There seems to be a prohibition on use of the word "socialism" or any derivative by politicians on either side. In the latest debate, McCain took Obama to task for his "spreading the wealth" comment, but he never mentioned what that means, and is a part of. "Spreading the wealth" is part and parcel of collectivism, of which socialism is just one form. Communism is another and Nazism is yet another. Collectivism has been responsible for the deaths and ruination of millions, in Russia, in Cuba, in Germany, and elsewhere. They give it different names to aid confusion, but ALL these are COLLECTIVISM. So why don't politicians use this "fateful" word? They're afraid. Afraid people will criticize them for it. They understand (at least on the Republican side) how dangerous collectivism is, so they "talk all around it" without ever mentioning its name. But whatever DETAIL they're talking about, collectivism (socialism) is at its base.
The basic motto of collectivism is "FROM each according to his ABILITY, and TO each according to his NEED." Meaning it's okay to steal from those capable and willing to EARN their own way and GIVE that stolen to those who are not. That comes right out of Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto." That doesn't mean Obama is a communist. Probably he is not. But he IS a collectivist. All other collectivists use that same motto. It is apparent from every word out of his mouth. I could detail that, but it would take far more space than I have here. He talks of "sharing," and of "sharing the wealth." What is that but collectivism? People have criticized me for being against "altruism." I'm not. I AM against FORCED altruism. If you see someone in need and YOU DECIDE to help them, THAT is "altruism." There's nothing wrong with that. If someone is in need and the GOVERNMENT decides to help them with YOUR money, that is "FORCED altruism," which is just another form of collectivism; and there is a LOT wrong with that. (Just common sense)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment