The Rebranding of Socialism as 'Democratic Socialism' - Graybeard Outdoors
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-25-2020, 02:43 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
tdoyka's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: windber, pa
Posts: 2,432
Send a message via MSN to tdoyka
Default The Rebranding of Socialism as 'Democratic Socialism'

February 25, 2020
The Rebranding of Socialism as 'Democratic Socialism'
By Dave Ball
While it may be true that “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Shakespeare) it is also true that socialism by any other name still smells like socialism.

As we approach this year’s elections, the purveyors of socialism have tried to rebrand their product by calling it “democratic socialism.” The sales force and marketing department of democratic socialism, the Democratic Party, and the mainstream media, are plying a new fairy tale that democratic socialism is nothing like socialism. No siree, nothing like it, they sing in chorus. The chorus, however, is badly out of tune. Democratic socialism is not the wonderland of inclusiveness, social justice, equality, and happiness it is advertised to be. It will not end human exploitation and it will not save the planet. It is still socialism, just with a new name. Socialism has never worked for any nation and it will not work in this country, even with a new name.

Rather than just toss names around, let’s look at the policies proposed by the current advocates of democratic socialism and see what system they fit.

Because all of the current Democratic candidates for president have generally the same schemes in mind as the current leader of the pack, Bernie Sanders, let’s just call the programs the Sanders Plan.

Sen. Sanders proposes, for example, to completely wipe out the natural gas, coal and oil industries. In their place, he would create a government owned electric company to produce wind, solar and geothermal energy. Overlooking for the moment that the proposal is technically absurd, creating a government monopoly producer is the very definition of socialism.

Sen. Sanders proposes to spend $16.3 trillion on his “green new deal” which is supposed to address a concern that has yet to be proven using means that have no proof of positive effect. That money will come from massive redistribution of wealth, another definition of socialism.

Sen. Sanders proposes to provide free health care to all as well as free college. This is the government exerting massive control over the lives of its subjects, at a massive cost. Again, classic socialism.

The list goes on with proposals that will require everything from rebuilding homes and huge government-owned housing projects to dictating how farming will occur. The program includes “breaking up” big businesses, prosecuting banks, companies, and executives for “past crimes against the environment,” and dictating the car you can drive. This is socialism heading toward communism.

Many, if not most, of the programs find some basis in identity politics. Previous socialists promoted class warfare between the haves and have nots. Today’s identity politics speaks of race and gender as the basis of public policy. The bad guys in old time socialism were capitalists. The battle now is with white privileged males. However you slice it, it still features class warfare and is still socialism.

The new socialism, Democratic Socialism, is pledged to bring about race and gender equality, income equality and general goodness. Individual liberties, private property and the concept of a competitive market will not be surrendered willingly. To achieve this, the new socialism will have to be just as authoritarian as the old socialism. History shows us that when one group attempts to take goods and freedoms away from another to redistribute to other favored groups, conflict occurs. Who gets what? Who gets the best land, the best houses, the best jobs, the best medical treatment. Who will be favored to supply the solar panels and wind turbines? The list goes on.

When a free market no longer allocates production and consumption, or determines level of reward for effort, a central control must do this and chaos, inefficiency and a state of war are sure to follow. This is where democratic socialism will go because it is nothing more than socialism and we have a great deal of historical precedent to see how it works.

The current crop of apologists for democratic socialism love to point their listeners to the “Nordic model” of democratic socialism as they claim is practiced in countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. They love to point to the economic success of Norway as proof positive that democratic socialism works. Unfortunately for the purveyors, Norway’s economic success derives mostly from abundant natural resources and its success and well-being predates its venture toward socialism. Norway does control its oil industry but most other businesses have limited government involvement. In fact, today most Nordic nations are moving away from socialism. Norway and Denmark deny they are socialist and describe themselves as “free market” economies. Many state-owned businesses have been privatized. In 2012, Sweden topped privatization initiatives globally, according to a study by the Heritage Foundation. Many of the welfare systems are being cut back. Why is this happening? Because the shortcomings of democratic socialism are becoming more apparent.

What are the shortcomings of the Nordic democratic socialist system? Exactly what history always finds. First and foremost, taxes are astronomical, running as high as 60 percent. People want freedom to control their own lives, work where they want to work and buy what they wish. Because there is little or no economic incentive, innovation becomes rare and few new ideas and products appear. With the need for government regulation and control, bureaucracies grow and this is non-productive labor. There is no reward to produce more when people have their individual needs met so they often give up and leave the workforce increasing costs even more. The people of Norway and other countries are choosing to leave this behind and return to market capitalism or, maybe as they term it, compassionate capitalism.

Where then is the real danger? Not in our current form of government but clearly in abandoning it and adapting socialism by whatever name the Democrats choose to call it.

Ask yourself, how would you benefit from giving up what you have to adapt the servitude of socialism? Why would you want to adapt what others who have tried it are abandoning?

As is attributed to Winston Churchill, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

“All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”
― Nikola Tesla
tdoyka is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-25-2020, 06:55 PM
Suspect At Large's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Saint Petersburg
Posts: 191
Gun Cabinet

It is an old approach, McGovern was branded as a Democrat, and ran as one. That guy was a Commie or a shill for it.
He was a weakling, and a lot of Social Democrats are weak men; they simply are not what men are made of. They are sissies.

The wicked shall be turned into Hades, and all the nations that forget God. For the needy shall not alway be forgotten: the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever. Psalm 9:17, 18
Suspect At Large is offline  
post #3 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-25-2020, 07:21 PM
nvschütze's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Nevada
Posts: 275

The genuine nutcase is that bartender from Queens. Or from wherever she comes. She and Lenin would get along quite well. She's just a 100% pure nutjob. Only Heaven has a perfect economic system. The second-best one in all of God's Creation is free-market capitalism in the United States. If anyone deigns to disagree with me, go find an airliner heading to Venezuela and get your assets on it...
nvschütze is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #4 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-25-2020, 07:59 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 33

I marvel and am extremely disappointed that no one remembers the 20th century's leading "social democrat." Mr. Hitler made quite a STINK. (Had an uncle who jumped into the Battle of the Bulge and survived. PIR107. Jumped with the 82nd.) Mr. Sanders should grow a moustache. Warren, she might have a problem. Get a stickon. Now Omar and Talib, Adolf's dislike of Jews made him quite popular with Muslims. !! Round it comes again. And I don't have a Garand. Seig Heil!
iiiranger is offline  
post #5 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-26-2020, 12:49 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
tdoyka's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: windber, pa
Posts: 2,432
Send a message via MSN to tdoyka

hitler(7 million) was a pussycat when it came to extermination. pol pot had 1 - 2 million people. the ottoman empire had 1.5 million christian armenian executed. stalin had some 70 million victims and mao had 100+ million people.

“All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”
― Nikola Tesla
tdoyka is offline  

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Graybeard Outdoors forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome