Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
11.23.09 - 12:46 PM
A Brief History of Socialist Plots to End the American Way of Life
Matt Wuerker has been POLITICO's editorial cartoonist and illustrator since their launch. In 2009, he was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in editorial cartooning.
Over the past 25 years, his work has appeared in publications ranging from The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times to Smithsonian and the Nation, among many others.
56 Comments so far
Show AllWhen I first saw this cartoon I was taken back. I am pretty sure that is intended to ridicule those who oppose a public health care plan… But when you look at each item listed, the truth of this series speaks volumes.
Public schools, great! Why do home schooled and private schooled kids consistently score higher than public schooled kids? Hmmm…Public schools are doing such a great job that the federal government has had to revise the standardized tests that measure their success. So much so that some universities are not even looking at SAT scores anymore…
Public Water Systems, Great! Not so much. While they may have started as municipal entities many water authorities are privately owned for profit companies. Water companies charge money to provide water. If you don’t pay they shut it off. Smells like capitalism.
Public highways, Cool! The infrastructure of this country is decaying beneath us. Across the country bridges and roads continuously fail safety inspections. Federal state and local governments continuously squander money intended for capital improvements. The highest quality and best maintained bridges and roads tend to be those that operate somewhat independent of tax dollars. These include Bridge Commissions (Delaware River Bridge Commission) and Toll Roads (Pennsylvania Turnpike).
Public Parks, that sounds awesome! Except the national park system is pretty much bankrupt. Anyone visit a national park lately? They don’t even have enough money to pay a ranger to stand in a booth to collect money. Many have resorted to honor system of payment. You slip your $3 into a steel lock box. That works well, even if only half the folks pay, you still make money…Maybe we can do the same for health care.
The artist has listed four examples public programs and apparently feels that they were and are successful ventures. This is ridiculous. We can look a few more if you would like…USPS…Bankrupt, Social Security…Bankrupt, Medicare and Medicaid…Bankrupt.
Please don’t misunderstand me; federal programs are not inherently bad…However given their track record (extremely poor) I am not sure how anyone can argue that a public take over of the health care in this country is a good idea.
Funny, but too bad ObamaCare is NOT public healthcare, but is instead a corporate giveaway wrapped in an authoritarian mandate forcing Americans to buy from the big insurance companies.
That looks about right to me; a clear progression from the late 1700s to today, leading us inexorably closer to the Socialism of the French Revolution that terrified civilized Europe and America when it occurred.
You forgot my favorite. The public library! Gasp!
The public library is also my favorite!
By definition, if justice isn't socialized it isn't justice.
THIS IS A WARNING TO ALL REAL AMERICANS
TAKE HEED!! Once again, America is threatened with doom from those evil socialists!
How, I wonder, did we ever survive public schools, water systems, highways and parks, anyway? Wasn't it so much better when we taught our own kids the right ways, dug our own wells, used our own private outhouses, and carved our own roads into town? Just look at what those government-imposed roads did to undermine the horse; it was such a better way for us all to get around, and it kept air pollution under control, too. And, can you imagine, these destroyers of our great way of life have even undermined our country by providing that evil Social Security and Medicare protection to seniors. Shouldn't our seniors have to make it on their own? Now they're retiring at 65 when they could still all be working, and refusing to just die when they get sick.
With life expectancy now around 77 instead of 62, when Social Security began, think of the cost of keeping those lazy spongers alive so long. No wonder we're nearly broke as a country! If we should ever come to treat health care as a common right for everyone, like they do everywhere else in the misguided socialized world, it will only get so much worse. I mean, can you imagine, what if we were able to stay healthy all through our lives, and all lived to 80, 85 or 90?
We all will certainly be doomed this time. Give me liberty or give me death! We must stand together and fight now, for the end is surely near.
You know, Condi Rice once called that discrepancy 'our nation's birth defect'. Probably the only insightful thing the woman ever said, but hey, even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while.
After fully internalizing the fact that these words were not penned with the WHOLE of humanity in mind, and realizing that both the D of I and the Constitution (and by writ, our govt.) were conceived at a time when information could travel only as fast as a horse or clippership, I came to the conclusion this country will continue it's grossly unjust path until these documents are rewritten and our government restructured.
I wager that, on a daily basis, members of this forum, such as the poster above, call for the overthrow of the American Republic, and their comments go unchallenged. I wager, also, that members of this forum daily call for the deaths of Republican leaders and talk radio hosts, and their comments go unchallenged.
You lose.
No comments go unchallenged. Especially ones filled with innuendo and trite cliches.
A Brief History of Corporate Plots to End the American Way of Life.
The Thirteen Colonies (just ask the Americans what happened to them when the Europeans founded those corporate colonies - Hell, the natives even had their name stolen).
A Brief History of the Corporate Plot to End the European Way of Life in the USA.
1) Corporate personhood
2) Gerrymandering
3) Propaganda funding becomes tax deductible as a corporate marketing expense
4) Specialization glorified to create a dependent populace.
5) Legalisation of political bribes
6) Legalisation of Ponzi schemes (Financial Innovation)
7) Total control of news media
That brings us to 2000.
The internet snuck in.
A Brief History of the Socialist Plot to End the Corporate Way of Life in the USA.
1) CommonDreams and other web sites tell the truth and mock and destroy corporate troll arguments.
2) We'll see...
Ah but you left out the best stuff, dear fellow.
The White House coup plot of 1933-34, organized by the Morgans, DuPonts and other wealthy industrialists, and foiled by war hero General Smedley Butler. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36409
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
And it's no secret that Prescott Bush and the Harrimans supported Nazi industries during the 30's and 40's through their banking activities. Mere opportunists, or sympathizers? This country has a long lived undercurrent of Fascism aka Corporatism among the 'owner class'.
END THE FED!
Considering the Public Option now being considered has absolutely nothing to do with the public welfare and bears no relation to all those other "public" things the cartoon points at, I smell a rat.
A single payer system was thrown out. That was the only public option. They are using another one of those Orwellian labels and having a food fight about it. Bullshit.
Or, for the more refined vocabulary types, disingenuos, mendacious propaganda.
The purpose here is to convince people who aren't socialists that the so-called Public option isn't socialist (Oh, they're right about that!) and convince socialists that we are going to get something mildly socialistic (Monstrous lie).
You can tell all of your right-wing friends (if you have any) that they are socialists if they use public roads, public safety officers or any other public services.
cos 1:04 ---------- What a pleasant quote.
the whole world is a socialist plot.
Yes, including Jesus and his followers. "Whenever two or more are gathered in my name, there you will find a socialist plot".
Bring America Back !!!!
****Mr Wuerker is a fabulous cartoonist, but his work and many Haloween costumes are copying a very famous painting which gave birth to that excruciating expression of anguish. The very famous painter was Edvard Munch and his work titled "The Scream".
****If Munch were here today, he just may want to do some litigating about his stolen intellectual property. Nobody seems to ever give him his proprietary credits for The Scream !!!!
****His works toured the USA, and the world, and I had the privilege of seeing the original "Scream" in person at the DC National Gallery of Art. Indeed, as I recall Munch had some inner demons which his painting depicted, and reflected well in that now well copied piece.
For you young whippersnappers out there, Edvard Munch would be a great Project Paper for you to do, or as a homework assignment for extra credit. How many times have we seen that halloween mask, that movie thriller mask, but not been told where it really came from !??????? Just google it and see what happens !
Oh wow, you have seen the original Scream how exciting for you. Thanks so much for the Art 101 bio of Mr. Munch. I am sure none of us would have recognized the origins had you not so pompously pointed it out to us.
Whatever, were Mr. Munch here today, I am sure he would be well aware that intellectual property law does not cover parody and even if it did, the painting would have entered public domain about 30 years ago, so the Scream can and will be used in any way the public sees fit.
So, Professor Pompenstein, unstuff your shirt, have a chuckle, and get on with your pseudo-intellectual life.
TruthKnoller, I appreciate what you are trying to do but sometimes you just make me want to scream!
