Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Still Not Working

Trying to laugh at those who are calling Our Dear Leader a "socialist" continues to fall flat.

It is imperative for this strategy to work, as the election clock is ticking and those right-wingers must be thumped back into that state of embarrassment for their party and their candidate.

Having the above-average comedian Jon Stewart joke about this isn't even working.  We can imagine that Comedy Central audience, sitting in the dark behind the cameras, all leaning forward biting their nails thinking "Come on Jon, use your magic and discredit those name callers."  Puhllleeease!

We found this Daily Show clip at Democratic Socialists of America's site.

There is a pattern.  Lefties hit this subject from the same direction every time.  They purposely avoid defining "socialism" whenever they choose to argue that Obama is not a socialist.  Prepare yourself for a Nathan Thurm-like debate.

Click the label below, "Not a Socialist" to see a this pattern.  

So what is the definition?

Amazingly, we saw this definition on the home page of the next site we visited, The Communist Party USA:

"Where people and nature come before profits. 
That’s socialism." - CPUSA

Another definition, this time from the Party of Socialism and Liberation (PSL):

A point of clarity about the use of the world “socialism.” By socialism, we mean the goal of our struggle: a world free from exploitation, racism, war and oppression, a classless society. It is the peaceful, planned society that Albert Einstein referred to in his 1949 essay titled “Why Socialism?”

By socialism, we also mean the efforts to construct that society, including the experiences of those revolutions that have uprooted capitalism and began constructing a society in the interests of the working class—both the successes and the failures. In this sense, we are not referring to an ideal but to a historical project.

Third, by socialism we mean the revolutionary struggle to achieve the goal of a classless society. As several of the articles here point out, there is a ruling class in the United States that benefits enormously from the capitalist system of exploitation, and it will not give up its power without a fight. So while in 1848, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels could not call their essay the “Socialist Manifesto” for fear of being mistaken for the non-revolutionary socialists that then dominated the working-class landscape, today we see in socialism its original fighting program.

“But don’t you mean communism?” some might ask. The answer is yes. While Marx and Lenin distinguished communism as a classless society compared to socialism as a society where the state was withering away, we see the two as inextricably linked.

In other words, when we answer the question, “Why socialism?” we are answering why we need revolutionary change in the United States.

Did you see?

One commie site offers the argument, but does not include the definition.  The latter two commie sites offer no argument, but a definition.

Communists.  We s**t them.

No comments: