Abuse of the word “Socialism” by Democrats to Defend Socialism
EDITORIAL: This article by liberal media abuses a deceptive logical fallacy. They trace the historical treatment of “socialism” over time, but at the same time, fail to apply the CHANGING definition of “socialism” to each specific time they reference. Instead, they only apply the CURRENT definition to PAST times. The definition of all words changes and evolves over time. For the purposes of THIS website, the FIXED meaning of “socialism” is the “abolition of private property”, as we point out in our Disclaimer:
4.27 Socialism
The term “socialism” means any attempt by any government to use civil legislation to abolish private property or to convert private property ownership to public property, public rights, or privileges, whether by consent or by theft. “Ownership” and “control” are synonymous for the purpose of this definition. Such property includes land, labor, physical objects, chattel property, or constitutional rights.
Examples of the implementation of socialism include the following activities by government:
- Government Franchises and licensing. See:
Government instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf- Civil statutes when enforced against those not consensually serving WITHIN the government. See:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf- Domicile, which is a civil statutory protection franchise. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf- Income and excise taxation. See:
The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf- Extraterritorial civil enforcement under the COLOR, but without the actual AUTHORITY of law. against parties not domiciled within the jurisdiction or venue doing the enforcement. See:
Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-Memlaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf- Any attempt to change the civil status (Form #13.008) of parties situated extraterritorially without the exclusive jurisdiction of the lawmaker with or without their express or implied consent (Form #05.003). The result is that they are made to APPEAR as parties domiciled within the civil jurisdiction or venue of the lawmaker. See:
Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/GovernmentIdentityTheft.pdf- Any attempt to offer a “benefit” or franchise without recognizing or enforcing the right to NOT participate or to quit on any and every form administering the program. Thus, the program is TREATED as mandatory by fiat but in fact is voluntary. This violates the common law maxim that you have a right to refuse a “benefit”. See:
Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidingTrapsGovForms.pdfThe result of implementing socialism through civil legislation is ultimately to abolish constitutional or common law protections for property, and to replace them with legislatively granted civil privileges that come with obligations and a corresponding surrender of said rights. Below is how we describe this process on the opening page of our website:
People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.
[SEDM Website Opening Page; http://sedm.org]
For the purpose of this definition “socialism” does NOT include “social control over the means of production” as most contemporary reference sources FALSELY identify it. Early dictionaries defined it consistent with our definition but over the years, the word has fairly recently been redefined to REMOVE the mention of abolition of private property from the definition. This was done so that statists would conveniently stop having to APOLOGIZE for government theft through the legislative process. For examples of this phenomenon, see:
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “socialism”
It is important to emphasize here that when you want to stop public opposition to a government activity such as theft or conversion of private property, the easiest way is to redefine terms so that there is no word that accurately refers to the activity that is being opposed. The result is that you have eliminated vocabulary that could describe the thing being opposed, and thus to eliminate the political opposition entirely. This approach, in fact, is the heart of the modern phenomenon of “Identity politics“: Control public opinion and public opposition by controlling language.
An important goal of this website is to ELIMINATE all forms of socialism as defined here, and thus to restore the supremacy of individual rights over governmental rights to our political and democratic processes and institutions. For details on the evils of socialism, see:
- Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf- Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407
http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm[SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4: Meaning of Words; SOURCE: https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.27._Socialism]
The CURRENT definition of “socialism” means collective control of the means of production”, but it hasn’t always been so. It doesn’t matter what you call the abolition of private property, whether “socialism”, or some other word, so long as you don’t avoid discussing the damaging affects of abolishing private property. To allow government to IGNORE the main purpose of its creation, which is the protection of PRIVATE rights and PRIVATE property, and to make ALL property subject to governmental control, regulation, and taxation would completely destroy the foundation of this country and even the purpose of those who serve in public offices:
“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1]Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2]That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[6]”
[63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247]
__________________
FOOTNOTES:
[1] State ex rel. Nagle v Sullivan, 98 Mont 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.
[2] Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524. A public official is held in public trust. Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist) 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill Dec 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill Dec 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.
[3] Chicago Park Dist. V. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec.134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.
[4] United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill) 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds 484 U.S. 807, 98 L.Ed.2d. 18, 108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den 486 U.S. 1035, 100 L.Ed.2d. 608, 108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass) 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).