****Well George, be my guest and SCREAM....like Kucinich did : WAKE UP AMERICA !!!
Me thinks you protest too much!
With the aid of big money, corporations and Republican conservatives, the media have turned socialism and liberalism into scare words in the US.
Jim Shea
Yes, when global communism and the international Jewish conspiracy and the homosexual plot to remake marriage into a degenerate act fail, there is always socialism.
That's like saying, "When lemons fail, when oranges wither, and when limes rot, there is always citrus."
Yes, of course you do.
?
Nice cartoon. The term "socialism" has been emptied of any meaning and transformed into a negative buzz word that few understand. When I loosely describe my politics as libertarian socialism (a form of anarchism) many people have absolutely no idea what that means and look at me like I am Satan or something. When I tell Christian people that Jesus was a socialist, they also look at me like I am the Devil. Just look up the term on Wiki, Encyclocpedia Britannica etc. and get at least a basic definition (and compare that with the teachings of Jesus). Although I am an atheist, I do believe in the teachings of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth (as well as others) as they are almost purely libertarian socialist in nature.
BTW: a great quick reference is www.politicalcompass.org
Similarly, the word "liberal" is almost always mis-used in the US. In political terms, a liberal is one who advocates minimal interference from the government in economic activities, "free trade" and a general laissez-faire approach to economic policy.
Well, i think that's too narrow a rendering of the meaning of "liberal". i'm not a professional social historian, but the word liberal has deep roots in a number of very important historical transformations.
Originally there were political liberals, who believed in such liberal doctrines as individual liberty and democratic election of leaders, as opposed to feudal serfdom and the divine rule of kings. Traced back typically to John Locke.
Then there were economic liberals, who indeed advocated economic liberty for individuals and businesses, measuring economic "success" not by treasure piled up for king and court, but by the ability of individuals to make their own way in the marketplace. Traced back typically to Adam Smith.
Neither Locke nor Smith foresaw the future success of the bourgeoisie in wielding liberal doctrine to reshape society as has occurred, nor the full flower of liberal ideology in colonialism and imperialism, nor did they foresee anything like the corporate system we have today. They saw their doctrines as advocating liberation from oppressive structure of their times.
Even further though, beyond the historic roots and history of political and economic liberalism, there have also been social liberals, who have advocated freedom from social restrictions on identity, sexuality, race, sex, gender, and other identities and differences exploited to divide and conquer and to oppress. There are numerous historic roots of social liberalism, and fruits in such liberal achievements as women's suffrage, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
And finally there is social welfare liberalism, advocating that a society that has achieved the benefits of political and economic liberalism, and with an eye toward social liberalism, should ensure that all members of the society have basic survival needs met. Social Security, public education, "providing for the general welfare" are tenets of social welfare liberalism. Social welfare liberal doctrine can clash with doctrines of economic liberalism, leading to vicious attacks by propagandists of the elite that the cartoon above refers to.
The caricature of "liberalism" used by the rabid right in the USA is largely based on demonization of social and social welfare liberalism, while ignoring the liberal political and economic foundations of the USA.
Many self-professed "liberals" in the USA have very limited understanding of the histories of liberalisms as such. The word is misused by almost everyone who ever uses it for any purpose.
When people in Latin America use their common term "neo-liberalism," the historical context of economic liberalism in the service of colonialism and the political oppression of Latin America is entirely missing for most hearers in the USA, but is immediately understood by Latin Americans.
All that said, i still believe much of the basic doctrine of Locke's political liberalism, Smith's economic liberalism, and certainly of social liberalism and certain understandings of social welfare liberalism, are all valid in historical context.
And despite the widespread misuse of the terms by almost all actors in US politics, it should also be understood that the demonization of liberalism by fascists, NAZIs, and regressive rightists of all stripes, is not to be simply laughed off or dismissed. When Mussolini proudly and explicitly asserted that fascism is anti-liberal and illiberal, he did understand many of these historical contexts. The right-wing demonization of liberalism is strategic.
The left-wing, i believe, should be careful when dismissing liberalism as nothing but a doctrine in the service of bourgeois elites and corporate rule, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is much about liberal doctrine that touches on genuine liberty.
And there is much more, from many angles, that can be said about liberalism...
But liberalism is historically rooted in the rise of the bourgoisie in European towns, right?
If we accept the somewhat un-american idea that various political parties should represent the various class interests, then the US working class has no specific political representation, with perhaps the exception of the Saunders/Kucinich wing of the Dems, but even they are not forthright reps of the working class.
Modern Liberalism is a doctrine best suited to the representation of the professional classes. Because those classes are haevily invested in the current system, their challenges to the powers that be are timid and generally overwhelmed when there is not a strong movement to the left of Liberalism.
It's no co-incidence that the Golden Age of Liberalism in America corresponded with massive social movements from Liberalism's left.
Liberalism is not worthless but it is a far cry from an ideology of the masses.
All true.
And the structure of the US political system is a liberal construct, designed for other purposes than representation of the working class.
And endlessly struggling to achieve political power in this system while restricting ourselves to electoral struggle is playing into this design.
So massive social movements, explicitly and proudly going beyond electoral politics, coming from an organized left, are essential for real progress.
And the vast majority of comments, even at Common Dreams, debate which electoral personality, party, or strategy is or is not worthwhile.
i'd love to see more commentary here about other projects, not just "revolutionary" projects but work people are doing to build direct democracy, economic democracy, workplace democracy, local economy, cooperative economics, unionism that breaks to the left of status-quo adversarial negotiations with a permanent corporate management to imagine organizing for worker control of economic enterprises, etc etc etc.
One effect of the widespread and multiple misuses of the word "liberal" in the USA is to make it harder to even have a conversation about politics, or political interests, or the structure of political systems, or strategies and options.
And we are in the midst of the greatest mess of crises in human history...
'One effect of the widespread and multiple misuses of the word "liberal" in the USA is to make it harder to even have a conversation about politics'
As you said, Locke and Smith viewed liberalism as an antidote to the various oppressions of that day. Well, modern elites co-opted the term so it can't be an antidote to the oppressions of today. Today liberalism means "might makes right", and "to the victor goes the spoils". So when people criticize liberalism today, they're almost surely not criticizing Locke's and Smith's liberalism. They're criticizing the modern elite thugs who co-opted the term and hijacked the society.
When certain people criticize liberalism, that's what they mean. Such criticisms are seen at Common Dreams, and are typically on target. "Liberal interventionism" which pretends the USA can spread democratization around the globe via well-chosen wars is skewered here, and justly so.
But in the mainstream, by far the standard and most common attack on "liberalism" - while not an attack on Locke or Smith - is from the distorted right, attacking imaginary demons, strategically marginalizing middle-class non-fascists, and confusing the dialog. Such as the distortions during the 2008 presidential campaign accusing Obama of being - gasp! - "the most liberal Senator".
Such smears of "liberalism" are far more typical than principled critiques of Kennan-style 20th century liberal imperialism, or of late 20th century neoliberalism. As i pointed out, most USAns couldn't give a cogent summary of neoliberalism if their lives depended on it.
"i'd love to see more commentary here about other projects, not just "revolutionary" projects but work people are doing to build direct democracy, economic democracy, workplace democracy, local economy, cooperative economics, unionism that breaks to the left of status-quo adversarial negotiations with a permanent corporate management to imagine organizing for worker control of economic enterprises, etc etc etc."
Yes! Magazine does that. I became a subscriber after reading their issue on a new economy:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-new-economy
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy
There's an interesting element of human nature that isn't discussed, though I'm sure it's well-understood in the school of Barnays psych-ops: Most people seem to have no interest in productive news such as reported in YES! Why not? My guess is an as yet uncategorized layer of societal malaise: People's curiosity about the progress of their peers is smashed along with the cooperative spirit itself, by the boot heel of competitive extremism.
at least the mythological Jesus was a socialist - whether a historical Jesus actually existed or not is still up for debate - I mean, a virgin birth?
