Time to Rebrand the Democratic Party as Socialists

Where do we drive the line between Liberalism and Socialism?

Liberalism is an idealistic political philosophy born after the defeat of Napoleon, a philosophy of freedom, which epitomized individual liberty, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and free elections.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy and economic system that promotes egalitarianism -- a theory of economic equality. Modern socialism originated in the eighteenth century as a working-class economic and political movement that opposed private property and criticized the effects of industrialization on society. It is usually defined as “common ownership of the means of production.”

With the passage of time, liberalism evolved into a broader vision of an ideal society, a brilliant future that also included economic equality. After the American liberals crossed the threshold of economic equality, which is incompatible with individual liberty, there was no longer a principal difference between the two ideological vistas.

Indeed, it was the point of no return; and like a fall that cannot be stopped halfway, it signified the evolution of the fruitful coexistence of liberalism and socialism in this country into an inevitable merger of the two ideologies.

Winston Churchill insightfully described the divergence: “Socialism seeks to pull down the wealth; liberalism seeks to rise up poverty.”

Therefore we shall not be confused by the ideological taxonomy.

The implications of the de facto conversion of liberalism into socialism were profound; socialism acquired a pragmatic political cover that preserves its enduring appeal, found acceptance by the American Left, and was gradually incorporated into the policies of the Democratic Party. Henceforth, socialist principles, built on concepts originally advanced by liberals, became the guiding factors of the party’s economic and social programs.

Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, made a stunning validation of the ideological link between liberalism and socialism, and inadvertently acknowledged the inherently fraudulent nature of the American liberalism when he clairvoyantly asserted that

The American people would never vote for socialism,… [but] under the name of liberalism [nowadays rebranded as progressivism], the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day, America will be a socialist nation without even knowing how it happened.

The Democratic Party has been slowly accomplishing the amalgamation since the 1930s, dismantling American Judeo-Christian values and fomenting the ideological transformation of this country via public education, endorsement of socialist policies, proliferation of the welfare state and polarization of racial relations. The progression gained force with Franklin Roosevelt’s Economic Bill of Rights, which had its ideological roots in Russian Bolshevism.

Incidentally, this was a period of widespread infiltration of the U.S. government by communists, communist sympathizers, and NKVD (predecessor of KGB) agents, to the extent that by the1940s, to some erudite observers, the American government looked like an extension of the Kremlin. Overzealous NKVD agents, unable to contain their excitement, called FDR “the Kerensky of the American revolution,” to be replaced by Lenin.

Just as Norman Thomas predicted in 1927, the socialization of the Democratic Party progressed to the point that in 1944 this unimpeachable authority on American socialism announced his resignation:

I no longer need to run as a Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.

Socialism, a metamorphosis of liberalism, disguised in some corners as social justice, neoliberalism, and in others as progressive or “helper of the poor,” is now both the “basis” of the Democratic Party and the “source” of its moral decay.

During Obama's era, the waning of moral vigilance has empowered the Democratic Party to accelerate its ideological conversion into the socialists.

With the chief components of socialism firmly in place – a welfare state, high taxation and intrusive government regulations aimed at control over the health care, financial and energy sectors --  the Party was about to take the nation in a direction decidedly not in keeping with the course charted by the Founding Fathers.

Although the election of Donald Trump has put a hold on the socialization of the USA, the socialist mission has not ceased. The Democratic Party has embraced a strategy of fanatical resistance. The Democrats are no longer acting as a political party -- they are the socialist cause. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to recognize the Democratic Party for what it really is, and what it means for posterity.

Whether its policies are called liberal or progressive, or democratic, in terms of the issues and, especially in terms of tactics, the party became a plagiarizing scum of Lenin’s faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP), or Bolsheviks, which coincidently also had “democratic” in its party name. A commonality of the ideological vocabulary of the Democratic Party leadership with Marxism; visceral hatred of capitalism and seductive promises of miraculous fulfilment of egalitarian dreams leaves little doubt about the Party becoming the source and spirit of a Marxist awakening.

Illustration by Gonzo Overkill

Where do we drive the line between Liberalism and Socialism?

Liberalism is an idealistic political philosophy born after the defeat of Napoleon, a philosophy of freedom, which epitomized individual liberty, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and free elections.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy and economic system that promotes egalitarianism -- a theory of economic equality. Modern socialism originated in the eighteenth century as a working-class economic and political movement that opposed private property and criticized the effects of industrialization on society. It is usually defined as “common ownership of the means of production.”

With the passage of time, liberalism evolved into a broader vision of an ideal society, a brilliant future that also included economic equality. After the American liberals crossed the threshold of economic equality, which is incompatible with individual liberty, there was no longer a principal difference between the two ideological vistas.

Indeed, it was the point of no return; and like a fall that cannot be stopped halfway, it signified the evolution of the fruitful coexistence of liberalism and socialism in this country into an inevitable merger of the two ideologies.

Winston Churchill insightfully described the divergence: “Socialism seeks to pull down the wealth; liberalism seeks to rise up poverty.”

Therefore we shall not be confused by the ideological taxonomy.

The implications of the de facto conversion of liberalism into socialism were profound; socialism acquired a pragmatic political cover that preserves its enduring appeal, found acceptance by the American Left, and was gradually incorporated into the policies of the Democratic Party. Henceforth, socialist principles, built on concepts originally advanced by liberals, became the guiding factors of the party’s economic and social programs.

Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, made a stunning validation of the ideological link between liberalism and socialism, and inadvertently acknowledged the inherently fraudulent nature of the American liberalism when he clairvoyantly asserted that

The American people would never vote for socialism,… [but] under the name of liberalism [nowadays rebranded as progressivism], the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day, America will be a socialist nation without even knowing how it happened.

The Democratic Party has been slowly accomplishing the amalgamation since the 1930s, dismantling American Judeo-Christian values and fomenting the ideological transformation of this country via public education, endorsement of socialist policies, proliferation of the welfare state and polarization of racial relations. The progression gained force with Franklin Roosevelt’s Economic Bill of Rights, which had its ideological roots in Russian Bolshevism.

Incidentally, this was a period of widespread infiltration of the U.S. government by communists, communist sympathizers, and NKVD (predecessor of KGB) agents, to the extent that by the1940s, to some erudite observers, the American government looked like an extension of the Kremlin. Overzealous NKVD agents, unable to contain their excitement, called FDR “the Kerensky of the American revolution,” to be replaced by Lenin.

Just as Norman Thomas predicted in 1927, the socialization of the Democratic Party progressed to the point that in 1944 this unimpeachable authority on American socialism announced his resignation:

I no longer need to run as a Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.

Socialism, a metamorphosis of liberalism, disguised in some corners as social justice, neoliberalism, and in others as progressive or “helper of the poor,” is now both the “basis” of the Democratic Party and the “source” of its moral decay.

During Obama's era, the waning of moral vigilance has empowered the Democratic Party to accelerate its ideological conversion into the socialists.

With the chief components of socialism firmly in place – a welfare state, high taxation and intrusive government regulations aimed at control over the health care, financial and energy sectors --  the Party was about to take the nation in a direction decidedly not in keeping with the course charted by the Founding Fathers.

Although the election of Donald Trump has put a hold on the socialization of the USA, the socialist mission has not ceased. The Democratic Party has embraced a strategy of fanatical resistance. The Democrats are no longer acting as a political party -- they are the socialist cause. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to recognize the Democratic Party for what it really is, and what it means for posterity.

Whether its policies are called liberal or progressive, or democratic, in terms of the issues and, especially in terms of tactics, the party became a plagiarizing scum of Lenin’s faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP), or Bolsheviks, which coincidently also had “democratic” in its party name. A commonality of the ideological vocabulary of the Democratic Party leadership with Marxism; visceral hatred of capitalism and seductive promises of miraculous fulfilment of egalitarian dreams leaves little doubt about the Party becoming the source and spirit of a Marxist awakening.

Illustration by Gonzo Overkill