila Jackson Lee’s official website as a member of Congress and of her campaign website finds no mention of the DSA whatsoever.

The campaign website doesn’t mention Lee’s involvement with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but Lee’s Congressional website does say that she is a member of 45 caucuses and both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus are listed on that site.

California’s Pete Stark who recently made headlines by saying, "the federal government can do anything," also fails to mention his association with either the Congressional Progressive Caucus or the Democrat Socialists of America. And on and on. As you look into the information these politician filter back to the public about their actions and their involvement, you will find no mention of their activities with the DSA, and little to no mention of their involvement with the CPC.

In November Americans will go to the polls to elect a new congress with every seat in the U.S. House up for grabs. Is your elected representative on any of the above lists? Do you agree with the stated policies and agenda of the DSA?

The DSA concludes its propaganda with a pitch to join them:

“We are part of an international movement fostering solidarity across national borders in order to construct an alternative to the current order. But as residents of the most powerful capitalist nation, we recognize that our greatest act of international solidarity is to build a vibrant, multicultural left in the United States. We invite you to join us in this effort, an effort worthy of a lifetime of commitment.”

If you’re not ready to join in building a new world order and vibrant left, then ask yourself who has the responsibility to protect America from this type of socialist agenda?

That’s easy. You do.

Vote!


SOURCE:
http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/CONGRESSMEN_FAIL_TO_INCLUDE_DEMOCRATIC_SOCIALISTS_ OF_AMERICA_MEMBERSHIP_IN_THEIR_ELECTION_CAMPAIGNS/32227

[BuddyRey]

This is huge!

[FrankRep]

Related:

Outed! - Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio) is a member of Democratic Socialists of America
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257012


Flashback:


Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Socialize the Oil Industry!

Socialist exposed!

YouTube - MAXINE WATERS OUTS THE DEMS SOCIALIST AGENDA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU)

[CoreyBowen999]

Dennis K and Houstons REP! GODDDDDDDDDDDD

[oyarde]

Quite a list of Marxists there.Is anyone suprised ?

[FrankRep]

Hitting the News:

Exposed! The long list of elected officials that were members of the Democratic Socialists of America in 2009.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/136/510/Exposed_The_long_list_of_elected_officials_that_we re_members_of_the_Democratic_Socialists_of_America _in_2009..html

American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/

Democratic Socialists of America Claimed 70 Congressional Democrats as Members Last October
http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2010/08/democratic-socialists-of-america.html

Democratic Socialists of Congress
http://www.rightsidenews.com/beta/us/democratic-socialists-of-congress.html

Congressional Democrats Who are Registered Socialists
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/us-congress-legislative-branch/14629-congressional-democrats-who-registered-socialists.html

Long list of Congressman who were members of the Democratic Socialist of America in 2009
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2570155/posts

[Kludge]

Quite a list of Marxists there.Is anyone suprised ?

Don't understand why this is news. :confused:

It's not like these people hide their voting record. We know what they are.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

This could be very,very big.....and very,very fun to watch the fallout from.

[oyarde]

Don't understand why this is news. :confused:

It's not like these people hide their voting record. We know what they are.

In the past four years this has become so pronounced , I cannot believe many people have missed it if the pay attention one day a week.

[Agorism]

Kucinch is an ah$&@

[Brian4Liberty]

A little similar to how Dick Cheney and others hide their memberships in the CFR...

[FrankRep]

A little similar to how Dick Cheney and others hide their memberships in the CFR...

Dick Cheney also laughs about hiding his Council of Foreign Relations membership too.

Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller
YouTube - Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg)

[oyarde]

Dick Cheney also laughs about hiding his Council of Foreign Relations membership too.

Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller
YouTube - Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg)

Is not voting in marxist legislation against the will of the people.

[FrankRep]

Before Its News just jumped on it.

Exposed! The long list of elected officials that were members of the Democratic Socialists of America in 2009.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/136/510/Exposed_The_long_list_of_elected_officials_that_we re_members_of_the_Democratic_Socialists_of_America _in_2009..html

[erowe1]

Does their being socialists make them worse than most of the other representatives whose statism takes other forms?

I hate socialism. But I really think that conservatives make it too much of a boogey man. The big government Republicans love having our focus on socialism as the one enemy that must be avoided at all costs, so that they can offer up their capitalist versions of government control of major parts of the economy (a la Medicare part D) and tout how great they are because they involve privately owned, rather than state owned, means of production.

Obamacare is another example, where I actually find it odd that smearing it as "socialist" has been so successful, given how much it resembles just the type of capitalist government controlled healthcare that the Republicans would have passed had they been in control, that Mitt Romney led the way on in MA, and that pseudo-conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation were touting before they had to be against it for purely partisan reasons.

[Brian4Liberty]

It looks like these sources are using the Democratic Socialists of America and Congressional Progressive Caucus interchangeably. After a little research, I can't find a direct or documented connection between them. Any sources on that?

[FrankRep]

It looks like these sources are using the Democratic Socialists of America and Congressional Progressive Caucus interchangeably. After a little research, I can't find a direct or documented connection between them. Any sources on that?

The first link:

DSA-Members: American Socialist Voter - Democratic Socialists of America - Oct 1, 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35733956/DSA-Members-American-Socialist-Voter-Democratic-Socialists-of-America-10-1-09

[Brian4Liberty]

The first link:

DSA-Members: American Socialist Voter - Democratic Socialists of America - Oct 1, 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35733956/DSA-Members-American-Socialist-Voter-Democratic-Socialists-of-America-10-1-09

In that document, at the end of the list of Congressional members it says "Fair use notice cited from Congressional Progressive Caucus." It's not clear how the connection is being made between the two organizations. The list seems to be coming from the Congressional Progressive Caucus...it would be nice to have a clearer connection before distributing this info.

[Jack Bauer]

Any MSM outlets saying anything about this "outing"?

[FrankRep]

In that document, at the end of the list of Congressional members it says "Fair use notice cited from Congressional Progressive Caucus." It's not clear how the connection is being made between the two organizations. The list seems to be coming from the Congressional Progressive Caucus...it would be nice to have a clearer connection before distributing this info.

Interesting bit of background:


House Progressive Caucus--Socialists in Office (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/house-progressive-caucus--socialists-in-office/blog-22785/)

Sodahead
Oct 23, 2008


Ever heard of the House Progressive Caucus, or as it is now referred to as the Congressional Progressive Caucus?

The House Progressive Caucus (HPC) is just another name for the Congressional Progressive Caucus , which, according to
Discover the Networks, is a “radical caucus of nearly six-dozen members of the House of Representatives”, which, until 1999, “worked in open partnership” with Democratic Socialists of America, the “largest Socialist organization in the U.S.”

The March 29, 1999, issue of The New American describes the House Progressive Caucus (HPC) as

… a consortium of radical congressional collectivists whose stunning success in November remains one of the most under-reported stories of the election. Fifty-five of the 58 members on last year’s HPC roster ran for re-election; every one of them was re-elected.

This success occurred in spite of the fact that there is a symbiotic relationship between the HPC and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) — a relationship that has been ignored by the major media. The DSA is the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International, the world’s oldest and largest hodgepodge of socialist, social democratic, and labour parties. The Socialist International proudly boasts that it is the successor to the so-called “First International” of Karl Marx, founded in London in 1864.

HPC/DSA “goals”

The New American informs:


According to one DSA position paper, its collectivist agenda includes “massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector”; “a massive shift of public resources from the military … to civilian uses”; and “expanding [Medicare] eligibility to people of all ages and income regardless of health or employment status” so that “the federal government can serve as the single payer” for the nation’s health care. After all, the DSA contends, “Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services. [...]

The HPC’s list of legislative goals includes “a more progressive tax system” (Karl Marx would be pleased), deep cuts in the military budget, and a “cradle-to-grave” single-payer health care plan. In the following pages we survey a rogues’ gallery of HPC congressmen and others with a similar ideological bent.

The Wikipedia article on the Congressional Progressive Caucus says:

According to their website, the CPC advocates “universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare,” fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in strike actions and collective bargaining, the abolition of significant portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of gay marriage, strict campaign finance reform laws, a complete pullout from the war in Iraq, a crackdown on free trade and corporate welfare, an increase in income tax on the wealthy, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in social welfare spending by the federal government.

Anything sounding familiar? It should. We’ve certainly been hearing a lot of sound bytes on the evening news and in political TV and radio ads that sound just .. like .. this:

redistribution of wealth? – √
increase income tax on wealthy? – √
tax cuts for the poor? – √ Note: 40% of Americans pay zero taxes now.
more progressive tax system? – √
crackdown on corporate welfare? – √
increased social welfare spending? – √
“cradle-to-grave” health care? – √
complete pullout from Iraq? – √
cuts in military budget? – √

CPC founding

The New American continues:

The House Progressive Caucus was founded in 1992 by Representatives Bernard Sanders (Independent-VT), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Lane Evans (D-IL), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and then-Congressman Ron Dellums (D-CA).

Although Congressman Sanders, who currently chairs the HPC’s executive committee, is a self-avowed socialist, he is one of the group’s more “moderate” members. During the previous Congress, 51 of his HPC colleagues scored lower than he did on this magazine’s “Conservative Index” voting guide!

Sanders, DeFazio, and Waters are members of what is now called the Congressional Progressive Congress.

DSA hosted CPC

Would it surprise you to know that the Democratic Socialists of America hosted the CPC on its website?

Until 1999, DSA hosted the website of the Progressive Caucus. Following a subsequent expose of the link between the two entities, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. But DSA and the Progressive Caucus remain intimately linked. All 58 Progressive Caucus members also belong to DSA.

The CPC’s “own website” for the current 71-member CPC is an extension of that maintained for its co-chairwoman, Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) — cpc.lee.house. The other CPC co-chairwoman is fellow Californian, Rep. Lynn Woolsey.

The CPC-DSA relationship was confirmed by Trevor Loudon in his November 12, 2006, article The Socialists Behind the “Progressive Caucus”:

As the Congressional Progressive Caucus is the most powerful and radical group in the new US Congress, it might be useful to find out who is behind the organisation.

The most obvious backers of the CPC are the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Wikipedia article on the DSA:

During the 1990s, DSA began looking to the Religious Right’s activism within the Republican Party as a model for how the Left could gain a greater foothold within the Democratic Party…

The result was the “Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of 65 Democratic legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives anchored by US Rep. Bernie Sanders, a DSA sympathizer….DSA’s website included commentary supportive of the legislative caucus throughout much of the late 1990s.

CPC supporters

The Wikipedia article on the CPC also provides the names of a number of organizations which support the CPC.

Included in the “array of national progressive organizations” that “work to support the efforts of the caucus” are a few that top the list.

Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)
The Nation magazine
Progressive Democrats of America (PDA)
for Institute for Policy Studies

Members of House Progressive Caucus:

....


SOURCE:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/house-progressive-caucus--socialists-in-office/blog-22785/

[FrankRep]

Down the Rabbit hole...

Speaker Pelosi’s Controversial Marxist Connections (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/speaker-pelosis-controversial-marxist-connections/)


Aim.org
May 24, 2009



Pelosi has represented the city of San Francisco, perhaps the most liberal in the nation, since 1987, and is a very close friend of Rep. Barbara Lee, who represents neighboring Oakland and Berkeley, California, and is the most vocal apologist for Communist Cuba in Congress today. Lee, head of the Congressional Black Caucus, recently led a delegation to Cuba to meet with the Castro brothers to discuss normalization of relations. But she paid no attention to political dissidents or political prisoners being held on the communist island.

Lee, who calls Pelosi “a magnificent woman” and “one of California’s greatest representatives,” began her career in the California state legislature as a secret member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a spin-off from the Communist Party. As a member of the staff of Rep. Ron Dellums, Lee was shown to have been collaborating with communist officials on the island of Grenada, according to documents (http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/barbara_lee_rpt.pdf) captured after the liberation of that island nation. These revelations have not hurt Lee’s standing with Pelosi and other “progressives.” Indeed, Lee also served as the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/).

But even more interesting than the Barbara Lee connection is Pelosi’s long-time friendship and association with Vincent and Vivian Hallinan, one of the most radical left-wing families in San Francisco over the course of five decades.

[Brian4Liberty]

All 58 Progressive Caucus members also belong to DSA.

Without going in a circle back to the original document, is there another source for this? It's not that I doubt the connections for a second, but some kind of additional linkage would be nice. Kind of like Dick Cheney openly confessing his CFR membership...

[FrankRep]

Without going in a circle back to the original document, is there another source for this?

Check out this article from 1999.

Totally Radical! - 1999 TNA Article about the Congressional Progressive Caucus
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257069



The House Progressive Caucus was founded in 1992 by Representatives Bernard Sanders (Independent-VT), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Lane Evans (D-IL), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and then-Congressman Ron Dellums (D-CA).

Although Congressman Sanders, who currently chairs the HPC’s executive committee, is a self-avowed socialist, he is one of the group’s more "moderate" members. During the previous Congress, 51 of his HPC colleagues scored lower than he did on this magazine’s "Conservative Index" voting guide!

The HPC states that it "works with a coalition of organizations, called the Progressive Challenge, to bring new life to the progressive voice in U.S. politics." Sponsors of the Progressive Challenge include the aforementioned DSA and such other far-left entities as Americans for Democratic Action, Friends of the Earth, Institute for Policy Studies, National Organization for Women, National Council of La Raza, Center for Defense Information, Council for a Livable World, Amnesty International, National Education Association, and the National Rainbow Coalition.

The HPC’s list of legislative goals includes "a more progressive tax system" (Karl Marx would be pleased), deep cuts in the military budget, and a "cradle-to-grave" single-payer health care plan. In the following pages we survey a rogues’ gallery of HPC congressmen and others with a similar ideological bent.

[silentshout]

Isn't it obvious that some of these listed would be socialist leaning? Honestly, who cares?

[FrankRep]

Isn't it obvious that some of these listed would be socialist leaning? Honestly, who cares?

If you want a Constitutional Government back, you should care.

[RedStripe]

All the communist fear-mongering by Frankrep is hilarious.

OMG SHE SUPPORTED CUBA!

lol, we should be more upset at anyone who has "supported" the united states - that is, if you give a damn about human rights hahahahaahahaahah

no one cares about human rights on the "right" wing.

[FrankRep]

All the communist fear-mongering by Frankrep is hilarious.

RedStripe's Signature: "Forum Asshole & Resident Annoying Leftist"

Yep.

[RedStripe]

RedStripe's Signature: "Forum Asshole & Resident Annoying Leftist"

Yep.

Hey Frankrep did you hear how Cuba was COMMUNIST and all? I mean, OMG.

[michaelwise]

This whole thread is so disgusting. Un-Plug Dick Chaney and pray for a swift death of the Rockefeller's, but not before the end of the year when the inheritance tax goes back up to 55%.

[RedStripe]

This whole thread is so disgusting. Un-Plug Dick Chaney and pray for a swift death of the Rockefeller's, but not before the end of the year when the inheritance tax goes back up to 55%.

qft

[YumYum]

The wars that the Republicans got us into that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent lives, is much more disturbing than some socialism conspiracy.

I know, the Dems don't want to give up licking food stamps. But the way things are going they better enjoy 'em while they last!

[FrankRep]

The wars that the Republicans got us into that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent lives, is much more disturbing than some socialism conspiracy.

Democrats are continuing the Endless Wars by the way.

[jazzloversinc]

wow..what are closet socialists doing on a Ron Paul forum??/ yikes! Moles?

[Mini-Me]

If you want a Constitutional Government back, you should care.

I think he meant, "Tons of Democrats are socialists anyway. Who really cares if some of them just make it official with a card-carrying membership?"

Then again, I do see your point too: It's a worrying sign when some of the D's are able to make their socialism "official" without overwhelming backlash. To draw a parallel, we already know that the neocon R's are essentially gradualist fascists or Nazis, but it would be much more terrifying if they were able to get away with being official card-carrying Nazis without overwhelming backlash.

[FrankRep]

I think he meant, "Tons of Democrats are socialists. Who cares if some of them just make it official with a card-carrying membership?

I agree with that. Their actions are what count and their actions are destroying Capitalism and growing Big Government. Karl Marx would be impressed.

[Meatwasp]

When i hear some of the comebacks on this thread I wonder how many commies have already infiltrated the Ron Paul Forum. At least they are coming out of the woodwork. GOD!

[FrankRep]

When i hear some of the comebacks on this thread I wonder how many commies have already infiltrated the Ron Paul Forum. At least they are coming out of the woodwork. GOD!

For Example:

RedStripe admits to Socialist Views.


left-libertarian, mutualist, or libertarian socialist


Don't want to derail, but basically I'm for socialist ends (pro: economic egalitarianism, worker's rights, wide distribution of capital, labor class-consciousness, sustainability and anti: bigotry, racism, homophobia etc) through libertarian (anti-state) means.

Many old school socialists were anarchists/libertarians who understood that the state, along with capitalism, must be defeated in order to have a truly just society.


Yes, I'm "against private property" even though I said nothing of the sort in the quote you posted - yet another illustration of your extremely poor reading comprehension.
....

[Meatwasp]

For Example:

RedStripe admits to Socialist Views.

What can you expect. He calls himself RED stripe.
I am always suspicious of atheists also. The comunists tried to destroy religion in Russia also. I am not an overly religious person but I do have faith.

[silentshout]

If you want a Constitutional Government back, you should care.