[5] Chicago ex rel. Cohen v Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill.App.3d. 298, 61 Ill.Dec. 172, 434 N.E.2d. 325.
[6]Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App) 656 N.E.2d. 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 N.E.2d. 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996).
The real problems that the GOP has with Democrats is that the foundation of the Democrat party is to abuse the income tax system to transfer wealth from one class of people (the one percenters or whoever the Democrats don’t like), and hand it to another group. This is a recipe to literally DISINTEGRATE and destroy harmony in society. The article completely ignores and avoids this most basic aspect of the sins of the Democrats by confusing the definition of “socialism”. They do it by essentially ELIMINATING all vocabulary in which such a sin can be discussed by redefining “socialism” to mean “collective control over the means of production”.
“Where do wars and fights [in the ballot box and the jury box] come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [unearned money or “benefits” from the government] that war in your members [and your democratic SOCIALIST governments]? You lust [after other people’s money] and do not have. You murder [the unborn to increase your standard of living] and covet [the unearned] and cannot obtain [except by empowering your de facto THIEF government to STEAL for you!]. You fight and war [against the rich and the nontaxpayers to subsidize your idleness and dependency with a STOLEN Social Security retirement check]. Yet you do not have because you do not ask [the Lord, but instead ask the corrupt and deceitful government]. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures [“benefits”]. Adulterers and adulteresses [harlots, Rev. 17]! Do you not know that friendship [or STATUTORY citizenship] with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [a STATUTORY “citizen”, “resident”, or “taxpayer”] of the world [or the governments of the world] makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:1-4, Bible, NKJV]“Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundation of the government. If the provisions of the constitution can be set aside by an act of congress, where is the course of usurpation [abuse of taxation power for THEFT and wealth transfer] to end? The present assault [WAR!] upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests [in the jury box and the ballot box between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS] will become a war of the poor against the rich,-a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness. ‘If the court sanctions the power of discriminating [UNEQUAL or GRADUATED] taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the constitution,’ as said by one who has been all his life a student of our institutions, ‘it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our present government will commence.‘”
[Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)]
Whenever you get into a debate with a Democrat, avoid labels such as “socialism” or at least START the debate with the CLASSICAL definition of “socialism”, meaning “abolition of private property”, so that they can’t avoid discussing the main failing of Democrat Party, which effectively is to advocate that government should own or control EVERYTHING. THAT type of advocacy is statism and also represents religious idolatry.
For more information on this subject, see:
- Communism, Socialism, and Collectivism Topic (OFFSITE LINK)
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Communism/Communism.htm - Big Government is Socialism, no Matter What the Democrats Say
https://sedm.org/big-government-is-socialism-no-matter-what-the-democrats-or-media-say/
____________
Column: Here’s why the GOP smears everything it doesn’t like as ‘socialism’
There are two things one can be sure of when politicians denigrate government programs as “socialist.” One is that they don’t know anything about “socialism.” The other is that they don’t know anything about the programs they’re trying to smear. So here comes Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the House Republican leadership, with an especially absurd example of the genre. Marking the birthdays of Medicare and Medicaid, which were enacted on July 30, 1965, she took to Twitter to celebrate “the critical role these programs have played to protect the healthcare of millions of families.” Then she pivoted to add, “To safeguard our future, we must reject Socialist healthcare schemes.”The cry of socialism has been patented by the powerful interests that desire to put a damper on progressive legislation….for over a quarter century.
Stefanik’s remark was particularly incoherent in part because of the history of Republican opinion on Medicare and Medicaid: Almost universally, they derided the programs as “socialism.”
The Medicare and Medicaid bill placed before Congress by President Lyndon Johnson was “not only socialism — it is brazen socialism,” declared Sen. Carl Curtis (R-Neb.).
During his 1964 presidential campaign against Johnson, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) asked: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink?”
Ronald Reagan, functioning in 1961 as a mouthpiece for the American Medical Assn., reviled a precursor bill to the Medicaid/Medicare legislation as “simply an excuse to bring about what [Democrats] wanted all the time, socialized medicine.”
Reagan’s AMA patrons were only sticking to a successful script — their cry of “socialized medicine” had helped them defeat an effort by Harry Truman to enact a public healthcare plan in 1945. (The AMA also derided Truman and his aides as “followers of the Moscow party line.”)
