Socialist Conspiracy at BYU, according to parents

[_Kevin Graham]

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/e ... 81b17.html

Now we know how Dafty has been spending his time....

[_Trevor]

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/education/article_7bccc151-cb34-5dd2-ae52-fab607b81b17.html

Now we know how Dafty has been spending his time....

Much ado about nothing, as brought to you by the Glenn-Beck-loving, tinfoil-hat brigade.

Yes, words have meaning, but context is important too. The existence of a word in a context does not automatically import every possible association to reveal the "hidden" message. The placement of "social" and "democracy" in the same phrase is not necessarily the product of a Euro-socialist agenda. Reminds me of Glenn Beck's parsing of the art at 30 Rock.

[_moksha]

"a deliberate course of action to subvert the moral fabric of a society with the goal to eliminate the worship of deity and replace it with the worship of man."

"Like that would ever happen here."
- Neville Chamberlain PM, 10 Downing St., London, England, UK, Sept 2, 1939

[_Danna]

That the U.S. form of government is a Republic is indisputable, said concerned parent Jared Carman. The Constitution states, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government."

"By contrast, the meaning of the word 'democracy' depends entirely upon the context in which it appears," Carman said. "Unfortunately, modern sources give two very different meanings. Merriam-Webster defines a democracy as 'a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly, or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.' "

According to Carman, the first definition is the original meaning of the word "and was both warned against by America's founding fathers and promoted by America's enemies."

Both Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifest, and communist leader Vladimir Lenin taught that democracy is the road to socialism, Carman said. In contrast, John Adams, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, warned that democracy is fleeting.

It doesn't get much stupider than this. Marx 'said' democracy leads naturally to communism - of course he would. Non-communists didn't believe him, and he has been proven wrong. Somewhat like those christian counter-cultists who warn that Mormonism leads to atheism. And how is a (context independent) 'republic' some sort of defense against communism where liberal democracy is not?

Republics which were/are not liberal democracies: The Italian Social Republic (Mussolini), Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Poland, Tunisian Republic, Republic of Djibouti, Republic of Guinea, Islamic Republic of Iran, Republic of Uzbekistan, Republic of Turkmenistan, and of course the USSR (R = republics, 15 of them).

Maybe bcspace could explain what is wrong with a social and political democracy. Note that the words socialist/socialism were not used at all by the educators under fire. The newspaper concerned seems to be taking these people seriously. Crickey.

To borrow a phrase from Sandy Cheeks - dumber than a sack of nuts!

[_bcspace]

Maybe bcspace could explain what is wrong with a social and political democracy. Note that the words socialist/socialism were not used at all by the educators under fire. The newspaper concerned seems to be taking these people seriously. Crickey.

Perhaps you should look up the definiton sometime. The goal of a social democracy is to achieve a high level of socialism bit by bit (evolutionary) through a series of neverending votes on the various aspects to be socialized. The spectre is always before the people and they are essentially bludgeoned into socialism because they are sick of talking/voting about it.

Supposedly, the notion of a social democracy has been largely abandoned and replaced by welfare state capitialism, but this is a big lie as they are essetially the same thing. This gradualist approach has been implemented by the communist mentored Obama administration.

[_why me]

It doesn't get much stupider than this. Marx 'said' democracy leads naturally to communism - of course he would. Non-communists didn't believe him, and he has been proven wrong. Somewhat like those christian counter-cultists who warn that Mormonism leads to atheism. And how is a (context independent) 'republic' some sort of defense against communism where liberal democracy is not?

Marx never said that democracy leads naturally to communism. To make this assumption, one needs to assume that capitalism is democracy. And of course, it isn't at all. What Marx did say, is that capitalism because of its internal contradictions and because of the struggle between worker and capitalist will lead to socialism.

Capitalism is far from democratic. Just look at the United State where there are two political parties who compete for influence, and yet both parties represent the capitalist ideology.

Not to mention the enslavement of others by capitialism to enhance the capitalist market through colonialism and imperialism and low wages.

[_why me]

Perhaps you should look up the definiton sometime. The goal of a social democracy is to achieve a high level of socialism bit by bit (evolutionary) through a series of neverending votes on the various aspects to be socialized. The spectre is always before the people and they are essentially bludgeoned into socialism because they are sick of talking/voting about it.

Supposedly, the notion of a social democracy has been largely abandoned and replaced by welfare state capitialism, but this is a big lie as they are essetially the same thing. This gradualist approach has been implemented by the communist mentored Obama administration.

Not exactly. After WWII, europe was in economic crisis and because of this, the communist parties were gaining in strength thoughout western europe. The US implemented the Marshall Plan to lift the Europeans out of poverty and it worked and the communist influence declined.

