Norman Matoon Thomas believed in socialism. He had no evil intentions and he had no desire for government control. He just wanted life to be better for everyone. He just wanted to spread the wealth and did not trust free markets. But the only way for government to foster his hope to spread the wealth was through government control and because of that, few remember N. M. Thomas.
Before becoming a socialist politician, Mr. Thomas was a Presbyterian pastor and a pacifist. And while he opposed our entry into World War II he also opposed communism and fascism but his greatest opposition was to the American economic system.
But such beliefs never got Norman Matoon Thomas very far.
The height of his political career was achieved after the death of Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs in 1926. Upon Debs death Thomas took the helm and ran the Socialist Party until 1955 when he stepped down from his leadership post but continued to be the Socialist Party’s most visible spokesman.
Along the way, Thomas did run for Governor of New York, twice, but lost. In between those unsuccessful runs for office he ran for President of the United States as the socialist candidate in 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 and 1948. Each time he lost resoundingly.
The closest he ever came was in 1944 when he maxed out with no electoral votes and 880,000 votes from the general electorate.
In each of his elections and throughout his leadership of the Socialist Party, he failed to convince a preponderance of Americans that socialism was the way to go and in what was probably his most famous speech, at the conclusion of one of his last bids for elected office, Thomas said “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
Well ladies and gentleman that day is right ahead of us.
Right now we are witnessing the rapid transformation to that day and place. The place where ingenuity, entrepreneurial spirit and motivation is replaced by government bureaucracy. Where the food on the table is not earned by you or selected by you, but is placed there by a government that will increase in it’s size and power. A government that will increase its control upon us.
As Thomas made clear through his words, governmental liberalism is a political philosophy that is essentially based in the very roots of socialism. And as a liberal thinker, President Obama has shown that to be true.
During his campaign for President he came right out and said that he wants to spread the wealth.
To many, that sounded good. It sounded sincere and defendable. Yet the problem is that the wealth President Obama wants to spread is not his. It is our ours. As President, he has no government wealth to spread. Our government is only as wealthy as our people and if they are not making money, the government isn’t making any money. This is a lesson that many nations have already learned and apparently, it is one that we will have to learn again.
I for one believe as Margaret Thatcher did when she said “the problem with socialism is that you run out of everyone else’s money.”
I for one do not believe in the socialism that America has rejected for so long, during and after the life of Norman Mattoon Thomas. I just do not believe that Socialism can sustain itself in any way that allows our nation to benefit from the freedom that it is suppose to be a bastion of.
And just as much as I do not believe in Socialism, I equally believe that most Americans don’t either.
I believe as Norman Thomas did. That most “American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program”
Such is the case today.
We are witnessing a conversion of our democracy to socialism that will take years to undo all because we elected a socialist who got away by calling himself a Democrat.
In that same speech, Norman Thomas went on to say “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”
That was said 65 years ago yet today, it rings truer than ever.
The question is, when will Americans wake up and realize what Norman Mantoon Thomas realized. That political liberalism is socialism and when will they realize that socialism is futile.
|
http://politics247.wordpress.com/
Great blog kemp
Sorry Peace, but the facts are the facts and the more people request that I ignore them, the louder and more critical I will become. If the erosion of our freedoms, our free markets and our free will are not a concern to some people, than those people should not mind me telling what to do and that would be sit down and shut up because those of us who are concerned will not tolerate attempts to deny the fact that the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled Congress is eroding all of the founding principles of this nation. All of it, from the process they use to advance their policies, to their very policies themselves. And if you think that the soft tyranny we are experiencing is crap, than I have overestimated your judgment. If liberty is crap than we are a nation of shit and I do not believe we are. I refuse to pretend that putting industries under control of the government and forcing people on to government programs is not a form of and evidence of this Administration's move towards doing exactly what he promised...."transform America".....into the socialist utopia that he and contemporary Democrats stand for.
There are a lot of conservative out there with a lot of good points and a lot of good ideas. Hell, I'm with the conservatives on some issues. But this yelling about socialism and tyranny and all this other crap is just that: crap. Come up with something better. I'm not a big Obama fan, but I'm not gonna call the man a communist or a fascist because he's not. It's ridiculous and so are the people that keep saying it. Actual Socialist groups are criticizing the guy. He's not a socialist. He's not even a liberal. He's a left leaning moderate.
He is kind of like a little Mussolini! :D
Peace, I just posted all the examples of the Obama Administration's attempts to control private industry as well as the economy. There is no denying the controls of the healthcare field that the goverment takeover results in. Furthermore; I believe it is those on the left who are trying to change the definition of socialism so that their ideology is distanced from it, but call it what you like, I offered the definition in my previous post and it is that definition which the Obama Administration is achieving. Is this dramatic? It is only as dramatic as the policies that President Obama has promised to "transform America" with.
Does Obama support government control of the economy? Yes. Therefore, he is a socialist. Anon, socialist and fascists are not opposites. Fascism is a type of socialism. Have you ever heard of Benito Mussolini?
Well, isn't the government trying to control the economy?
Labeling Obama as a socialist shows that most Americans don't know what socialism is. Socialism is goverment control of the economy. CNN recently ran article I saw where they interviewd the chair of the Socialist Party and he denounced the HC bill as a corporatist bill and said that Obama's goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent. The socialist party doesn't even like Obama, apparently. Labeling comeone as a "socialist" is just something right wingers do to sound cool. "MLK is acommie!" "FDR is a commie" "Clinton is a commie" "Obama is a commie." It's enough already. Not everyone that isn't for laisez faire capitalism is a radical socialist or communist.
I disagree Peace. You are right that there was no public option in the HC bill. But there simply was a a form of federal madates that much like socialism, the public must participate in. As for bailed out companies, General Motors has in fact been taken over by the government and its CEO was replaced by President Obama's chosen figurehead. Furthermore; have you forgotten the federal controls over private corporations that has set the salaries of their officers? And to claim that our nation's lack of conformity to other socialist and European democracies in the area of Universal Healthcare....up to now......is evidence that President Obama is not of a socialist mindset is naive. In fact the way you phrased your assertion regading America previously being "the only developed country without universal health care" makes it sound like only certain people could get healthcare in America. The term Universal healthcare is quite a deceptively different way of sayimng government run healthcare. I do not support such a socialist concept. But you also write "Socialists are for government control of the economy" and imply that the Obama Administration is not using the government to control the economy. The healthcare takeover already allowed the government to take over a sixth of the economy. The President's tax and cap initiatives will take over another great percentage of the economy and amount to the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. Add to that the powers given to the EPA and unnaccountable and unelected czars and other federal agencies which are instructed to implement their controls and what you have is something that is far from unfettered. While regulation and standards are not a sign of socialism, "radical" government controls, the control of whole sectors of the economy and corporations while also trampling the rights of states is socialism. According to Marxist theory, socialism is a stage marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need when a society is changing from capitalism to communism. Many of the things which I have described heretofore fit that description quite aptly. So I am sorry, but I disagree with you on this. Now if you want to claim that President should not be compared to Hitler, I agree with you. However even there, although I do not compare him to Hitler, I have compared his plan to once have citizens report those who have different opinion than his on healthcare to fishy@whitehouse.gov , to the tactics used by Nazis.
I disagree Peace. You are right that there was no public option in the HC bill. But there simply was a a form of federal madates that much like socialism, the public must participate in. As for bailed out companies, General Motors has in fact been taken over by the government and its CEO was replaced by President Obama's chosen figurehead. Furthermore; have you forgotten the federal controls over private corporations that has set the salaries of their officers? And to claim that our nation's lack of conformity to other socialist and European democracies in the area of Universal Healthcare....up to now......is evidence that President Obama is not of a socialist mindset is naive. In fact the way you phrased your assertion regading America previously being "the only developed country without universal health care" makes it sound like only certain people could get healthcare in America. The term Universal healthcare is quite a deceptively different way of sayimng government run healthcare. I do not support such a socialist concept. But you also write "Socialists are for government control of the economy" and imply that the Obama Administration is not using the government to control the economy. The healthcare takeover already allowed the government to take over a sixth of the economy. The President's tax and cap initiatives will take over another great percentage of the economy and amount to the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. Add to that the powers given to the EPA and unnaccountable and unelected czars and other federal agencies which are instructed to implement their controls and what you have is something that is far from unfettered. While regulation and standards are not a sign of socialism, "radical" government controls, the control of whole sectors of the economy and corporations while also trampling the rights of states is socialism. According to Marxist theory, socialism is a stage marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need when a society is changing from capitalism to communism. Many of the things which I have described heretofore fit that description quite aptly. So I am sorry, but I disagree with you on this. Now if you want to claim that President should not be compared to Hitler, I agree with you. However even there, although I do not compare him to Hitler, I have compared his plan to once have citizens report those who have different opinion than his on healthcare to fishy@whitehouse.gov , to the tactics used by Nazis.
