Ten years ago, “socialism” was still a dirty word on both sides of the political aisle. Leftists deflected accusations of socialism as an expression of old-fashioned right-wing paranoia (and racism!), while right-of-center pundits avoided it like a third rail.
Too many bad memories of Bob Dylan’s “Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues”.
But the statists are finally coming out of the socialist closet. In an age where presidential candidates are openly advocating government-monopolized health care, open borders, wealth taxes, reparations, and virtually unlimited spending; it hardly seems like a problem at this point to admit that socialism is the real goal.
Apparently we’re not quite ready to bring back the “C-word”, though. We don’t hear very many people on the left admitting that full-out communism is their true aim (Yet). And conservatives are still squeamish about using that word, fearing they’ll still be negatively impacted by the left’s propaganda machine.
Will this change? Should it?
“Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues” was a brilliantly effective use of Saul Alinsky’s Rule #5. It was one small part of a broader campaign to marginalize anyone who dared to talk about the threat of communism in the United States.
The left had good reason to want it that way. For most of us, the word “communism” evokes images of a tyrannical state apparatus, along with all of its accouterments: bread lines, shortages, propaganda, poverty, mass murder, prison camps, secret police, surveillance, and the like. That is precisely why the left prefers that we don’t use it. Socialism sounds so much nicer. Especially if it’s democratic!
And it seems pretty harsh to accuse our fellow Americans of wanting these things. Bread lines? Secret police? Censorship? Mass surveillance? Gun confiscation? C’mon… nobody’s talking about doing that!
It’s worth noting that the Soviet Union officially called itself the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” Not communist. Socialist. Even Vladimir Lenin recognized that the term “communism” had negative connotations, so he coined the phrase “democratic socialism” as a more marketable alternative.
In the end, it all leads to the same place. And it’s really not good.
Trevor Loudon sums it up beautifully: “What’s the difference between democratic socialism and communism? Usually, five to 10 years.”
Power to the Elite
Let’s stop pretending that there are any great differences between socialism, democratic socialism, or communism. They all pretend to give power to the people while actually giving enormous power to a small elite. And the path to state supremacy always begins with sweet-sounding words like “democratic” and “socialism.”
We still have room to turn this ship around. That begins with an understanding of the fundamental differences between collectivism and liberty. Perhaps we should start by reintroducing “communism” to our civic vocabulary.
Two of our friends have been openly talking about communism for some time now. Author and filmmaker Trevor Loudon and faith leader E.W. Jackson have been touring the country to highlight the very real threat of Marxist ideology (regardless of what you call it; they call it communism).
On September 24th, 25th, and 26th, the 603 Alliance is hosting Trevor Loudon and E.W. Jackson in a series of free events here in New Hampshire on the growing threat of Marxism in America. We’ll be at 3 locations around the state: Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Manchester. Take your pick. To reserve your seat, visit 603alliance.org.
