An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Word “Socialist”
Is that a code word for “black?” Or isn’t that a bit of a (political) stretch?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “The Word “Socialist””
OK, some others said it better than me:
From Classical Values: “I just learned something new, and I am horrified. While I often condemn socialists and socialism, until today I had not realized that the word “socialist” is code language for “black”
I'm stunned. Flabbergasted. But if socialist means black, what are the implications for National Socialism? I mean, we all knew how sneaky Hitler and those Nazis were, but this! To think that after all this time it turns out they were secretly running a black nationalist front. Who knew? “
From Jules Crittenden (via Classical Values): “it's tragic that, at this late date, we cannot judge a man by the content of his political utterances without being accused of talking about the color of his skin.”
“Code” for black? ARE YOU MENTALLY ILL? And you presumably will be _voting_?
No, it's not a code word for “black”. What it is, is the GOP trolling the bay of fear of those Reagan democrats they hope to rope in by a knee-jerk reaction “socialisim!” “reign of EVIL!”.
Then we remind those people that they already have socialist programs at work in this country's infrastructure, police forces, military…and the recent socialist bailout approved by McCain…and they settle back down.
I think the McCain campaign losing sight of the fact that people are vastly more in tune with being hoodwinked this time around (no voters haven't forgotten election 2000 and the theft of Gore's victory. Oh what a different world this would be if he had gotten the Seat 8 years ago instead of the current fascist administration.
Fascism. There's one to throw out in response to “socialism”. We actually do have a fascist regieme in the Whitehouse now…or the closest thing to one the US has ever seen. They've been dismantling the Constitution.
If anything, it's a code word for German.
If anything “socialist” is a code word for “commies”. Or at least commie-light, on the way to being commie. Even if socialism isn't communism, Americans (at least in my opinion) think that socialism is bad and should be avoided (that's another debate, particularly given the GOP's recent adventures into socialism…).
Welfare is the code word for black.
And yellow is the new brown.
(Sorry I couldn't resist that last.)
Yeah, it's definitely a stretch, but it's also important to remember the historical relevancy of linking black leaders to communism. It absolutely was a word non-chalantly thrown about to describe basically any black person who wanted to improve their lot in life, up to and including MLK Jr. I know that a lot of that historical loading of the word hasn't really come through to right now, and it's not the connotation the word has now. I still think it's important to remember history, and both “commie” and “black” were extremely effective ways those in power sought to other groups of people unlike themselves. I don't believe it's a stretch to say that the othering of Barack Obama has been one of the main strategies of the McCain campaign.
I find the idea that 'socialist' is being called “the new black” somewhat ludicrous.
If anything, socialist is a code-word for “communist” – and a barely thinly-veiled code at that.
Fascism — another abuse word of the “challenged” — [sigh]. Where have you been when Washington, typically under Democratic and liberal control, has engaged in it? What about the original NRA in the 1930s? What about “government-business partnerships” as well as “industrial policy” (currently being revived with the current dippy-glamour obscession with tech and idiotic faith in magic solutions therewith) and what about the HMO-”alliance” based HillaryCare scheme that was obviously fascistic but that the Left was too cowardly or dishonest to admit, even among the far-left “single-payer” [sic] advocate critics of that earlier Clinton plan?
Too many of you don't have the maturity (including the intellectual kind) to grasp the key concept here, that “socialism” is being used sloppily for income redistribution (the subject of the disturbing comment Obama made, augmented now by his new demagoguery, with the pie* metaphor).
* Lefties have never gotten this right (correct). First of all, they normally consider it a zero-sum game. But even when they don't, they get it wrong. The UAW head for years got it wrong. He was wrong, and he acted as a _parasite_. He said to the automakers in Detroit, “it's your [management's] job to grow this pie,” and then said he (merely) was there to argue about how it would be divided (with the UAW getting as generous a share as it could get, even though he denied responsibility for any worker being also responsible for growing that pie — who do you think does so much of the cooking???)
Sorry, Stockster, but you're incorrect (fortunately?) about your last point.
We all know that “Asians are the 'model minority'” [nose elevated snootily]
Even that is inaccurate, as there are groups doing well and doing poorly, as with all other members of society.
“socialisim!” “reign of EVIL!”.
That's what the GOP is trying. Notice, it's not working. A lot of people are desperate for their situation to improve, and (as in the 1930s) will cut all kinds of corners to do it; there are also others who have routinely been exploited or actually have faith in Washington (it is their parent in many cases). Obama's liberal-Democrat background ordinarily would repel and even petrify Americans, but not at this time, and not if public opinion of the GOP in 2006 *** and the typical words you may hear on the street *** is taken into consideration. Obama could wear a hammer and sickle and advocate nationalization of the oil companies, the auto makers, and the airlines, say, and still likely would be elected this year.
Interesting that fascism is much less in common usage than socialism, since there is no less evidence for it's presence here than there is socialism. The left is generally (with exceptions of course) less willing to throw out charged words like these than the right though, and the truth is, they don't need to rely on mischaracterization or exaggeration; the actual record of the GOP in recent years is pejorative enough. That said, the actual meaning of the words and how they relate to our govt and society is a separate issue.
The Left has continuously demonstrated itself to be worse than the Right. Of course one must be capable of and willing to observe dispassionately, even if the wrongdoing by either side generates ill will.
An example of the Right going too far (aside from vulgarity such as the attacks on Obama's ill grandmother) is Jonah Goldberg's book on facism by the Left. That book has a great deal to recommend it, but in this or that place in the book it does go too far. The distinction between unpleasant fact and the rare to occasional bits of overreach in the book may be too subtle for the defensive to face (yes, the Left in the USA and elsewhere in the West has practiced as well as sought fascism from time to time, even though the well-known fascists of the 1930s were lefties who went far to the right as a reaction not only to Communism but other social upheavals since the industrial and scientific revolutions and urbanization of the West in the nineteenth century). HillaryCare was definitely and _definitively_ fascistic. The critics (Melvin Konner, “Dear America”; the Nation, “What's your choice, ultraconsolidatedcorporateHMOhomogenizedhealthcareplan A or is it ultraconsolidatedcorporateHMOhomogenizedhealthcareplan B, same as A?”) on the left, who wanted federal provision (“financing”) as well as control over health care, seemed afraid or ashamed to admit it about one of their fellow lefties.
And despite a small number of flaws, the Goldberg book is worth reading.
Re: Goldberg's book. Personally, I think many folks criticized it for the wrong reasons. There was a knee-jerk response by many on the left to the sensationalism of title itself: “Liberal Fascism”. I suppose one can appreciate that. Lol! But what they should have done is question his definition. Basically, to him “liberal fascism” is any inclination to require of (a) all of the people within a society formulated on the Enlightenment principle of secularism (b) to engage in (or disengage from) one or another act, law or policy. In other words, at its heart, Goldberg's definition of “liberal fascism” can be otherwise described as any tendency towards “secular totalitarianism”. Likewise, the only alternatives are tendencies toward the other possible combinations of the two dichotomies: secular anarchy, sacred totalitarianism, and sacred anarchy. Given the alternatives he described, which would you rather have?
Personally, I'd select none of the above. Obviously elements of either dichotomy should not necessarily be shunned. Nor should they be necessarily embraced. Most societies have elements of both the secular and the sacred, and of both totalitarianism and anarchy. Those that do not are doomed to eventual failure. So my argument with Goldberg is: you didn't say much. As a corollary to that, I would like to point out to him that under his definition the modern GOP party here in the USA shares much of the same “liberal fascism” heritage as the modern Democratic party. They just take different tacts.