More recently, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that the GOP strategy in the 2020 election would be to present itself as “the firewall that saves the country from socialism.”
Did it work? This was the election that turned McConnell from Senate majority leader to Senate minority leader.
Stefanik, who has been making a name for herself on Capitol Hill as someone who will say anything if she thinks it will bring her advancement, wasn’t clear in her tweet what she meant by “Socialist healthcare schemes.”
Perhaps she meant the public option, a government-sponsored program to compete with private insurance. The public option was rejected during the debate preceding enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, though it has lately gained new attention. But Stefanik didn’t need to be that specific; her goal was to place the term “socialism” out there.
Stefanik was using the term as a shibboleth — a code word directed at her political base, much as her GOP colleagues have used “vaccine passport” to demonize vaccination requirements designed to protect public health, or “Faucism” to undermine vaccination, or “critical race theory” to manipulate education standards.
Stefanik didn’t expect to be heard by the public at large, and certainly not by Democrats. She was merely sending a signal to her peeps that she was one of them.
The effectiveness of shibboleths doesn’t depend on an understanding of a particular term’s meaning — in fact, any such understanding would work against its effectiveness as a partisan dog whistle. It’s useful to recall that one of the rallying cries against the enactment of the ACA was “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”
Nevertheless, before looking at the technique’s long, discreditable history, we should be reminded that true socialism is defined as a belief that the means of production should be publicly, not privately, owned. That encompasses manufacturing plants and their machines and tools. Such conditions imply an economy in which output and the use of labor are publicly directed and social benefits evenly distributed.
Any functioning economy, then, comprises purely capitalist elements as well as those that might be labeled socialist. But the programs denigrated as socialist by the American right tend to place private enterprise at their center.
That includes the ACA, which dictates that all Americans must carry a form of health insurance and subsidizes their purchase by the working and middle class, but relies on private insurers to provide the coverage. In Medicaid and Medicare, the government sets the prices for procedures and services, but leaves it up to doctors and hospitals to decide whether to join.
The American system also recognizes that market capitalism, for all its virtues, has its flaws — chiefly that all participants don’t enter the marketplace with equivalent power. That’s why we have a safety net of social insurance programs aimed at ensuring that nobody is left entirely out of the market — the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps and child tax credits, free COVID-19 testing and vaccinations, to name a few.
As I’ve reported before, the branding of progressive programs, especially those proposed by Democrats, as “socialist” is not a new stratagem. The “socialism” smear has long since become so common that it’s easy — almost too easy — to ridicule.
The best example dates back to January 1936 and a gala dinner sponsored by the American Liberty League, a splinter group of wealthy business leaders and old-guard Democrats opposing Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Its star was former New York Gov. Al Smith, who had run for president on the Democratic ticket in 1928 as a progressive leader and then thrown in his lot with the party’s Wall Street wing.
No one was ever quite sure what motivated Smith’s apostasy, whether personal resentment of his former ally FDR or the financial blandishments of his new friends. FDR had a withering opinion of the Liberty League, describing it as “an organization that only advocates two or three out of the Ten Commandments…. [They] say you shall love God and then forget your neighbor.”
At the league gala, Smith told his audience, “Make a test for yourself. Just get the platform of the Democratic Party and get the platform of the Socialist Party and lay them down on your dining-room table, side by side…. After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will have your hand on the Socialist platform.”
A thunderstruck FDR remarked to his Labor Secretary, Frances Perkins: “Practically all the things we’ve done in the federal government are like things Al Smith did as governor of New York. They’re things he would have done if he had been president of the United States. What in the world is the matter?”
But he also had an ace up his sleeve — a speech Smith had delivered during the 1928 campaign in which he ridiculed the same charge of “socialism” from Republicans that he now leveled against Roosevelt.
“The cry of socialism,” Smith declared, “has been patented by the powerful interests that desire to put a damper on progressive legislation. Is that cry of socialism anything new? Not to a man of my experience. I have heard it raised by reactionary elements and the Republican Party … for over a quarter-century.”
Nearly a century later, the GOP is still at it. The cry of “socialism” is still used to put a damper on progressive legislation, whether it’s requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes instead of enjoying the lowest tax rates in 50 years, or looking for further means to ensure universal healthcare. It’s been a tried-and-true method for decades, but as Stefanik’s inept version shows, it’s getting a little threadbare.