Meh, the socialists bother me as much as the neocons..actually the neocons bother me a bit more. But it's pretty obvious that someone like Kucinich has socialistic views..it's not like he hid them, and he has been re-elected many times.

[silentshout]

When i hear some of the comebacks on this thread I wonder how many commies have already infiltrated the Ron Paul Forum. At least they are coming out of the woodwork. GOD!

Commies? Is this the 1950s? Honestly, I just don't see why people are shocked.

[Mini-Me]

Come on, guys. I disagree with RedStripe on a lot of his views too, but he obviously has his heart in the right place, and importantly, he's a clear ally against both the status quo and the expansion of government power. If every leftist were like RedStripe, we would not be in the mess we're in today. He may have different views about how he'd ultimately like to see society structured socially and economically, but that's no reason to crap all over him. He's just coming from a different socioeconomic perspective than most people here.

We all want freedom, even if freedom means something a little different to all of us. That's why freedom's so great anyway: When we can agree not to impose government on each other, we don't have to stress so much over our differences. RedStripe isn't going to be voting for Lenin anytime soon (or Obama, for that matter), so what's the problem (other than his biting sarcasm)? Alienating guys like him and making enemies will do more harm than good. Build bridges, not walls.

Also, Meatwasp, most of the atheists here are just cynical 20-somethings, not infiltrators. :p I don't agree with them (nor am I religious), but I know enough atheists in real life to understand them. The Communists did try to destroy religion, since it was blasphemy to the religion of the state, but that's not why the atheists here believe as they do.

[silentshout]

I think he meant, "Tons of Democrats are socialists anyway. Who really cares if some of them just make it official with a card-carrying membership?"

Then again, I do see your point too: It's a worrying sign when some of the D's are able to make their socialism "official" without overwhelming backlash. To draw a parallel, we already know that the neocon R's are essentially gradualist fascists or Nazis, but it would be much more terrifying if they were able to get away with being official card-carrying Nazis without overwhelming backlash.

Yes, that is what I meant..well, kind of. I don't see how someone can hear that, for example, Kucinich is for 100% free higher education and not think he is pretty much socialistic? I don't agree with him (except on foreign policy and the drug war), but I don't find it shocking that he would consider himself a socialist.

[Brian4Liberty]

The most annoying thing about these socialists is their adamant denial that they are socialists. From Obama to Pelosi to Maddow. Who do they think they are fooling?

[FrankRep]

The most annoying thing about these socialists is their adamant denial that they are socialists. From Obama to Pelosi to Maddow. Who do they think they are fooling?

Typical argument: We're not Socialists, we're Progressives.

:rolleyes:

A rose by any other name...

[Mini-Me]

Yes, that is what I meant..well, kind of. I don't see how someone can hear that, for example, Kucinich is for 100% free higher education and not think he is pretty much socialistic? I don't agree with him (except on foreign policy and the drug war), but I don't find it shocking that he would consider himself a socialist.

Yeah...Kucinich is a bit of an anomaly in politics, though. He considers himself a "small government socialist," and I think he actually believes there's a such thing. ;) I suppose he means, "lots of redistribution with minimal bureaucracy," or something to that effect. Kucinich is wrong and short-sighted, and he doesn't understand that the ends of socialist ideals cannot follow from the means. However, he's honest about who he is, and I think he means well (road to hell and all that ;))

In contrast, most of the other socialist Democrats are just sociopathic narcissists doing the bidding of the political establishment for their own gain (same goes for the neocons). Most of these assholes couldn't care less that the banner of state socialism is and always has been a ploy to grab more centralized power for the benefit of the elite. Most don't admit they're socialists though (or "socialists," though the difference is inconsequential to the end result), given Fabian gradualism and sneakiness and all that. When more start admitting it though, that might be when you need to worry that we're nearing the endgame.

[silentshout]

Yeah...Kucinich is a bit of an anomaly in politics, though. He considers himself a "small government socialist," and I think he actually believes there's a such thing. ;) I suppose he means, "lots of redistribution with minimal bureaucracy," or something to that effect. Kucinich is wrong and short-sighted, and he doesn't understand that the ends of socialist ideals cannot follow from the means. However, he's honest about who he is, and I think he means well (road to hell and all that ;))

In contrast, most of the other socialist Democrats are just sociopathic narcissists doing the bidding of the political establishment for their own gain (same goes for the neocons). Most of these assholes couldn't care less that the banner of state socialism is and always has been a ploy to grab more centralized power for the benefit of the elite. Most don't admit they're socialists though (or "socialists," though the difference is inconsequential to the end result), given Fabian gradualism and sneakiness and all that. When more start admitting it though, that might be when you need to worry that we're nearing the endgame.

Good points. I agree with you about Kucinich as well.

[Mini-Me]

Typical argument: We're not Socialists, we're Progressives.

:rolleyes:

A rose by any other name...

I cannot stand the "progressive" label. It's so smarmy and manipulative, and I feel like it was specifically chosen to ensnare young people. After all, every young idealist has an, "out with the old, in with the better new" mentality and a desire to rid the world of the stale injustices caused by their obstinate elders' narrow-mindedness. "Progressive" is such a feel-good, positive-sounding word...and it can be attached to just about anything that can be portrayed as "non-traditional." Lack of historical perspective tricks young, hip, "progressive" kids into thinking socialism and enormous government is something new and exciting...when really, big-government central planning [and tyranny] is as old as civilization itself, and the notion of limited government and free enterprise is comparatively in its infancy.

EDIT: God, I need to go to bed. :p

[Jack Bauer]

That's the thing that the lefty statists do best - co-opting labels.

When liberalism and being a liberal had a positive connotation (in this case liberal meaning classical liberal) they lefty socialist/ statists effectively co-opted that label. In today's politics, "liberalism" is almost the exact anti-thesis to the classical liberalism of the 19th century. In fact, so good were they at co-opting the label that the torch bearers of classical liberalism in recent times (Hayek, Von Mises, Hazlitt) are not considered "liberals" by a vast majority of the population.

And now that the right and the neocons have smeared the word "liberal" for a long period of time so that its lost the shine and has a negative connotation, they are co-opting the word "progressive". As if once they call themselves progressives, everything they do will be about progress. At least that's the subliminal message they want to send out to the dumb public.

Yeah man, we're progressives, 'cause when we take over, there will be like ummm like progress and stuff.

[Meatwasp]

The wars that the Republicans got us into that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent lives, is much more disturbing than some socialism conspiracy.

I know, the Dems don't want to give up licking food stamps. But the way things are going they better enjoy 'em while they last!

The wars the republicans got us into? You don't know history do you? Jfk got us into Vietnam, Roosevelt got us into WWW3 Both parties are at fault.

[YumYum]

The wars the republicans got us into? You don't know history do you? Jfk got us into Vietnam, Roosevelt got us into WWW3 Both parties are at fault.

I was talking about the current wars: Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Meatwasp]

I was talking about the current wars: Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah sure.

[Meatwasp]

Commies? Is this the 1950s? Honestly, I just don't see why people are shocked.

Yes the Bolsheviks came into our country full hilt in the fifties and are still here eating the foundation of America.

[YumYum]

Yeah sure.

I was! Those are the wars that we are now dealing with. I don't give a rats about the wars in the past. How much do you want to bet that if the Pubgelicans take control of Congress this November they end up declaring war on Iran? Evidence shows that Obama is trying to avoid an Iranian conflict.

[osan]

May I take it the MSM isn't touching this with a 100 ft. pole?

[free1]

May I take it the MSM isn't touching this with a 100 ft. pole?
They will touch on it.

3 second mention, once, on Sunday morning at 3 AM, on a 3 day weekend. Just enough so they can say they reported it.

[pcosmar]

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4425.html


In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book "The Road We Are Traveling" spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind; the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to 2008 America.

1. Strong, centralized government.

2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.

3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.

4. Government control over employment.

5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.

6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.

7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.

8. A managed monetary system.

9. Government control over foreign trade.

10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.

11. Government regulation of labor.

12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.

13. Heavy progressive taxation.

And some wonder why I seem angry.
:mad:

[Meatwasp]

I was! Those are the wars that we are now dealing with. I don't give a rats about the wars in the past. How much do you want to bet that if the Pubgelicans take control of Congress this November they end up declaring war on Iran? Evidence shows that Obama is trying to avoid an Iranian conflict.

B.S.

[pcosmar]

You might also enjoy,,

YouTube - The Fabian Society & World Communitarianism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKW862_h-W4)

[Meatwasp]

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4425.html



And some wonder why I seem angry.
:mad:

Pcosmar, we are already there. I am angry too.

[YumYum]

B.S.

How'd you do on your logs? You want any more free advice?