Not only did Jesus of Nazareth preach socialism, but many of his first followers, after his death, set up a communist society in Jerusalem "sharing all things in common" (Acts of the Apostles). That community of faith found that ideally communism was the fulfillment of what Jesus taught, but realistically, because there were those among them who, even then, used the cover of Christian to enrich themselves, the experiment failed. Try telling that to the "christian" capitalist patriots.
Sorry, but you are at least partially wrong. The are Christian groups today that live in colonies and own all goods and property in common. They are called Hutterites and live mostly in South Dakota where there are approximately 60 colonies consisting of about 150 people per colony. There are also colonies in North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, and Canada. They have daily church services and are mostly in farming or raising livestock. Their system of socialism seems to have worked over the years. They immigrated to the U.S. from Europe in 1874 to escape persecution.
And they are racist to the core.
In my experience, Hutterites are universally kind, self-sufficient, industrious and respectful of all people. They are not racist.
AGG, you wrote: "And they (Hutterites) are racist to the core."
What evidence can you provide to support that assertion?
My research indicates that they are a spiritually centered community of self-effacing, altruistic pacifists who maintain a communal, low-tech agrarian society. An internet search produced no allegations that the Hutterites or others in the Anabaptist tradition (Amish, Mennonite) have ever expressed any form of racial superiority or hostility -- indeed, that would seem to run counter to their assiduous rejection of vanity.
Their gene pool has, over their 500-year history, apparently been rather narrowly limited to their European origins due, no doubt to two factors. First, they do not aggressively recruit membership from the surrounding community and secondly, the severity of their lifestyle holds little attraction to those not born and raised within its spiritual mores. Thus, they do not look like the United Nations and this might lead the uninformed to suspect they practice some sort of deliberate racial exclusion. Again, I have found no evidence of this.
I'll watch for your reply.
(I'm a non-denominational Christian, in fellowship with my Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Agnostic, etc., friends.)
God Bless.
I know nothing about these groups personally, except for one man who was a missionary student at the Canadian Prairie Bible Institute while I was at high school there in 1958. This guy spoke with a thick German accent and thought Hitler was a hero. He had swastikas & Nazi posters all over the walls of his room. He was a Mennonite from somewhere in the States. Strangely, the fundamentalist PBI never made him take the posters down or made any kind of issue out of it.
Those who most often use socialist or liberal deprecatingly also throw around the terms facist and nazi as insults. Empty terms for empty heads.
There are only 140,000 Christians in the US (aka Quakers). The other "believers" belong to some weird cult that excludes any/all of Christ's (and his Father's) teachings and commandments.
Thus speakith the fundamentalist. Christianity started out as a weird cult, you know. In fact, Christians and Jews were thought of as atheists by the majority of the Hellenistic world. They wanted tolerance, but have been very stingy with that commodity ever since they were given power. Fundamentalism reflects a lot of that intolerance, especially since it has become so politically active.
Forgive me if I have misread your comment. You give Quakers the distinction of being the only true Christians. In this you are almost correct. I'm coming from the standpoint of the agnostic, who has lost his faith in any Christianity.
Is there such a thing as a fundamentalist athiest? That I am. I have a lot of respect for Quakers as among so-called Christians, they alone seem to follow "religiously" the golden rule.
As a Quaker, thank you.
Industry should exist and prosper only at the pleasure of the citizenry ...not the otrher way around.
Corporations would sell you the air you breath if they could figure out a way to collect it and deny it to you otherwise
It's only good business, after all. You do gooders are always trying to bring morality into it. Oh, and we will figure out a way to sell the air, just give us time.
Shhh. Don't give them any ideas.
They are always selling alot of hot air.
Given Politico's role in promoting GOP points of view, I'm surprised they employ this guy.
Oh, yes. It should have been added under 1776: "General Welfare? Socialism!!" and 1776: "Our Posterity? Socialism!!"
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
socialism??
It's socialistic only when applied to everyone. Unfortunately, slaves, indentured servants and poor immigrants without land or wealth were not included. 'General welfare' applied to white, landed Protestants.
Exactly.