Jump to content


Recommended Posts

So as the "is he or isn't he" question clogs up the arwaves let me ask everyone.


First for the right.

We do understand that American life is filled with things that fall under the socialism umbrella right?

None of us really advocate pure untouched survival of the fittest do we?


For the Left instead of being outraged every time the word is used can you just admit you don't think socialism is necessarily evil and that the US would be better if it were more like some of the European social democracies?



Link to comment
Share on other sites


Let's define our terms, shall we?


A Definition of Socialism

By Justin Quinn, About.com Guide



Definition: Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.


Socialism originally involved the replacement of private property with a market exchange, but history has proven this ineffective. socialism cannot prevent people from competing for what is scarce. Socialism as we know it today, most commonly refers to "market socialism," which involves individual market exchanges organized by collective planning.


People often confuse "socialism" with the concept of "communism." While the two ideologies share much in common -- in in fact communism encompasses socialism -- the primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems, whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems.


Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests. Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.

Pronunciation: soeshoolizim Also Known As: Bolshevism, Fabianism, Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, collective ownership, collectivism, communism, state ownerhsip Examples: “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

-- French historian and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville


“As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.”

-- author George Orwell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Story of Professors and other Collegians

Who Hobnob With Radicals



By Woodworth Ctum


Western Reserve University, 1900




Published by the




724 S. Spring St., LOS ANGELES












" W£NT no mere puttering reforms," writes Professor

Calhoun. "If the radicals will stick for ultimates and

confiscation, I'll stay with them. One of the things that


will hasten the revolution is to spread the notion that it can


come soon."


What do you think of that — you American mothers and

fathers who are sending your boys and girls to our American

colleges ?


How does it impress you business men who* own property ?


I know your first answer. You say that if Professor Cal-

houn really wrote such stuff — and really believes it — he should

be expelled from the college where he is teaching.


But if you were convinced that other professors, ex-pro-

fessors and college graduates, representative of leading educa-

tional institutions in America, are preaching much the same

doctrine, and are members of a society that has assumed lead-

ership in endeavoring to co-ordinate the campaign of the Rus-

sian Soviets, the I. W. W.'s, the Communists and practically

all the other extreme radicals in this country, — what would

you do about it?


Immediately following the general election in November,

1920, Associated Press news dispatches carried a story to the

effect, that in the faculty at Stanford University, four pro-

fessors had voted for Debs and three for the Farmer-Labor

ticket. A call issued for a meeting of the "Debs for Presi-

dent Club", on the campus at the University of California, is

reported to have brought out three hundred students. The

Socialist vote in California in 1916 was 43,259 and in 1920

approximately 70,000. In the nation the complete Socialist

vote in 1916 was 585,113 and in 1920 approximately

2,000,000. At least another million Socialist votes went to

the Farmer-Labor Party, the Non-Partisan League, and the

Socialist-Labor Party.


If such a program is actually being carried out, it is about

time for real, red-blooded Americans to wake up, — isn't it?


The bomb-throwing, bullet-shooting anarchist does not

worry me very much. It is the subtle, highly intellectual, pink




variety that is boring into the very heart of America. Such

tragedies as the explosion in Wall Street on last September

16th are horrible — monstrous, but they will never halt our

progress as a people. America will carry on, despite Czol-

golz, Tom Mooney, the McNamaras and their tribe. But

when I find a slow poison being secretly and successfully

injected into our body politic through the class rooms, I do

worry — and so should you.


I have kept rather close tab on the trend of radical thought

and action for the past few years, but when Professor A. W.

Calhoun's original letter to Professor Zeuch came into my pos-

'^- session, I was astounded. Calhoun, at the time was of the

faculty of Ohio State University, at Columbus. Zeuch was a

professor at the University of Minnesota. A photo-static copy

of the letter appears on the opposite page hereto. Bead it

carefully. Note the sinister emphasis, particularly where

Professor Calhoun says, "I wonder how many of his students

draw the 'necessary' conclusions?" He is referring to the

students of Professor N. S. B. Gras, also of the faculty of the

University of Minnesota.


The "Hayes" mentioned in Calhoun's letter is Professor

E. C. Hayes, of the University of Illinois, department of



Calhoun says "Grose saw Ross at Madison," and "Ross


had some hand in the game." He is discussing Professor E.


A. Ross, head of the department of sociology, University of


*1 Wisconsin, and editor of the American Journal of Sociology


(which has an extensive circulation among the colleges of this


A*^ country).


Do not overlook the significance of that last paragraph in

ft Calhoun's letter. Beals was a Congregational minister prior


to becoming a circulation agent for the "Bolshevist maga-


• »»




And now that some of the names have been identified for

you, — read that Calhoun letter over again. Does it not stir

something in your very soul? Am I right when I say there is

a job ahead for all of us who love America?


However, that Calhoun letter is merely the introduction to

this tale of pink professors, and their fellow-workers in the

effort to undo America.


For the rest of the story go HERE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was at Kent State, back in the couple of years after the infamous May 4th (I was visiting then with a friend, if you never read that story), I had run afoul in class of a few of these marxist, America-hating somebeeches. In fact, the day I was visiting

I was calmly countering the wild, hateful assertions against our country. Yeah, she got po'd at me, mostly because I got a

a huge amount of applause from most in the big class, and as she was about to kick me out of the class, a guy came in yelling

about the National Guard just murdered some kids)...


but even later. A few Hated our country, and everything about it. They railed against our military, used all the words

you used to hear from the likes of the leaders in the defunct Soviet Union...).


I got a D- on a paper that the Dean said "even if I was trying to be a dishonest somebeech, I couldn't give you less than a B-"


and another time, got kicked out of a class. All I did was calmly speak to one of his challenges to us, to explain why


he was not absolutely right, that our entire country sucked, blah blah.... so I did. I got a lot of applause, he got

po'd, and kicked me out of class for "disparaging and undermining his ability to teach the class".


But, I smiled and got up to leave. I got half way to the door, and noticed that in the lecture hall, more than half the class

was going to leave with me, ... LOL.


So, the prof announced that the class was dismissed, and we had great converations afterwards over in the student union.


After that, he stayed on topic - world history, and never ventured to do it again.


When I went in to talk to the Dean, she was immediately apologetic, talked about academic freedom blah blah.. .but that


he didn't have tenure, and I was about the 37th person that week she had met with about the same thing, same prof.


She hinted to him, that world history was a documented subject, and his opinions were not. And that, offending students


with un-documented opinion was not in his interest if he ever was to get tenured.


Oh, it's a vile and not rare occurence, this weird attack on the country that gives them a great living, a great career,

and great freedom.


Sick somebeeches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. We should define our terms more.


It would prevent the libs/progressives/statists/van jones fans from


quibbling over the defination of "is".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...