@ RedShirt"Also, those people and groups you claim are liberals, they
were concerned with individual freedom and limited government,
Conservatives."Again. Wrong! Unless, if by conservative you
mean.. Libertarian.p.s Libertarian is synonomous w/ classical
re: LDS Liberal 9/26 1:01 p.m. Actually, this is one of the few
times that procuradorfiscal isn't blowing smoke.Fascists are
socialists. The difference is between Communism & Fascism. C is violent
overthrow of the system on behalf of the poor. F is a gradual transition to
statism in the name of saving the middle class. The Far right is more elitist,
exclusionary, power for the few, autocratic i.e. a monarchy.The
exception; right leaning Free Market populists who believe in corporations are
more efficient than the state. Then, attempt to merge the two. p.s.
Go read Liberal Fascism By J Goldberg & rewatch the 2008 debates between
Barry & HRC if you want a good scare.
LDS Liberal:For your information I have not spent more than one hour
total in my entire life listening to Glen Beck. Why in the world do you paint
me with that brush? Read some of my recent posts.Do a search of
Deseret News using the name "William Gronberg". I have had 5 letters
printed here at the DN in the last 2 years. I do not think I come over as a
devotee of Glen Beck or faux News.You are correct that I never have
read "The Naked Capitalist".
William GronbergPayson, UTActually Communism, as explained by W.
Cleon Skousen, has NEVER existed on this planet. Communism is “The
Classless, Stateless Society Under Full Communism”. See “The Naked
Communist, Eleventh edition January, 1962, pages 58-60. ============== Did you read the partner book of his to this one?
-The Naked CapitalistIf not - you are only getting 1/2
of the story.W. Cleon rips Capitalists to shreds, and fingers WallStreet
as being the Gadianton Robbers the Book of Mormons warned us about.I'll bet my bottom dollar you haven't.Glenn Beck listeners
Actually Communism, as explained by W. Cleon Skousen, has NEVER existed on this
planet. Communism is “The Classless, Stateless Society Under Full
Communism”. See “The Naked Communist, Eleventh edition January,
1962, pages 58-60. Communism is an image in the mind of true
believing Marxist-Leninists and a mirage that allegedly follows their
Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The rule of Communists is very real with a
body count of many millions. But Communism is a fantasy or a mirage. Their
dictatorship is not a fantasy or a mirage.
"I have been told that that is just another name for socialism — like
Fidel Castro or Joseph Stalin."Castro and Stalin were/are
fascists. Socialism and social justice, etc were/are just themes for them.
Think of this as the Shah of Iran rule, or the Ferdinand Marcos rule, or
whatever Cold War dictator's name you can think of. Just because someone
SAYS that they are for democracy and freedom doesn't mean that they are.
Just because someone SAYS they are for social justice or socialism doesn't
mean they are.
Even conservatives could be labeled as socialists every time they travel on a
public highway, or use a public library, or send a child to public school or
visit a national park, or call upon the police or fire department or ......I
could go on and on but this should be enough to explain democratic
socialism...Cause folks, that is what we have for about 40% of our national
economy.So right wingers, if you really hate socialism stop using
public highways, public library...........and etc. ect. ect.
Lyle . Its clear from your post that you are terribly misinformed. Turn the
channel. Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck, or for that matter Fox news is NOT where
you should get real, truthful information. Dont be hypnotized by the LIES
I think it's commonly accepted by most people that communism and fascism
are on the opposite extreme ends of the political scale, but that's neither
here nor there. Obama is neither a communist nor a fascist. If you think he is,
I don't know what to tell you other than you really, truly need to stop
with the 24/7 Fox News. Seriously. You're making yourself hysterical for
@procuradorfiscal"fascists ARE socialists"Mussolini, a
fascist, was a corporatist, where power was heavily wielded by big business.
That's not left wing at all. I'd say that you can have left and right
wing versions of fascism.@LDSLiberal"The Nazis killed more
Communists than Jews, Gypsies, Liberals, Acedamia, Homosexuals, Aborationists,
[and every other group of people the Far-Right extremeists deplore]
combined...times 10. "There were 5 million Jews killed in the
Holocaust, while Russia was the nation with the most casualties at 23 million.
That's not a factor of 10, let alone the dubious distinction of comparing
systematic genocide to an invading army (albeit one that killed millions of
civilians). Just stick to the fact that Nazis targeted communists in addition to
the other groups.@the truth"Obama is communist"This comment would be hilarious if I weren't distracted with the
fact that it's evidence that our education system is clearly lacking if
people are so ignorant of what the word communist means.
To "LDSLiberal" I don't know about you, but history has shown us
that there are many "college dropouts" that know a lot more about
politics than the college educated professors we have now. People like George
Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson all dropped
out of college, yet knew a lot more about politics than you seem to know. A
college degree does not mean you are an expert in a subject, it just means you
went to an institution for a few years.You also have no idea that
Fascists are socialists/communists. The dictionary states fascism is a
"movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual
and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial
leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of
opposition." Since conservatives/capitalists want decentralized government
and don't want to strictly economics or social that leaves
liberals/socialists to fit the mold for fascists.FYI, the NAZI party
platform specifically called out capitalists as being their enemy, and that they
needed to socialize industry. They killed of other socialists/communists to
eliminate rivalries, not for political ideology.
Re: "Fascism is FAR-right wing. Communism is FAR-Left."Yeah,
yeah -- same old socialist/academic pap, bouncing around in the leftist echo
chamber, each liberal trying desperately to convince the next that this is the
way to shed that old albatross hanging around their neck.That
diametric opposition must be why the supreme leader of the National SOCIALIST
German Worker's [Nazi] Party and of fascism, in general, said of its roots,
that it took ". . . from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living,
creative Socialism." And, maybe that's why Hitler and Stalin concluded
the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between the two nations, brutally and
cooperatively divvying up Eastern Europe between them.We understand
liberal desperation to shine up its brand by shedding the stigma of socialist
fascism, even its desperation to disingenuously attribute fascism to
conservatives.But, it won't work, as it's simply counter
to all the known facts.
pass not pas. sorry.
why do we allow such childish drivel to pas for proper political discourse?
To "LDSLiberal" you are forgetting the most important part of the term
liberal."of, favoring, or based upon the principles of
liberalism " That seems almost redundant, so lets look up
"Liberalism"Liberalism is defined as "such a philosophy
that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social
inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)" That sounds like
big government and social justice to me.How about we use a thesaurus
with the word liberal. The synonyms include progressive, radical, or
left-wing.If we look up the political definition of left-wing or
progressive, it comes down to this: a belief in government supplying all of the
needs to all of its citizens. Left-wing politics embrace socialism, communism,
and other collectivism political/economic system.So, by following
the definition of the word "liberal" in its political context,
apparently liberal does point towards government enforced collectivism. If you
disagree with me, then you are also disagreeing with various dictionaries too,
so, you better write letters to the dictionary people to get them to change the
definition too.Also, those people and groups you claim are liberals,
they were concerned with individual freedom and limited government,
procuradorfiscalTooele, UTRe: "There are really 2 extremes in
the world. Socialists on 1 side and Fascists on the other."No --
Socialist and Fascists are on the same side.Since WWII, socialists
have been trying desperately to define themselves out of that box, but
notwithstanding disingenuous leftist/academic blather to the contrary, fascists
ARE socialists.============ Wrong!You NEVER
learned that in any Accredited College or University, or standard English
Dictionary.For the last time Glenn Beck University stuents -- and listeners of College Drop-outs on the AM radio....Fascism is
FAR-right wing.Communism is FAR-Left.The Nazis killed more
Communists than Jews, Gypsies, Liberals, Acedamia, Homosexuals, Aborationists,
[and every other group of people the Far-Right extremeists deplore]
combined...times 10. and FYI -- Socialsim would be considered
Moderate to Moderate Center-Left, maximum. i.e., England, France, Germany,
Spain, Italy, Japan, Canada, Israel, ect. Our closest ALLIES.
KGB1Says Lyle as he enjoys his Social Security, Medicare, and
military benefits. If you give me and all others that choose to,
the option to opt out of social security, like we have demanded for year, then
you and yours can have all those precious benefits all to yourselvs. Aren't
you all about CHOICE? I bet Lyle would agree also. I didn't
serve in the military, so I don't get benefits, and don't even know
what they are. I have no problem offering benefits to military personnel, to
help compensate them for their service. Do you? I know most leftists loathe the
military, is that your position?
Re: "There are really 2 extremes in the world. Socialists on 1 side and
Fascists on the other."No -- Socialist and Fascists are on the
same side.Since WWII, socialists have been trying desperately to
define themselves out of that box, but notwithstanding disingenuous
leftist/academic blather to the contrary, fascists ARE socialists.To
real people, the only meaningful political extremes are actually responsible,
democratic freedom on one end, oppressive, oligarchic, dictatorial tyranny on
the other. The means and the ends of both socialism and fascism well into the
tyrannical end of the spectrum. Purported existential, regional, and
etymological differences are in degree only, not purpose.Leftist/academic hair-splitting regarding the manner in which governments
count their money or the methods they may use to exercise control over any or
all facets of society, including means of production, are transparent sophistry
at its worst, intended to hide one or another truth about, and thereby unduly
improve the image of, whatever brand they're peddling.
Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena,First, I would love to
know what your screen name means. Seriously - I am just interested.Second, I could not agree more reference some of the talking heads (and some
of our politicians as well). They adopt the political label that leads them to
power irrespective of what that label is. Offer these types of folks a
guarantee of continued power on the condition that they switch to the opposing
side and they would take the offer in a heartbeat.Third, yes there
is little real understanding of what some of the labels are we float around. We
call people things that we really don't understand and rally for or against
things that have little bearing to reality.
"You must be talking about someone other than the unrepentant
socialist/anarchist felon, who, upon imprisonment for urging draft resistance,
desertion, and the overthrow of the United States government during World War
I" Yep, that's the Debs I mean - the guy who had the guts to oppose
Wilson's diasastrous entry into WWI.
The real Far Left died from self-inflicted wounds over forty years ago. The
radical elements advocating extremist socio-political policies grew up. Many
now form the New Right with its own extreme socio-political ideology. Many
anti-war, draft-avoiding student protesters have become the capitalist, pro-war,
neo-con elitists who led us into the Iraq War. Look around, scrape the surface
of today's conservative ideolog and you will find a former
"liberal" who followed the philosophy of economic self-interest to fame,
power, and fortune. Some of the most successful right-wing talking
heads you find on conservative radio once considered themselves
"liberal" because it was fashionable in the day. Now they can make more
money spouting conservative noise because they were always out for Numero Uno
regardless of the prevailing political climate. Wolves in sheep's
clothing? Obviously, they didn't really believe what they said they
believed then otherwise they would still be advocating moderately progressive
ideas today.So they use terms like "socialist" and
"communist" as epithets never understanding what these political
philosophies were in the first place. It's all part of the partisan game
seeking political advantage.
If you go far enough in right field, the centre is far to the left of you.
It's all perspective.
Roland KayserCottonwood Heights, UTI also recommend the
"Political Compass" mentioned by SG earlier.=============
I ran the Compass -- Fell in the Lower Left quadrant.About right on top of Mahatma Ghandi, Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela.As a side note -- It was also Diametrically opposed to Adolph Hitler,
Mitt Romney and surprisingly even Barack Obama.So much for the
President being a called Liberal Leftie....
So, Des News, why on earth would you publish a letter like this, other than to
see how many comments you can get here refuting the silly questions asked? Or
maybe you have a secret agenda to expose the utterly ridiculous logic of the far
right. If so, you're succeeding wondrously.
A liberal might be compared to Canada. A far left liberal would be more like
I also recommend the "Political Compass" mentioned by SG earlier. I have
taken several political identification tests, most of which put me either dead
center or slightly to the left of center. The compass test adds another
dimension going from authoritarian to libertarian. On that part I score a little
ways into the libertarian quadrant.
I am a Liberal American citizen because I believe in the American creed. I am a
Korean veteran, having served on a diesel boat submarine in the North Pacific
near the end of the Korean war. I did not kill a single Korean. Republican politicians are likely to define a democrat in much the same way
they describe the general population. As cattle to be managed. A liberal
democrat would be defined as an unruly bull or heifer unwilling to accept their
definition. Lyle could improve his ability to understand
definitions.Socialism: any of various economic and political
theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of
the means of production and distribution of goods.A better
understanding of government would also be good.Most all government
services fit the definition of Socialism. From the military all the way down to
the trash service, the government owns the equipment, employees the workers, and
manages the operation of the service. Capitalism, Communism,
Socialism are economic systems, not systems of government. Governments, republics, democracies, dictatorships. and more, may operate
their economic system in any way they choose. And may choose several.
A "liberal" is really just a conservative who won't allow anyone to
I am an American, a veteran, an active citizen [and active LDS].Although I
do not consider myself “Far Left”, nor Democrat – I do
consider myself an extreme Liberal.To begin with, you have been told wrong
[most likely be either Joe McCarthy or Glenn Beck] -- Castro and Stalin are
Communists – NOT Socialists.lib•er•al
[lib-er-uhl] 1. favorable to progress. 4. maximum freedom. 5.
freedom of action, especially matters of personal belief or expression. 6.
representational government rather than aristocracies and monarchies. 7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant. 8. open-minded. 10. give
freely or abundantly; generous. 11. not strict or rigorous; free. Be definition -- Jesus was a Progressive Liberal, as were
our Founding Fathers,Lincoln, Roosevelt, JosephSmith
BrighamYoung….all ProgressiveLiberals.We should be likewise.FYI - The USMilitary is Social/Communistic.Same,Equal -
Having ALL things in Commonso are Families, early Christians,
the Nephites, American Pilgrims, early Latter-Day Saints, So I reckon Heaven is also. This may come as a shock and surprise
to you [I know it did for me!]But it’s the truth, And the
Truth shall set you free…~ Peace
There are really 2 extremes in the world. Socialists on 1 side and Fascists on
the other. There are many degrees between them.The same questions
that are in the article regarding socialism, communism and Democrats can also be
turned to communism, fascism and Republicans.There are many stories
about how Republicans state that they are for less government and regulations
yet at the same time, they want the government to stop that which they
don't like, fund the military machine (Government doesn't create jobs)
and so forth.What needs to happen is for parties to be pushed aside.
Look at exactly the issues that the candidates are running on.Why
must it be that any Democrat in congress is a vote for Pelosi? Is any
Republican in congress a vote for doing nothing and letting the country and the
economy dissolve away to nothing?Let's all just take a step
back and look at the candidates and not their party. If we can't ignore
the party, then we can't ignore the candidates history. This would mean
that Romney would ship more jobs overseas if elected and Obama will repeat 4
years of economic growth?
This letter illustrates the tendency towards exaggeration and gross
over-simplification regarding political ideology, particularly regarding
ideology that differs from our own.Mr. Tillett (and others) might be
surprised to learn that there is not a single, all-inclusive continuum labeled
"Liberalism vs. Conservatism" that comprehensively defines all political
ideology. Other (often better) means of analyzing and categorizing political
positions include "Collectivism vs. Individualism", "Populism vs.
Corporatism/Institutionalism", "Totalitarianism vs. Anarchism", and
"Capitalism vs. Marxism" (which, incidentally, are both economic
theories); and, there are still other continuums that could be used.Really, the labels of “liberal” and “conservative”
have become almost too abstract and subjective to be useful.A
deeper, less simplistic way of analyzing political positions can be found at The
Political Compass website. I’ve taken the survey there twice, about 4-5
years apart, and both times I ranked almost dead-center on both axes (for what
it’s worth). Honestly, I would be very interested to know where several
of the “regulars” here in the DN Opinion section comment threads
rank on the Political Compass (though I think I could pretty accurately guess
I used to be a Republican. Now I'm considered a "far left
liberal".That's what extremists have done to the GOP.
Gotta love it when someone who enjoyed a government paid for education, enjoyed
a life where the middle-class thrived because of Democrat policies', who is
now living off SS and Medicare, complains about "Socialism."
Sadly, those of Mr. Tillet's generation usually only see the biased
nonsense that is printed on the Deseret News editorial page, and not the much
more balanced discussion that follows it online.
Re: "Many fine men, like Eugene V Debs . . . ."Fine men like
Debs?Hmmmmm.You must be talking about someone other than
the unrepentant socialist/anarchist felon, who, upon imprisonment for urging
draft resistance, desertion, and the overthrow of the United States government
during World War I, fomented 8 days of rioting by "unionists, socialists,
anarchists and communists," starting May 1, 1919, and who admitted,
"while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal
element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."If that's the type marxists consider "fine men," it's
no wonder they're considered half-a-bubble-off plumb, even by other
Says Lyle as he enjoys his Social Security, Medicare, and military benefits.
My sister would qualify as a liberal Democrat (though I would not apply the
label "extreme" to her).How does she differ from Joseph
Stalin? I suppose the first thing is that she has not killed several million of
her countrymen nor sent millions more to the gulags. Nor would she ever
advocate such positions.Please, such nonsense as this does us no
good. Some of us are more conservative, some more liberal. This name calling is
just idiocy.Yes, the president is a Democrat. His chief challenger
is a Republican.In the US, the Democrats are the center-left party.
The Republicans are the center-right party. There are differences and
similarities between them.But comparing either to the excesses of
Stalin, Hitler, etc. is just so much foolishness.We need to do
Good heavens. If you're a Korea War veteran, like my father, then you are
most likely in your late 70s/early 80s and you don't need someone to answer
your questions for you. You can most likely make decisions all by yourself.
Just make a decision and vote the way you feel. If a particular party is not to
you liking, then don't vote for them. You get one vote, just like I do,
so make it count.
Listening to a Republican trying to explain what a Democrat is, is often like
watching a Baptist preacher describe what a Mormon is...often times hilarious.
The lefties in the room will be in full denial...but they'll be
hard-pressed to find a tenet of Marxism they disagree with.
An extreme unreasonable liberal democrat, call extreme conservatives
"socialists" and name calls like elementary scholl children on the
So the editorially balanced Deseret News accompanies a question about the
'far left' with a picture of Obama and Clinton? Would you run a
picture of the self-described' 'severely conservative' Romney and
Ayn Rand devotee Ryan as 'far right'?Leaving aside the
question of 'extreme', Castro and Stalin are Communists, a system
based upon a dictatorship of the proletariat. They do not believe in a
multi-party democracy. Democratic socialists, common in Western Europe believe
in democracy, and varying degrees of government control of business. The more
extreme favor direct government control of many businesses, the less extreme
favor tighter regulations on independent businesses. Few Conservative
politicians in Europe are as far to the right as their American counterparts,
except for the relatively fringe far-right nationalist parties. For example,
Conservatives in Britain generally support National Health Care (Britain's
socialized medicine). Most American liberals would be considered
moderate social democrats in most other countries. They believe in democracy and
capitalism but also progressive taxation and government regulation.
Conservatives in this country believe in far less regulation of business and
less taxation, but believe in more government regulation in what some would
consider personal moral decisions.
"How close does a liberal Democrat compare to one of these socialists
politically?"To Castro? Or Stalin? Not even close.
If folks still believe that Obama is anywhere close to Stalin or
Castro, then they:A. Don't know what they're talking
about. It's a complete insult to those who have actually suffered under
Communism. B. Have no clue what the GOP has done for almost 2 decades.
Bailing out (vitual) car/banking companies/organizations, stimulus packages, and
Obamacare? yeah, all were done/were past ideas, of the GOP.
This is a cheap smear on Democratic candidates - comparing them to communists
and socialists? How can something like this even be published? There is no
good faith at all in this letter.
Someone else who doesn't see any difference between North Korea and Norway.
Not that any Democratic politician even wan's to get anywhere near
Norway's social democracy.
Well, to many Republicans, the term "Far Left" refers to anyone who
doesn't think like they do. Generally, with the recent purge of RINOs from
the Republican Party where you no longer find liberal/moderate Republicans like
Nelson Rockfeller, Dwight Eisenhower, Thomas Jefferson, and Teddy Roosevelt, the
term shows considerable shift in definition with the Right-Ward shift in the
body politic. But conservatives today usually say that the "Far Left"
are people who advocate "socialism" and "communism" although
they don't appear to understand what these political philosophies
entail.In communist countries like China, the former Soviet Union,
and Cuba, the governments could be seen as ultra-conservative, establishing a
political elite who profited from the power and financial exploitation of the
general public, and corresponds to todays extreme Right-Wing advocates of
dismantling our democratic government and establishing a socially conservative
society benefitting corporate interests.So it gets really confusing.
However, for anyone who has had dealings with liberal politics, it is really a
hodge-podge of political attitudes, not displaying the ideological discipline of
the Republican Party and aligned conservatives. The reasons why it is difficult
for Democrats to work together is because it is democratic.
These are interesting questions. I am a socialist. I am not a liberal nor am I
a Democrat. There are two corporation parties in the United States -
Republicans and Democrats. Your list of socialists does not exhaust the list of
same. Many fine men, like Eugene V Debs, have been socialists - Debs ran for
the presidency 3 times. Look to Debs if you want to see what a "good"
socialist amounts to. In no way do I wish to be counfounded with either
liberalism or the Democratic Party.