[RedStripe]

haha socialism should be the least of your worries

a government not run by the powerful economic interests of big business? that would be unheard of in Amerikkka

[FrankRep]

haha socialism should be the least of your worries

a government not run by the powerful economic interests of big business? that would be unheard of in Amerikkka

Corporatists AND the Progressives/Socialists are both my enemies. The Progressives, by the way, gave us the Federal Reserve and the progressive income tax.

[YumYum]

Corporatists AND the Progressives/Socialists are both my enemies. The Progressives, by the way, gave us the Federal Reserve and the progressive income tax.

I had a Pubgelican neocon tell me at the Driver's License Bureau that he hated liberals and wanted to kill them. He said it loud enough so everyone could hear him. You mention that these people are your enemies, which means that you hate them. Would you too, also kill them?

[RedStripe]

Corporatists AND the Progressives/Socialists are both my enemies. The Progressives, by the way, gave us the Federal Reserve and the progressive income tax.

A right-winger like you doesn't even know the Jekyll Island story? For shame.


The rich have always run this country. They have always owned the government. They CREATED the government. But don't let history get in the way of your ideological agenda - the simplistic agenda that assumes that everything will be fine if we just had "constitutional government."

[FrankRep]

I had a Pubgelican neocon tell me at the Driver's License Bureau that he hated liberals and wanted to kill them. He said it loud enough so everyone could hear him. You mention that these people are your enemies, which means that you hate them. Would you too, also kill them?

Trying to derail the conversation by injecting "hate" and "killing." :rolleyes:

I just want them out of power and out of government.
I don't hate anyone and I don't support murder.

[FrankRep]

A right-winger like you doesn't even know the Jekyll Island story? For shame.

I know the origins of the Federal Reserve and Jekyll Island.

http://www.shopjbs.org/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/C/r/Creature-from-Jekyll-Island.jpg (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/books/the-creature-from-jekyll-island.html)

http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/books/the-creature-from-jekyll-island.html


What is money and how is it used, and at the top, misused? In "The Creature From Jekyll Island," author G. Edward Griffin unmasks the secrets behind the manipulation of our nation's money supply. This informative book provides and insider's look at how the Federal Reserve came into being and how, even today, it manipulates the value of the dollar. Wondering why we're in such economic trouble? "The Creature From Jekyll Island" provides the unnerving answers. (2009ed, 608pp., pb)


Our Monetary Mayhem Began With the Federal Reserve (http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/european/946)


The Federal Reserve has inflicted a century of financial havoc on Americans; looking at how this came to pass reveals who desired this state of affairs (namely the Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild big-banking interests) and how they profit from it. by James Perloff

[YumYum]

Trying to derail the conversation by injecting "hate" and "killing." :rolleyes:

I just want them out of power and out of government.
I don't hate anyone and I don't support murder.

No, I am not derailing the conversation, I just want to make sure where you are coming from because there are many people out there that are like that Pubgelican I met, and people's anger is at a boiling point.

It doesn't matter if a person is "liberal" or "conservative". We all slave for the same master, and the master wants us to turn on each other.

[Meatwasp]

How'd you do on your logs? You want any more free advice?

Never from you let me tell you.
You never mention that little war in Afghanistan that your hero Obama is playing out.
Why do I get the feeling you get your logic from the T.V.?

[KAYA]

The wars the republicans got us into? You don't know history do you? Jfk got us into Vietnam, Roosevelt got us into WWW3 Both parties are at fault.


I was talking about the current wars: Iraq and Afghanistan.

No you weren't, you just got caught spewing BS.


The wars that the Republicans got us into that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent lives, is much more disturbing than some socialism conspiracy.

"Hundreds of thousands, if not millions", in Iraq and Afghanistan, really? That many, huh?

What about all the innocent lives (literally in the millions) exterminated under socialist/marxist/communist rule? Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot...

[YumYum]

Never from you let me tell you.
You never mention that little war in Afghanistan that your hero Obama is playing out.
Why do I get the feeling you get your logic from the T.V.?

Obama is not my hero, where did you get that? Why do I get the feeling you have no logic at all?

[FrankRep]

It doesn't matter if a person is "liberal" or "conservative". We all slave for the same master, and the master wants us to turn on each other.

I view it as Big Government vs. Small Constitutional Government and I don't really care what label people give themselves.

[LibertyEagle]

Why do I get the feeling you have no logic at all?

Oh, Meatwasp has a great deal of logic and also, knowledge.

[Meatwasp]

Oh, Meatwasp has a great deal of logic and also, knowledge.

Thank you dear.

[pcosmar]

Obama is not my hero, where did you get that? Why do I get the feeling you have no logic at all?

As I remember you were a supporter and apologist when you joined this board.
You have often supported and argued socialist/statist positions. On several subjects.
Not all old folks are forgetful.
Don't play dumb,

[LibertyEagle]

A right-winger like you doesn't even know the Jekyll Island story? For shame.
Now, you're just making that up. Of course FrankRep knows about Jekyll Island.


The rich have always run this country. They have always owned the government. They CREATED the government. But don't let history get in the way of your ideological agenda - the simplistic agenda that assumes that everything will be fine if we just had "constitutional government."

I don't think anyone has said everything will be just fine. Why exactly do you have a problem with reducing the size of the federal government by 95%, which is probably how much it would be cut to return it to a constitutional level. Which would then return the power to the people, where it belongs. Sounds like a pretty good step to me.


~~~Forum Asshole & Resident Annoying Leftist~~~

Perhaps this is your issue.

[YumYum]

Oh, Meatwasp has a great deal of logic and also, knowledge.

Well, he can save his insults for somebody else. I'm not interested.

[pcosmar]

Well, he can save his insults for somebody else. I'm not interested.

And if you ever paid attention you might know that "he" is a "she".
:p

[LibertyEagle]

I had a Pubgelican neocon tell me at the Driver's License Bureau that he hated liberals and wanted to kill them. He said it loud enough so everyone could hear him. You mention that these people are your enemies, which means that you hate them. Would you too, also kill them?

Wait a minute, guys. Most of the people at the grassroots level are just brainwashed and/or fools.

The people driving the agenda are at the top.


No, I am not derailing the conversation, I just want to make sure where you are coming from because there are many people out there that are like that Pubgelican I met, and people's anger is at a boiling point.

People know something is very wrong. But, they are still being led around by the nose. If they understood who was driving what was happening, it would be stopped. I sincerely think that is why the powers-that-be keep creating so many boogey men out there for us to direct our hate at. They well know that they would be toast if the American people figured out who was pulling the strings and intentionally causing their country to fall.

[Meatwasp]

Well, he can save his insults for somebody else. I'm not interested.
Good then stfu.

[YumYum]

Good then stfu.

You STFU!!!!

[KAYA]

A right-winger like you doesn't even know the Jekyll Island story? For shame.


The rich have always run this country. They have always owned the government. They CREATED the government. But don't let history get in the way of your ideological agenda - the simplistic agenda that assumes that everything will be fine if we just had "constitutional government."

So why on earth do you assume things will be just fine if only we had a large centrally planned government controlled by a few, creating an even more powerful and unaccountable ruling class?

Speaking of letting history get in the way... How have Marxist governments worked out in the past? Please educate me, great all knowing one.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, he can save his insults for somebody else. I'm not interested.

YumYum, she corrected you. You were wrong.

C'mon man, just let it slide off. None of us are right all the time.

[YumYum]

As I remember you were a supporter and apologist when you joined this board.
You have often supported and argued socialist/statist positions. On several subjects.
Not all old folks are forgetful.
Don't play dumb,

I never supported Obama, ever!! I supported and voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I just never engaged in the rabid hate that comes spewing out of my computer from my so-called fellow Americans who do nothing but complain and play the blame game. Yes, I have altered my views on some issues since being on board, and I have learned a lot of information. But to call me an apologist for Obama is an outright lie.

In fact, the only reason I switched from Republican to Democrat is to help the Dems get the message about liberty.

[Meatwasp]

I never supported Obama, ever!! I supported and
In fact, the only reason I switched from Republican to Democrat is to help the Dems get the message about liberty.

I rest my case. How could you have voted for Ron Paul when you switched from Republican to Deomocrat?

[LibertyEagle]

He didn't say when he switched. He could have switched after the primary.

[Meatwasp]

He didn't say when he switched. He could have switched after the primary.

This is true.

[LibertyEagle]

YumYum,

Is it that we are attacking the Democratic Socialists of America/Communist Party USA (aka Progressives)?

They're scum. Keep in mind we are talking about people in our government.

That doesn't mean they are the only scum. There have been plenty of threads about those who wave the flag, but support unconstitutional legislation; those who support empire-building, even though it is in direct opposition to the national defense they say they want, etc. There are plenty of Republicans who support these things and we are none to happy with them either.

It's just that this particular thread is about the outing of the socialist/communist scum in our government.

[pcosmar]

YumYum,

Is it that we are attacking the Democratic Socialists of America/Communist Party USA (aka Progressives)?

They're scum. Keep in mind we are talking about people in our government.

That doesn't mean they are the only scum. There have been plenty of threads about those who wave the flag, but support unconstitutional legislation; those who support empire-building, even though it is in direct opposition to the national defense they say they want, etc. There are plenty of Republicans who support these things and we are none to happy with them either.

It's just that this particular thread is about the outing of the socialist/communist scum in our government.

btw, Neo-cons are also socialists. they just generally have an "R" by their names.
The same folks that "handle" Obama also "handle" Palin.

[YumYum]

I rest my case. How could you have voted for Ron Paul when you switched from Republican to Deomocrat?

Can you be civil? If so, I will explain. At the beginning of the 2008 election I was for Kucinich, who I believed was a principled man. When I learned about Dr. Paul on Youtube, I switched immediately, because I always liked Barry Goldwater, who was a true conservative, and I wasn't aware that there were any politicians out there who practiced Goldwater politics. My father, mother, brother and I gave our time and money to Ron Paul's campaign. He gave us hope that the country could be turned around after all. He also educated me. After he lost, a very good friend of my family belonged to C4L and came by and encouraged my Dad to join. My Dad, brother and myself joined, and we went to our meet-up groups and the the Republican meetings. We worked hard to get HR1207 passed, we even worked with Justin McCord, handing out fliers and getting signatures for a petition.

My family moved, and I was going to return to the Republican meetings when my regional coordinator recommended that I join the Dems to help them get the message of liberty, since I am currently in association with a lot of Democrats. I agreed that was a great idea, and that is how I became a Democrat. Its purely to educate people about Ron Paul's message, and I am having excellent results.

In being on both sides of the fence, what I am seeing is a hatred unlike anything I have every experienced. Yes, socialism is bad and is robbing people of their wealth, but these people who believe in socialism, need to be educated; just as I was educated by Dr. Paul.

When I came on this forum, I believed that if you fix government, that government can be trusted if it is controlled by being kept small and de-centralized. Now, I trust no government in this country, or any country, and since I have been on this forum, I believe that this is all going to collapse very soon.

[Meatwasp]

Let me get this straight. I am not protecting the Republicans either. Like Pcosmar says the neo-cons are socialist also.

[FrankRep]

btw, Neo-cons are also socialists. they just generally have an "R" by their names.
The same folks that "handle" Obama also "handle" Palin.

Yep.

Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Constitutionalists (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2814571&postcount=1)


Irving Kristol spelled out neocon belief in his 1995 opus Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285). He said that it squared with Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” and wanted nothing to do with “the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” There you have the definition of neoconservatism: socialism and internationalism. Kristol went so far as to candidly admit, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” The partner of Lenin in communizing Russia, Trotsky later fell into disfavor for backing the slower route to deadly totalitarianism. If one accepts Kristol’s definition, and there is no reason not to do so, Trotsky was the first neoconservative.

[Meatwasp]

Can you be civil? If so, I will explain. At the beginning of the 2008 election I was for Kucinich, who I believed was a principled man. When I learned about Dr. Paul on Youtube, I switched immediately, because I always liked Barry Goldwater, who was a true conservative, and I wasn't aware that there were any politicians out there who practiced Goldwater politics. My father, mother, brother and I gave our time and money to Ron Paul's campaign. He gave us hope that the country could be turned around after all. He also educated me. After he lost, a very good friend of my family belonged to C4L and came by and encouraged my Dad to join. My Dad, brother and myself joined, and we went to our meet-up groups and the the Republican meetings. We worked hard to get HR1207 passed, we even worked with Justin McCord, handing out fliers and getting signatures for a petition.

My family moved, and I was going to return to the Republican meetings when my regional coordinator recommended that I join the Dems to help them get the message of liberty, since I am currently in association with a lot of Democrats. I agreed that was a great idea, and that is how I became a Democrat. Its purely to educate people about Ron Paul's message, and I am having excellent results.

In being on both sides of the fence, what I am seeing is a hatred unlike anything I have every experienced. Yes, socialism is bad and is robbing people of their wealth, but these people who believe in socialism, need to be educated; just as I was educated by Dr. Paul.

When I came on this forum, I believed that if you fix government, that government can be trusted if it is controlled by being kept small and de-centralized. Now, I trust no government in this country, or any country, and since I have been on this forum, I believe that this is all going to collapse very soon.
Okay Yum Yum peace?

[LibertyEagle]

btw, Neo-cons are also socialists. they just generally have an "R" by their names.
The same folks that "handle" Obama also "handle" Palin.

Yeah, I know. :) They have their own clubs. I was going to mention a few of them, but decided against it.

[YumYum]

Okay Yum Yum peace?

You bet!!:)

[LibertyEagle]

When I came on this forum, I believed that if you fix government, that government can be trusted if it is controlled by being kept small and de-centralized. Now, I trust no government in this country, or any country, and since I have been on this forum, I believe that this is all going to collapse very soon.

There will never be a time when we can just sit back and say ok, we fixed it, we can go back to sleep now. The fact that so many did for so long, is why we got in this mess to begin with.

[Brian4Liberty]

Commies? Is this the 1950s? Honestly, I just don't see why people are shocked.

There were two types of "anti-communists". One group was actually against communism and socialism, and one group was using it as a convenient excuse to attack their enemies who took over their glorious revolution in the Soviet Union. They were really anti-Soviet Union, not anti-communist. What you just said is propaganda that has been pushed by that group since the fall of the Soviet Union. They are liars, and they will use any excuse that they think you will buy. The proof is that they keep changing their arguments. What is important one day is not important the next. Their true agendas are hidden.

An example:





Irving Kristol spelled out neocon belief in his 1995 opus Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285). He said that it squared with Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” and wanted nothing to do with “the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” There you have the definition of neoconservatism: socialism and internationalism. Kristol went so far as to candidly admit, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” The partner of Lenin in communizing Russia, Trotsky later fell into disfavor for backing the slower route to deadly totalitarianism. If one accepts Kristol’s definition, and there is no reason not to do so, Trotsky was the first neoconservative.

[Brian4Liberty]

haha socialism should be the least of your worries

a government not run by the powerful economic interests of big business? that would be unheard of in Amerikkka

They are the same issue. There is a difference between Marxism and Socialism as it exists today. Marx would tell you that. Socialism was co-opted (or even somewhat created) by the Monarchs and Oligarchs of Europe. They wanted to retain control and power. They countered Communist ideas (where they would lose everything) with a softer Socialism, where they could remain in power, and control a government that gave away freebies, and redistributed the wealth of the lesser classes, while they kept their own. And surprise, it worked out even better than that, because that socialist government treasury turned out to be so easy for them to take a huge cut for themselves. The Oligarchy has expanded since then, but the scam is the same.

[Mini-Me]

So why on earth do you assume things will be just fine if only we had a large centrally planned government controlled by a few, creating an even more powerful and unaccountable ruling class?

Speaking of letting history get in the way... How have Marxist governments worked out in the past? Please educate me, great all knowing one.

Before your post gets buried in the thread, I should point out that RedStripe is a left-libertarian anarchist, IIRC, and he does not believe in any government, let alone a huge totalitarian government. From what I've read, his support for "socialist ends" refers to the social sphere, because he understands that a centralized government will never be able to do anything but oppress. A lot of people believe that "socialist ends," such as more equitable distribution of wealth and more egalitarian employment relationships, will naturally follow from greater freedom and less (or no) central control...and to a large degree, they are correct. His avatar is from here, the Alliance of the Libertarian Left (http://all-left.net/), and I also believe that's where his name comes from. Long story short, he is an ally in our fight against government, even though he's coming from a somewhat different perspective regarding "why."

I think he gets into trouble here on two fronts:
When we think of the word "socialism," we think of government-run socialism, and the egalitarian philosophy of idealistic socialists is just background noise. When he thinks of the word "socialism," I think it's nearly vice-versa. When we think of socialism, we tie it to the neocons and their national socialism as well, using it as a kind of "catch-all" term for central planning. For him, the concepts are separate. (I think a lot of this comes from who we better identify with: Paleoconservatives and right-libertarians tend to identify more with the middle class, whereas left-libertarians tend to identify more with the lower class/underclass. It's more a matter of perspective and focus than antagonism though.) Our different semantics cause disagreement where there should be none: None of us actually want the government to run the economy.
On top of that, he likes to be a sarcastic asshole, so he brings a lot of this on himself. That's why I hesitate defending him. Still, I don't like seeing someone get ganged up on and considered an enemy, especially when most people misunderstand his actual position.

[jazzloversinc]

I made 50 copies of this today to hand out ...this is so important I had to bump it up.

[LibertyEagle]

bump

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Before your post gets buried in the thread, I should point out that RedStripe is a left-libertarian anarchist, IIRC, and he does not believe in any government, let alone a huge totalitarian government. From what I've read, his support for "socialist ends" refers to the social sphere, because he understands that a centralized government will never be able to do anything but oppress. A lot of people believe that "socialist ends," such as more equitable distribution of wealth and more egalitarian employment relationships, will naturally follow from greater freedom and less (or no) central control...and to a large degree, they are correct. His avatar is from here, the Alliance of the Libertarian Left (http://all-left.net/), and I also believe that's where his name comes from. Long story short, he is an ally in our fight against government, even though he's coming from a somewhat different perspective regarding "why."

I think he gets into trouble here on two fronts:
When we think of the word "socialism," we think of government-run socialism, and the egalitarian philosophy of idealistic socialists is just background noise. When he thinks of the word "socialism," I think it's nearly vice-versa. When we think of socialism, we tie it to the neocons and their national socialism as well, using it as a kind of "catch-all" term for central planning. For him, the concepts are separate. (I think a lot of this comes from who we better identify with: Paleoconservatives and right-libertarians tend to identify more with the middle class, whereas left-libertarians tend to identify more with the lower class/underclass. It's more a matter of perspective and focus than antagonism though.) Our different semantics cause disagreement where there should be none: None of us actually want the government to run the economy.
On top of that, he likes to be a sarcastic asshole, so he brings a lot of this on himself. That's why I hesitate defending him. Still, I don't like seeing someone get ganged up on and considered an enemy, especially when most people misunderstand his actual position.

Red Stripe is generally like a George Orwell type libertarian. Well, he's no syndicalist, but he more identifies with that stripe of libertarianism, than the Spooner/Molinari/Rothbard type most of us here associate with. He is an ally, but insofar as to dismantle the State. I think Red Stripe would have more success on sites that target more egalitarian types. I consider myself more of a bourgeois type, and I would argue most here are in the same entreprenuerial/capitalist/business mindset.

[FrankRep]

AmericanThinker.com:

Socialist Party of America reveals 70 Democrats as belonging to their caucus
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/socialist_party_of_america_rev.html

Wall Street Journal?
http://onespot.wsj.com/politics/2010/08/13/a/678745523-american-socialists-release-names-of/

[free1]

AmericanThinker.com:

Socialist Party of America reveals 70 Democrats as belonging to their caucus
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/socialist_party_of_america_rev.html

Wall Street Journal?
http://onespot.wsj.com/politics/2010/08/13/a/678745523-american-socialists-release-names-of/

Hope there were more!

[RedStripe]

I consider myself more of a bourgeois type, and I would argue most here are in the same entreprenuerial/capitalist/business mindset.

And therein lies the weakness of your perspective - you've ventured a long way from the common path on your intellectual journey, and I believe that the "mindset" in question is the last vestige of that comfortable conformity you have so nearly escaped from entirely. So long as you let your class interests influence your conclusions, you will never have a truly open mind.

Let me say that my biggest complaint is the recent "rebuilding" of a false paradigm by people such as FrankRep, who claim that Obama and Pelosi are socialists. It's foolish enough to suspect either of those partisan hacks to subscribe to any ideology whatever, yet FrankRep goes even farther to the edge of insanity by suggesting that Obama serves the interests of the laboring poor, that he opposes wealthy capitalists, that he wishes, above all things, to re-appropriate the wealth and capital of the richest 1% (gained over many centuries of government-sponsored exploitation and inequality) to the least among us.

Rather than deal with a complex issues, it's much easier to revert the world to a 1950s black-and-white reality. Cowboys are the good guys, Indians the bad. With "socialism" as the universal evil, the crusade seems rather easy: just root out these secret socialists!

The reality is that the United States, and most of the world, is controlled - as it has always been - by the rich. The rich write, interpret, and enforce the rules through a complex system of government and "private" institutions which are fundamentally interconnected. This is capitalism, or more specifically, state capitalism. Many of those who have and still do oppose this system are socialists, most of whom, but not all, are state socialists.

In some ways, the problems of state capitalism can be alleviated through a radically free market - that is, a market so free of the state foundations - current biased versions of contract and property law, tariffs, the money monopoly, intellectual property, transportation/communication infrastructure, subsidies, and tax-payer-funded R&D - that the massive corporate superstructure and wealth accumulation would collapse like a house built on sand (as it often does despite increasing government measures to prop up state-capitalism: see the various crises of capitalism, such as 2007-present).

Instead, of achieving these radical reforms which would result in egalitarian effects upon the distribution of wealth and capital, the noisy proponents of "free markets"* ignore virtually all of the state foundations I listed above and instead spend all of their energy attacking so-called "socialist" policies, such as a highly progressive income tax, programs for the public, etc, which are actually just centrist compromises with state-socialism. These policies, ostensibly serving egalitarian ends yet truly serving inegalitarian ends by suppressing and accommodating resistance to state-capitalism (and thereby preserving the core of state-capitalism, which is not "laissez-faire" but "protect the rich class interests") may be argued to serve the purpose of eating away at one end of the system while the radical free market reforms could be eating away at the other.

*One of the reasons I respect Ron Paul is that he, unlike most supposed advocates of free markets, makes the dismantling of some of these structural supports of corporate and concentrated wealth a policy priority. His disdain for the Federal Reserve - one of the most important of these structural supports - makes it extremely clear that he puts free markets ahead of those economic interests who typically fund and support "free market" politicians and think-tanks, none of whom would go so far as Paul in questioning this type of "structural corporate welfare."

[LibertyVox]

Obama and Pelosi would be considered conservatives in Europe!!!

Of course they are not socialists (if you really want to get down to it). If they are socialists, the GOP is also socialist.

When I or others call Democrats socialist it is with a certain nuance for people who I believe would understand what I mean (such as Paultards). But when certain other individuals would use it say as your average republican or tea partier, then its just a guffaw and a meaningless steak.

The Democrats ( or at least the vast majority of them including the current president) all fit the bill of social democrats (as the term is used in Britain). The GOP fits that bill too. But unlike the Donkeys, the Pachyderms have a somewhat of (until recently) insignificant portion of politicians who may pass the classical liberal paradigm. RP being the prime roast of that.

The rest are various shades of keynsian neo liberals. And when it comes to foreign policies, the difference is only one of rhetoric and tone: one sounds like a jackal the other a rabid dingo.

[Mini-Me]

And therein lies the weakness of your perspective - you've ventured a long way from the common path on your intellectual journey, and I believe that the "mindset" in question is the last vestige of that comfortable conformity you have so nearly escaped from entirely. So long as you let your class interests influence your conclusions, you will never have a truly open mind.

Personally, I think you make a mistake by focusing too much on the distribution of wealth. Yes, the system is set up to benefit the extremely rich (top 0.1-0.01%) at everyone else's expense, and they've set themselves up to live like kings standing on our backs. That's awful of course, and among other things, the difference between the mean and median wealth and income both attest to that. However, I think you're blinded by this obvious injustice to the point where you severely underappreciate less obvious factors that have even more devastating effects on the average person's standard of living: By setting up this system where the super-rich have a larger slice of the pie, they have crippled the economy's efficiency and productivity to such a degree that the whole pie is several times smaller than it could be. For a truly prosperous society, we need to fix both problems...but attempting to fix the first directly [like state socialists do] can have a negative impact on the second for economic reasons, even aside from the elite's corruption.

Whereas your focus seems to be almost exclusively on the wealth gap, I imagine AED is more economically-focused on the system's impact on entrepreneurs and the sum total wealth being produced and circulating. When AED said he considers himself "more of a bourgeois type," I doubt he meant it literally in the class warfare sense of the term, but more in terms of where his economic focus is. Of course, I could be wrong, and he could be sitting in an antique leather chair with his top-hat and spectacles looking down on the commoners, but...I doubt it. ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

Let me say that my biggest complaint is the recent "rebuilding" of a false paradigm by people such as FrankRep, who claim that Obama and Pelosi are socialists.

Well, we all seem to have our own definitions of "socialist". To avoid excessive debate about different definitions of socialism, we all may need to be more specific. I usually think of "Oligarch Socialist", where "socialism" is just a scam. I put Obama and Pelosi in that category. Your point is that they are not "true" socialists. I wonder if there ever has been a true socialist in the ruling class? And they are not "Marxists" of any flavor (at least not at this time).

My related post:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2841144&postcount=97


There is a difference between Marxism and Socialism as it exists today. Marx would tell you that. Socialism was co-opted (or even somewhat created) by the Monarchs and Oligarchs of Europe. They wanted to retain control and power. They countered Communist ideas (where they would lose everything) with a softer Socialism, where they could remain in power, and control a government that gave away freebies, and redistributed the wealth of the lesser classes, while they kept their own. And surprise, it worked out even better than that, because that socialist government treasury turned out to be so easy for them to take a huge cut for themselves. The Oligarchy has expanded since then, but the scam is the same.

[Deborah K]

This could be very,very big.....and very,very fun to watch the fallout from.

http://i35.tinypic.com/v5la2x.jpg

[Deborah K]

Well, we all seem to have our own definitions of "socialist". To avoid excessive debate about different definitions of socialism, we all may need to be more specific. I usually think of "Oligarch Socialist", where "socialism" is just a scam. I put Obama and Pelosi in that category. Your point is that they are not "true" socialists. I wonder if there ever has been a true socialist in the ruling class? And they are not "Marxists" of any flavor (at least not at this time).

My related post:

The terms have become interchangeable. Socialism, progressivism, and liberalism are three pea(isms) in a pod.

[oyarde]

The terms have become interchangeable. Socialism, progressivism, and liberalism are three pea(isms) in a pod.

Probably has become that.

[YumYum]

Our economy is collapsing and the most important issue is labels that are put put on people. It amounts to childish name-calling. Liberal, socialist, conservative, capitalist. Is there a pedophile or thief in the mix?

[FrankRep]

Our economy is collapsing and the most important issue is labels that are put put on people. It amounts to childish name-calling. Liberal, socialist, conservative, capitalist. Is there a pedophile or thief in the mix?

It's the Socialist / Progressive (Woodrow Wilson, FDR) style of Government that is collapsing our economy and getting our liberties destroyed.


For Example:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Socialize the Oil Industry!

YouTube - MAXINE WATERS OUTS THE DEMS SOCIALIST AGENDA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU)

[pcosmar]

Our economy is collapsing and the most important issue is labels that are put put on people. It amounts to childish name-calling. Liberal, socialist, conservative, capitalist. Is there a pedophile or thief in the mix?

Ex thief here.(I robbed banks) I was also a bit of a neo-con.
I have reformed. been rehabilitated.
It can be done. ;)

[YumYum]

It's the Socialist / Progressive (Woodrow Wilson, FDR) style of Government that is collapsing our economy and getting our liberties destroyed.


For Example:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Socialize the Oil Industry!

YouTube - MAXINE WATERS OUTS THE DEMS SOCIALIST AGENDA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU)

Have you forgotten Bush and Chaney? While Obama has socialized our health care, Bush/Chaney socialized our military.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And therein lies the weakness of your perspective - you've ventured a long way from the common path on your intellectual journey, and I believe that the "mindset" in question is the last vestige of that comfortable conformity you have so nearly escaped from entirely. So long as you let your class interests influence your conclusions, you will never have a truly open mind.

Let me say that my biggest complaint is the recent "rebuilding" of a false paradigm by people such as FrankRep, who claim that Obama and Pelosi are socialists. It's foolish enough to suspect either of those partisan hacks to subscribe to any ideology whatever, yet FrankRep goes even farther to the edge of insanity by suggesting that Obama serves the interests of the laboring poor, that he opposes wealthy capitalists, that he wishes, above all things, to re-appropriate the wealth and capital of the richest 1% (gained over many centuries of government-sponsored exploitation and inequality) to the least among us.

Rather than deal with a complex issues, it's much easier to revert the world to a 1950s black-and-white reality. Cowboys are the good guys, Indians the bad. With "socialism" as the universal evil, the crusade seems rather easy: just root out these secret socialists!

The reality is that the United States, and most of the world, is controlled - as it has always been - by the rich. The rich write, interpret, and enforce the rules through a complex system of government and "private" institutions which are fundamentally interconnected. This is capitalism, or more specifically, state capitalism. Many of those who have and still do oppose this system are socialists, most of whom, but not all, are state socialists.

In some ways, the problems of state capitalism can be alleviated through a radically free market - that is, a market so free of the state foundations - current biased versions of contract and property law, tariffs, the money monopoly, intellectual property, transportation/communication infrastructure, subsidies, and tax-payer-funded R&D - that the massive corporate superstructure and wealth accumulation would collapse like a house built on sand (as it often does despite increasing government measures to prop up state-capitalism: see the various crises of capitalism, such as 2007-present).

Instead, of achieving these radical reforms which would result in egalitarian effects upon the distribution of wealth and capital, the noisy proponents of "free markets"* ignore virtually all of the state foundations I listed above and instead spend all of their energy attacking so-called "socialist" policies, such as a highly progressive income tax, programs for the public, etc, which are actually just centrist compromises with state-socialism. These policies, ostensibly serving egalitarian ends yet truly serving inegalitarian ends by suppressing and accommodating resistance to state-capitalism (and thereby preserving the core of state-capitalism, which is not "laissez-faire" but "protect the rich class interests") may be argued to serve the purpose of eating away at one end of the system while the radical free market reforms could be eating away at the other.

*One of the reasons I respect Ron Paul is that he, unlike most supposed advocates of free markets, makes the dismantling of some of these structural supports of corporate and concentrated wealth a policy priority. His disdain for the Federal Reserve - one of the most important of these structural supports - makes it extremely clear that he puts free markets ahead of those economic interests who typically fund and support "free market" politicians and think-tanks, none of whom would go so far as Paul in questioning this type of "structural corporate welfare."

You confuse Fascism, Mercantilism, and Capitalism, and garble them into one big lump. This to me is indicative of the egalitarian mindset, to which I am the opposite. Capitalism is in essence laissez-faire free-markets. I don't know how you can claim we have anywhere near a capitalist system, when the system has equal parts Fascism & Socialism, and a tiny little ounce of Capitalism. Our current system is not Capitalist.

I furthermore cannot see how you confuse my positions as to not disturb the current status-quo. I think the one being intellectually dishonest here is yourself. I am no socialist. I never will be. I am a capitalist, propertarian. This means I support the abolishment of all subsidies, the Federal Reserve, IRS, all taxation, all regulation, and all initiations of force & violence. Furthermore, I by nature of being a capitalist, fully support world-wide free-trade, and the voluntary exchange of all persons. How you, can think I support Fascism, is beyond silly.

I use bourgeois not in an economic class sense, but in the sense of our rational interests. Lets for example say, that in a free-market, the world would become more inegalitarian. I would have no fundamental problem with that. I do not believe that we as humans are either born egalitarian, nor is nature egalitarian. I like Rothbard, believe that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, and like Herbert Spencer believe that the natural course of events will give rise to the most successful in a fully free-market. Any attempt to use force to bring about dis-equilibrium of nature, is itself tyrannous, and an affront to the natural liberties of the people. This is my interest -- the bourgeois interest.

Do I believe though that a free-market brings about a more egalitarian society than the one we have now? Of course. Do I care? No. This is why I classify myself in the bourgeois interest. Lest, I remind you also, that the bourgeois throughout history have been the people who have fought for the liberties of the people, fought against conformity and the status-quo, and have fought for and achieved a more productive world (which has been systematically destroyed the past 100 years).

I wonder if you have ever heard of these Free-Market institutes -- Foundation for Economic Education, Future Freedom Foundation, & the Ludwig von Mises Institute? You believe that these three institutes do not attempt to bring about a radical social reform to restore free-markets & liberty? LOL. I think you should re-think your current positions.

[Lord Xar]

..,

[Danke]

You confuse Fascism, Mercantilism, and Capitalism, and garble them into one big lump. This to me is indicative of the egalitarian mindset, to which I am the opposite. Capitalism is in essence laissez-faire free-markets. I don't know how you can claim we have anywhere near a capitalist system, when the system has equal parts Fascism & Socialism, and a tiny little ounce of Capitalism. Our current system is not Capitalist.

I furthermore cannot see how you confuse my positions as to not disturb the current status-quo. I think the one being intellectually dishonest here is yourself. I am no socialist. I never will be. I am a capitalist, propertarian. This means I support the abolishment of all subsidies, the Federal Reserve, IRS, all taxation, all regulation, and all initiations of force & violence. Furthermore, I by nature of being a capitalist, fully support world-wide free-trade, and the voluntary exchange of all persons. How you, can think I support Fascism, is beyond silly.

I use bourgeois not in an economic class sense, but in the sense of our rational interests. Lets for example say, that in a free-market, the world would become more inegalitarian, I would have no fundamental problem with that. I do not believe that we as humans are either born egalitarian, nor is nature egalitarian. I like Rothbard, believe that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, and like Herbert Spencer believe that the natural course of events will give rise to the most successful in a fully free-market. Any attempt to use force to bring about dis-equilibrium of nature, is itself tyrannous, and an affront to the natural liberties of the people. This is my interest -- the bourgeois interest.

Do I believe though that a free-market brings about a more egalitarian society than the one we have now? Of course. Do I care? No. This is why I classify myself in the bourgeois interest. Lest, I remind you also, that the bourgeois throughout history have been the people who have fought for the liberties of the people, fought against conformity and the status-quo, and have fought for and achieved a more productive world (which has been systematically destroyed the past 100 years).

I wonder if you have ever heard of these Free-Market institutes -- Foundation for Economic Education, Future Freedom Foundation, & the Ludwig von Mises Institute? You believe that these three institutes do not attempt to bring about a radical social reform to restore free-markets & liberty? LOL. I think you should re-think your current positions.

Thanks.

[YumYum]

I do not believe that we as humans are either born egalitarian, nor is nature egalitarian.

Interesting. Wiki gives an opposing view:

: "For the approximately two hundred thousand years before the agricultural revolution, humanity existed in hunter-gatherer societies which were largely egalitarian. It is considered by some to be the natural state of society.

Studies have shown that social inequality is the cause of many social problems. A comprehensive study of major world economies revealed a correlation between social inequality and problems such as homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population."

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

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Interesting. Wiki gives an opposing view:

: "For the approximately two hundred thousand years before the agricultural revolution, humanity existed in hunter-gatherer societies which were largely egalitarian. It is considered by some to be the natural state of society.

Studies have shown that social inequality is the cause of many social problems. A comprehensive study of major world economies revealed a correlation between social inequality and problems such as homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population."

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

If the dawn of the human age, that of gatherer-hunters were egalitarian we would have perished from the Earth a long-long time ago. The clan, hunter-gather society was the complete opposite of egalitarianism. The weaker hunters and gatherers by nature were killed off. Clans that favored the weak over the strong died off. Natural selection is the state of nature, and that state is the opposite of egalitarianism. You see this in other species also.

The nature of society is inegalitarian, in that the weak do not prosper, and the strong do. The weak in this case being the entrepreneurs who have bad forecasts, and the strong being those who have strong forecasts of future wants, and demands. No two people are equal. We are all unique individuals -- the complete opposite of egalitarianism. Some are born strong. Some are born weak. Some are born smart. Some are born dumb. Some are born tall. Some short. Egalitarianism seeks to make everyone equal on all levels. Economic & physiological. Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. Luckily for us as humans though, we have something called empathy. We empathize with the plight of others and use some of our resources to help them. Even more fundamental is the intelligence to recognize that the future is uncertain, and it is in our best interests to aid those in need since we may be in their shoes in the not too distant future. This is also borne out throughout history in Mutual Aid societies, Clubs, associations, and other voluntarily funded and joined groups. So, yes, nature is inegalitarian. The weak die, the strong live. The market is the same. It is fundamentally inegalitarian. The strong prosper, the weak go bankrupt.

I am an individual, not a part of a hive.

[RedStripe]

Personally, I think you make a mistake by focusing too much on the distribution of wealth. Yes, the system is set up to benefit the extremely rich (top 0.1-0.01%) at everyone else's expense, and they've set themselves up to live like kings standing on our backs. That's awful of course, and among other things, the difference between the mean and median wealth and income both attest to that. However, I think you're blinded by this obvious injustice to the point where you severely underappreciate less obvious factors that have even more devastating effects on the average person's standard of living: By setting up this system where the super-rich have a larger slice of the pie, they have crippled the economy's efficiency and productivity to such a degree that the whole pie is several times smaller than it could be. For a truly prosperous society, we need to fix both problems...but attempting to fix the first directly [like state socialists do] can have a negative impact on the second for economic reasons, even aside from the elite's corruption.

Whereas your focus seems to be almost exclusively on the wealth gap, I imagine AED is more economically-focused on the system's impact on entrepreneurs and the sum total wealth being produced and circulating. When AED said he considers himself "more of a bourgeois type," I doubt he meant it literally in the class warfare sense of the term, but more in terms of where his economic focus is. Of course, I could be wrong, and he could be sitting in an antique leather chair with his top-hat and spectacles looking down on the commoners, but...I doubt it. ;)

You never mention that "second problem", and the bolded portion merely confirms exactly what I am saying.

[RedStripe]

It's the Socialist / Progressive (Woodrow Wilson, FDR) style of Government that is collapsing our economy and getting our liberties destroyed.


For Example:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Socialize the Oil Industry!

YouTube - MAXINE WATERS OUTS THE DEMS SOCIALIST AGENDA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU)

I fully support socializing the oil industry, or at the very least, revoking the corporate charters of these criminal organizations.

Even though I am an anarchist, I'd still see something like this as an improvement over our current situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

[RedStripe]

You confuse Fascism, Mercantilism, and Capitalism, and garble them into one big lump. This to me is indicative of the egalitarian mindset, to which I am the opposite. Capitalism is in essence laissez-faire free-markets. I don't know how you can claim we have anywhere near a capitalist system, when the system has equal parts Fascism & Socialism, and a tiny little ounce of Capitalism. Our current system is not Capitalist.

Ah, I forgot. In your mind, the word "capitalism" is used correctly only by you and your fellow anarcho-capitalists since, at the earliest, the 1970s. By your definition of capitalism, capitalism has never actually existed. So for the past few hundreds of years, everyone who has used capitalism to refer to then existing or prior existing conditions was wrong until anarcho-capitalists came along and suddenly stumbled upon the correct definition of capitalism. :rolleyes:

I don't "confuse" Fascism, Mercantilism, and Capitalism - I recognize, correctly, that they are interconnected and related. But go and twist semantics to suit your little ideology, if that's the game you want to play. I'll be waiting whenever you want to have a real debate about what capitalism is.



I furthermore cannot see how you confuse my positions as to not disturb the current status-quo. I think the one being intellectually dishonest here is yourself. I am no socialist. I never will be. I am a capitalist, propertarian. This means I support the abolishment of all subsidies, the Federal Reserve, IRS, all taxation, all regulation, and all initiations of force & violence. Furthermore, I by nature of being a capitalist, fully support world-wide free-trade, and the voluntary exchange of all persons. How you, can think I support Fascism, is beyond silly.

First, I never said you supported Fascism - you're the one throwing the F bomb around not me. Second, you're absolutely correct that you'll never be a socialist, after all, it's impossible to become a socialist if you aren't open-minded. Third, you do not actually oppose all initiations of force and violence, as you hold private property to be so important that the initiation of force and violence on behalf of the abstraction is perfectly acceptable to you - so don't pretend to be an opponent of violence because you're absolutely not.



I use bourgeois not in an economic class sense, but in the sense of our rational interests. Lets for example say, that in a free-market, the world would become more inegalitarian, I would have no fundamental problem with that. I do not believe that we as humans are either born egalitarian, nor is nature egalitarian. I like Rothbard, believe that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, and like Herbert Spencer believe that the natural course of events will give rise to the most successful in a fully free-market. Any attempt to use force to bring about dis-equilibrium of nature, is itself tyrannous, and an affront to the natural liberties of the people. This is my interest -- the bourgeois interest.

Haha, you sure do love creating new definitions of things as you go! And once again, you do favor the used of force to bring about "dis-equilibrium" of nature, because you support the use of violence to preserve the artificial right of one person to own the entire planet. Do you believe a contract in which a person has sold himself into perpetual bondage should be enforced? You mentioned earlier how fond you were of "world-wide free-trade, and the voluntary exchange of all persons."



Do I believe though that a free-market brings about a more egalitarian society than the one we have now? Of course. Do I care? No. This is why I classify myself in the bourgeois interest. Lest, I remind you also, that the bourgeois throughout history have been the people who have fought for the liberties of the people, fought against conformity and the status-quo, and have fought for and achieved a more productive world (which has been systematically destroyed the past 100 years).

LOL, so the bourgeois society no longer exists, as of 100 years ago? Ahahaha please elaborate on your theory of history.



I wonder if you have ever heard of these Free-Market institutes -- Foundation for Economic Education, Future Freedom Foundation, & the Ludwig von Mises Institute? You believe that these three institutes do not attempt to bring about a radical social reform to restore free-markets & liberty? LOL. I think you should re-think your current positions.

I've attended several FEE week-long seminars in New York, have watched many FFF videos, and own at least 40 books purchased from the Mises Institute. I went through that phase. Then I decided to expose myself to other points of view. It's funny how many people criticize Marx and dismiss his name immediately, yet have never even read his work. These are often the types of people I would encounter writing for the Mises Institute, the Freeman, etc.

And LOL if you think any of these organizations have truly "attempted" to bring about a radical social reform. Sitting around and debating about how your private defense forces would work is not activism, and is not "radical" in the slightest.

[Mini-Me]

You never mention that "second problem", and the bolded portion merely confirms exactly what I am saying.

Just to clarify:
The first, more obvious problem is the matter of the pie's distribution. The second, less obvious [but larger] problem is the matter of the entire pie's size.

[free1]

I fully support socializing the oil industry

Not in my country.

You will need to move to another one to get what you think you want.

[YumYum]

Not in my country.

You will need to move to another one to get what you think you want.

Who owns the natural resources on the Public lands? If its privatized you won't own any of the oil unless you are a billionaire, so why sweat it?