I think it's a little dramatic to say Obama is a socialist. His health care bill didn't even include a public option, and he didn't take over those companies he bailed out. He just gave them free money. If he were a socialist, he would've taken them over. Supporting health care reform, union rights and a progressive tax system doesn't make you a socialist. Socialists are for government control of the economy. Hell, America is the only developed country without universal health care and who believes markets should be unfettered. It's not like supporting regulation is some crazy radical idea. It's not socialist either.
I think it is pretty undeniable that the Democratic Party has been effectively hijacked by Socialists, just as the Republican Party was hijaked by Fascists.
If you look at the timeline, the Sociallists struck first, which directly lead to liberals rejecting the Democratic Party and becoming NeoCons. Fascists and Sociallists are are about as polar as you can get, even though they both seek authority and control.
I think that this type of takeover is unavoidable in a 2 party system, which limits the free enchange of ideas and voices in an attempt to polarize everyone into 2 groups which fight for 51% of the mob rule.
Where does this quote come from? I have looked and looked and can only find people quoting each other and no actual oringinal quote. Some say it was said in 1944, but that year he had his best year running for pres. he ran again in 1948, so it would be a great quote if it can be definitly be tied to him.
This is seems to be a funny socialism though.We are taking money from the middle class and poor and giving to rich banks? lol
Arjay from reading some of these post are you saying that the socialist are the only non racist political party??? thats BS just b/c the socialist want to let everyone live 'equally' without equally splitting up the work that doesnt make conservatives racist to the ppl who take public welfare and assistance the most (the colored ppls... well one color the black ppl asians assimilate into society well)
Something to send Glenn Beck on Fox News...
How can the average "joe" help?
Has destiny and biblical prophecy arrived?
Can we do ANYTHING to stop this turn of events from democracy to socialism?
Can we impeach Obama now? Can we call for impeachment hearings based on his running things as a socialist and not as a Democrat?
Will our efforts be futile?
Is there hope even NOW?
WHY do we have to just sit there and allow this to continue?
I am afraid there are more socialists/pacifists in the senate/congress to do anything to turn this around...
What do you think?
So far I happen to despise the pro-abortion, pro embronic stem cell,negotiate with terrorists regime in place.
OK, Hawk, exactly WHERE is the capital going to come from to fuel the economy? Until there is a return of confidence, would you have the government, whose treasury sits atop most of the world's capital at the moment, ------------------------FNG, that is exactly the question. WHERE is the capital going to come from? It comes from investors who give working capital to businesses to grow, expand and hire. Without that the unemployment rate goes up while the number of taxpayers goes down. And with the current defecit, our treasury is indebtted up to it's ears. The government has no money unless we do. They don't pay for systems, we do. They can print all they want but that leads to inflation that WE have to pay for eventually. The government doesn't have it's own money to spend. They will get it from you and I and with the way the markets are reacting to the current policies, there will be less and less of you and I.
Since I'm the one that compared the spending, I'll assume it's me you're talking to. First, I am not Arjay. Next, if you'll actually read, you'll see I was comparing the amounts, not the purpose. I don't like the amount being spent on the economic stimulus either, and I liked Bush's bailout even less... but, if you have better ideas, I'm listening.
I thought Obama was supposed to make some big 'CHANGE' arjay, so why are you comparing this new crazy spending with spending in Iraq?
Imagine is correct. Bush blocked funding for charities that happened to provide abortions, Obama repealed the block. As for the spending (ie, the economic stimulus), how much again have we spent in Iraq? I also ask about Bush's bailout. If I remember correct, it was like pulling teeth to get any kind of oversight on how the corporations used that money... something which Bush fought. So, we're back where we started. Obama has had very little time to do anything. What he has done isn't much different from what Bush has done. Why the hate?
Its not funding for overseas abortion. its funding for overseas medical clinics in poor areas. These clinics happen to give abortions. Bush banned giving money to medical clinics that performed abortion in poverty stricken areas. Friday, you criticize Obama for made up bullshit, yet you deffenmd your beloved Republican party like they can do no wrong.
Every time someone replies to this article, you keep a truly honorable American's face up for all to see. Thank you, everyone, for allowing the name of Norman Thomas to live at U4Prez. It's not the only place it lives, though, his name has been on the Socialist Hall of Fame for months on the Socialism profile, linked to an internet bio for your perusal, a gift from the unofficial U4Prez Socialist Party.
Really RS? Not meaning to come on strong and be mean, but where have you been the last two months? A couple trillion dollars later, with funding for overseas abortion, population control, more bailouts, and everything else I've been writing about for two months now? If you want to know why we are criticizing Obama feel free to read many of my recent blogs.
The difference, Kemp, is that Bush had actually done things before I criticized him. In my case, it wasn't until after I saw how he was handling his duties post-9/11 that I began disliking him. Up until then, I had an open mind.
Obama hasn't even had time to do anything he's already being accused of, though... yet, people are spewing venom all over the place any time his name comes up. Why?
I am all for the day when we put the charades aside and go socialist. Obama, unfortunately, is playing the Keynes model of government tweeking the corporate sector to make it work for Democrats. As a socialist, I can tell you, he ain't no socialist. The strawman arguments you make question the necessity of taking you seriously. All Obama is doing is reverting to Democratic thinking from the 1930's to the 1990's. This is not the Russian Revolution, Kempite, hyperbolic paranoia is not necessary.
So pointing out that a Socialist party leader stated that we would adopt socialism and that President Obama is speeding up the transition to socialism is an attack? I have two question for non-Republicans. What part of the truth can be discussed before you call it legitimate and what did you hope to accomplish by calling Bush incompetent and illegitimate? Or is liberal hypocrisy just the norm these days?
Amen RS- i couldnt have said it better myself.... You know what the funny thing is for all of the things that i have heard about liberal thugs picking on Bush people think its ok to be a conservative thug. For instance while i was at work friday a woman asked me who i voted for. I knew better then to answer b/c although i live in IL, I live in a very conservative district. This woman proceeded to call me stupid and accused me of spitting in the troops face b/c of my vote. She went on to say "if you were so smart you wouldnt be working here" and all sorts of other niceties. (I found out later she was a waitress until she married "up") but my question to the conservatives- do you think it is ok to harass someone while they are working and to berate them b/c you dont like their opnion. I can honestly say i have never treated a bartender or anyone that way. So keep calling out the liberal thugs- i just wont belive it. But let me guess it was ok for this woman b/c it was for the greater good??
A question I have for the conservatives: I have been seeing relentless bashing of Obama since he won the election. Blog after blog here on u4prez, and of course the conservative commentators and protesting citizens outside of here. Just what are you hoping to accomplish? Are you trying to have Obama forcibly removed from office, based on your assumptions of what MIGHT happen? Realistically, he hasn't done much of anything yet that Bush hasn't done. If you're thinking of his stimulus package, then consider Bush's bail-out package. Honestly, though... the whining isn't helping anything. If Obama had actually done something, then that could be a different story... but for now, it's just that: whining.
The free market is like a candle in the wind. It blows towards capitalism and socialism depending on its needs at the time and always has. To state anything else is to be intellectually dishonest......What we need is a pragmatic economic policy. Quit with the stupid labels already. Get a grip! When the economy is down, the government needs to step in. As soon as the economy gets its legs back; the government can back off. We will always need regulation of some kind. Had Phil Gramm and Co. not had their way in the '90s, many of the economic challenges we are facing today would have been avoided completely.......Besides, I am tired of hearing the conservatives preach about the apocalyptic end of the American way. After 8 years of torture, Katrina, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, no WMD's, no Bin Laden, and over 4,000 American troops killed occupying a country that does not give a damn!......It is funny how people keep reminding Americans that freedom isn't free. When are they going to start informing the Iraqi people, and their incompetent government, of that fact?
Capitalism RULES! The NOBODY for President fully supports capitalism, and I urge you to buy my music mp3s merchandise! We can get the economy moving again, one NOBODY for President hat at a time!
OK, Hawk, exactly WHERE is the capital going to come from to fuel the economy? Until there is a return of confidence, would you have the government, whose treasury sits atop most of the world's capital at the moment, sit like the organized-mob venture capitalists, counting their cash day after day? The banks are broke, due to ludicrous lending policies. So that leaves only the government to tide us over until the economy turns north. You don't have to refer to it as "socialism" or "capitalism" or "liberalism" or "conservatism" but rather reality. There are no other options at the moment, if there were I'd endorse them wholesale. I'm a REPUBLICAN and I realize this. Even the most profound and truthful idealism in the universe cannot help without solutions. I endorse the government's actions. I endorse the stimulus spending. I endorse anything the government can do to turn the economy around, not because I'm a SOCIALIST, but because I actually give a shitt about the future of the country. If you've got a better solution let's hear it. All of you people that are criticising the actions of the government simply because the DEMOCRATS are in charge. All I see is a pro-active government trying to clean up the mess left by some really, really dumb and corrupt people. I'm not a "socialist", I'm a realist. Until all the people with the capital return to the game, it's the government wgho has to pick up the slack, and that's just the way it is.
Amen.
Democrats aren't socialists. Both parties, when it's been politically advantageous, have embraced aspects of the socialist agenda when it suited them. These things should be embraced, not frowned on. I'd rather FDR steal from the socialists and call it the New Deal, than there be no New Deal at all. I'd rather progressives say concepts like the GI Bill and a 40 hour work week were their idea, knowing all the while they got those ideas from the party of Debs and Thomas. But so long as the Dems see corporate interests as something more important than human beings, as long as they seek to merely tweek the corporatist machine to suit their needs instead of seeking major reform or abolition, they're not socialist. They're fascist, just as fascist as the Republican party.
When did the Democrats become socialists? I thought the democrats refused to nationalize the banks. Oh, but then again, Kempite, as with many words, has no idea what "socialist" means. Believe me, if the deocrats had aopted socialism, I would be a partisan democrat. But sadly, they haven't. They've kept the same centrist polcies that have been disappointing real socialists for years.How is it that through the extreme fair market of the United States, greedy business men and irresponsible borrowers destroyed the economy, and socialism is getting the bad wrap? Probably because the Right to Life Party doesn't know what socialism means.
Arjay is always recruiting for the unofficial U4Prez Socialist Party. Anytime you want an honest discussion, not just talk a bunch of myths and strawman arguments, I'm always ready. We're up to four members, a couple more on deck, and good ideas are being brainstormed all the time. If you're a leftie who is tired of Democrats catering to corporate whim, and you think it's time the Washington elite had their comeuppance, I encourage you to give our party a try.
I guess.
Don't let it get to you... If it were not for stupid people how would we be able to identify us smart folks!
Sometimes I swear I get Ill just reading the asinie comments made here
What the hell give up on the constitution, freedom, and future generations. Use the constitution as toilet paper, and say yeah, it's easier this way.
Thats a cop out.
capitalism has not failed us! It is still the best system in the world. The government has failed us and has for the past 4 decades. If you want to sign on to socialism then change party's..... I hear RJ is still looking for members for the socialist party.
When capitalism fails us, what are our options? There is going to be a turn towards socialism, that's just the way it goes. The first thing that needs to be socialised is health insurance. There will be parts of the economy that will be controlled by the government for the benefit of the people and the future of the nation. Is it a good thing? Well, when capitalism fails us, it's better than a sharp stick in the eye. Sorry, but if American capitalists are going to hoard their capital in Swiss bank accounts, somebody's got to keep the wheels turning and it falls onto the government. When the capitalists want to come back and play instead of sitting in their corners counting money, then the economy is there for them,and the government can turn control back to them. Sorry - you cannot force capitalism or socialism on this nation, it just happens - whatever the best option is for the moment.
The same thing can be said on how the Republicans have covertly added portions of the old Soviet-style communism. The Patriot Act looks more like something spewed from the Politburo than from a freedom-loving country.
Or, even better, check out the Socialism profile here at U4Prez, the unofficial home of the unofficial U4Prez Socialist Party. Not only is Thomas a member of the Socialist Hall of Fame, there is a link where you can find out more about him and many other socialists Kempite will later try to demonize and erroneously tie to the Obama administration.
One of my heroes. The man Martin Luther King proclaimed "the bravest man I ever met". As a clergyman circa 1910, he assisted immigrant families in East Harlem. He was inspired by the Social Gospel of Walter Rauschenbusch, who said a relationship with Jesus must put social responsibility before individual responsibility. I made this very point on my own blog last week, while Republicans and Democrats were maintaining the apartheid status quo, Norman Thomas was working toward civil rights decades before Brown v. Board of Education. While Americans of the time--and some still to this day--considered the internment of Americans in 1942 because of their Japanese heritage a necessary evil, Thomas was a vocal opponent of Roosevelt's policy. Many of the policies FDR put into his New Deal were originally on the socialist platform. Dr. King had a certain anecdote, “…a little Negro boy listened at the Washington Monument to an eloquent orator. Turning to his father, he asked, ‘Who is that man?’ Came the inevitable answer; ‘That’s Norman Thomas. He was for us before any other white folks were.’” Such men deserve statues and praise. I encourage everyone to look up Norman Thomas on the Internet, not in the rightwing chopshop blogs, but at encyclopedic and historical sites. Kempite screwed up a few details, Thomas actually had 885,000 votes in 1932, not 1944, but what do details matter to a partisan hack? While Kempite does the dishonest thing by trying to tie Thomas to Obama and somehow make both into something sinister, I am proud to be in a party with Thomas in its legacy, someone who was a true champion for working and disadvantaged people, who spoke up when it was most unpopular to do so, and who has been an inspiration for American socialists to this day. Despite the hackjob, I thank you, Kempite, for bringing this great man out of the shadows. All Americans owe a debt to Norman Thomas, the nation they prosper in is, in part, of his making.
|
|
<< Home