Social democracy which is basically capitalism with a human face was implemented to placate the european workers. Most parties of the european right or left supported such a system because they realized that without it, european workers would be tempted to vote for the far left.

With the collapse of the soviet union, the european right and left elites have abandoned social democracy and are at this moment attempting to implement a more liberal democracy throughout europe to the detriment of the workers. No longer is it the welfare of the people that is important but the welfare of the market that is important. And it shows in the daily life and values of the average european.

[_beastie]

Marx never said that democracy leads naturally to communism. To make this assumption, one needs to assume that capitalism is democracy. And of course, it isn't at all. What Marx did say, is that capitalism because of its internal contradictions and because of the struggle between worker and capitalist will lead to socialism.

Capitalism is far from democratic. Just look at the United State where there are two political parties who compete for influence, and yet both parties represent the capitalist ideology.

Not to mention the enslavement of others by capitialism to enhance the capitalist market through colonialism and imperialism and low wages.

My God. I actually agree with whyme on something. Of course, I've already gotten over the shock of agreeing with Nehor, so I'm not fainting or anything.

Hey, whyme, did you happen to read any of droopy and bcspace's comments on the LDS Republican Party thread? You may be interested in knowing that one cannot be a good Mormon and be a democrat and/or a liberal.

[Guest]

Marx never said that democracy leads naturally to communism.

Indeed. For Marx, the ultimate stage of communism was a stateless utopia that was wholly democratic in nature.

To make this assumption, one needs to assume that capitalism is democracy. And of course, it isn't at all. What Marx did say, is that capitalism because of its internal contradictions and because of the struggle between worker and capitalist will lead to socialism.

Exactly, as fantastic a proposition as his equally preposterous (and fantabulous) theoretical utopia.

Capitalism is far from democratic. Just look at the United State where there are two political parties who compete for influence, and yet both parties represent the capitalist ideology.

Uh...well, actually no. In the first place, no such "capitalist ideology" exists. This whole concept is a creation of Marx and his disciples and makes sense only within the theoretical framework of socialism. It is not a theory in the classical liberal tradition, conservative or libertarian.

Hence, the Republican party represents no "ideology" of capitalism. The Democratic party is an authoritarian socialist or Fabian-like party, and is deeply anti-capitalist ideologically, even though individual Congressmen or Senators will support private industry and corporations in their home states or districts for personal political reasons. Republicans to tend to be for a free market economic order based in the right of private property and economic liberty, and the use of the term "capitalism" to describe this state of affairs has become so ingrained that altering it in normal discourse is probably futile.

It is also a grave mistake to equate American (or any) big business, in any necessary way, with "capitalism' or a pro-free market position. Just take a look at all the American corporations that have jumped on the "green" technology bandwagon in an attempt to make a killing before the band stops playing and the wheels fall off the wagon.

Not to mention the enslavement of others by capitialism to enhance the capitalist market through colonialism and imperialism and low wages.

This is Marxist clap-trap that should have gone to its grave with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact when the determined application of this theory during the 20th century finally collapsed of its own intellectual and moral vacuity.

This is what one creates when one mixes total economic illiteracy with an mindset of idealistic hubris unconstrained by notions of mere morality or human limitations that sees humankind and its problem only as a problem of the abstract theorizing of philosopher kings who believe they can remake the world in the image of that very hubris. Indeed, Marxism is very probably the single most morally immature philosophy to have ever made its appearance among mankind, second in its moral vacuity only to its crackpot economic theories, and its moral immaturity is well attested to by the moral insects that have always and without exception been attracted to it as a theory and especially as a form of governance, and its attempted application through the 20th century, in which the ends justify any and all means.

How many people have to die why me, and how many lives have to be raped, scarred and debased for these ideas, like its sibling Nazism, to finally be put to rest?

[_Droopy]

Marx never said that democracy leads naturally to communism. To make this assumption, one needs to assume that capitalism is democracy. And of course, it isn't at all. What Marx did say, is that capitalism because of its internal contradictions and because of the struggle between worker and capitalist will lead to socialism.

Capitalism is far from democratic. Just look at the United State where there are two political parties who compete for influence, and yet both parties represent the capitalist ideology.

Not to mention the enslavement of others by capitialism to enhance the capitalist market through colonialism and imperialism and low wages.

My God. I actually agree with whyme on something. Of course, I've already gotten over the shock of agreeing with Nehor, so I'm not fainting or anything.

Hey, whyme, did you happen to read any of droopy and bcspace's comments on the LDS Republican Party thread? You may be interested in knowing that one cannot be a good Mormon and be a democrat and/or a liberal.

So Beastie, you now essentially admit that you are a Marxist, and hence, a supporter of the works and consequences of Marxism as we know they have been manifest during the last century?