Question:
Anti-socialism equals racism?
Mystine G
2009-08-20 03:45:19 UTC
These days, it is quite apparent that the media and others will call you a racist if you are against socialism. Well, in that case, I guess I am the most racist person alive.

Do you agree, disagree? Explain your answer. Best answer will be given to the person who puts the most thinking into his or her response.

I apologize if my question gets deleted. It might be, for being racist.
26 answers:
Boomer
2009-08-20 03:56:49 UTC
So they're implying that socialists have now become a race of their own, huh? That's interesting.



Well in that case, I'M ONE TOO!
Andrew W
2009-08-20 08:16:12 UTC
In the sense that socialism is internationalist, interested in bettering the lot of the poor worldwide and seeks to break down barriers between ethnic and cultural groups, so that we can unite as a class to bring down capitalism - then yes, to some extent.



However, not everyone who is against socialism is a conscious racist. Many people do not see that the cpaitalist system divides and rules workers, by separating us on the basis of race or religion, so that it is more difficult for us to fight back in a unified manner.



I would say that the far-right are consciously racist - but even then, not all supporters of far-right parties are racists - many see it as a protest vote, or believe the lies and propaganda of parties like the BNP, which always try to hide their true programme and deny that they are fascists or racists.



Not many people realise what true socialism actually means and confuse Marxism / socialism with Stalinism, food queues, the Five Year Plan - when in reality it would get rid of bureaucracy and put ordinary people in charge. They are not educated about what socialism is and how it could bring people together internationally, so I think it is wrong to call all anti-socialists racists, even though you do have a good point.
anonymous
2009-08-20 04:05:01 UTC
They Are Only Calling Us A Racist Because The Vast Majority Of Those Who Are Oppossed To This Socialism Move Are White, And Since There Is A Black Person In Office That Is The One Pushing The Issue.. We Must Be Racist If We Don't Follow The Leader... If That Is What They Will Call Us Then That Is What Our New Name Is... Maybe They Will Call Us That During The New Revolution.



Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, public or common worker (through cooperatives) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society, however, socialism itself is not a political system; it is instead an economic system distinct from capitalism.
anonymous
2009-08-20 04:00:49 UTC
I think this has changed over the last few weeks. Before when the majority of those against Oboner were non blacks, it was an easy call for supporters to use. Now with the presidents support failing among seniors and intelligent blacks it can't be used.



In reality, the current political environment and policies of our government have nothing to do with socialism, racism, nazis or communism. If it could be called anything it would be classism.



It's a question of affordability and entitlements of the working and wealthy paying for the disadvantaged. People have no problem paying for handicaped, elderly or children, but those that are capable or working and won't or are victims of their own poor decisions, or illegally in this country cannot be supported by those that reached a level of success where they are comfortable or even considered successful.
Jacob W
2009-08-20 04:01:46 UTC
Everything wrong with our current system is the direct result of government intervention over the last 40 years. The answer is not more of the same. The State-ists work this way. They impose new laws, regulations and taxation on businesses until they are completely bound hand and foot so they cannot overcome the obstacles they face, then the State-ists declare that Free Market Capitalism does not work and they have to take over.



We must stop this now or loose what little Liberty we have left. Freedom and Liberty at the levels we in America have traditionally enjoyed is the exception. No other people have ever had this level of freedom. But we are allowing it to slowly and steadily be undone by Socialists and Progressives who believe only they know what is best for everyone in every instance. As you may have notices, the extremist Democrats are so out of control now that they are actually defying the will of many of their own constituents. They have super majorities in both Houses yet are not even willing to compromise with members of their own party, let alone Republicans.



This is about as big a threat to our Constitutional rights as I have ever witnessed in my long and fruitful life. We stand at the crossroads of history. Do we stay with the road paved by our Forefathers and the blood of Patriots or do we take the road of Socialism?



It is that important.



*
Bubby
2009-08-20 12:39:41 UTC
If you call a gay Jewish man a Nazi, then you are a racist or a complete idiot on steroids. Or if you call Govt. run health care a Nazi program, you are ignorant. We already have Corporate welfare, ie. Too big to fail. It's about time the working poor gets a win.



Socialism is a society that provides commonwealth programs like Social Security or Medicare. Christianity is socialism, as they provide services to people who cannot afford it. Because capitalism does not care for disadvantaged people in society.



Anybody that works in America deserves free health-care, in my opinion. Anybody working and paying their taxes, in America, are funding the elders health-care and Social Security. If the workers get sick and cannot work, the old people's money and health-care will disappear.
anonymous
2016-05-25 09:32:25 UTC
What does this have to do with gays in the least? The numbers of republican gays are rising, so your point is mute. edit: The confederacy were a bunch of weak minded whiny p*ssies who got mad because they couldn't keep their slaves and didn't want to pay their taxes. Racism aside, why the hell is it important to respect a bunch of moronic people who tried to destroy this nation by seceding from it. Is it some sort of conservative sadism fantasy to secede whenever someone to "liberal" for you starts enforcing some socialist laws? The confederate flag and gay people have little or nothing to do with each other, Gays join liberal more often for their rights to marry, no bare assertion fallacies on your side are needed.
Space Cowboy the Anti-Fascist
2009-08-21 09:08:05 UTC
when a Lib doesn't have Facts and Truths or a Supporting Precedence to win a Debate then they turn to Name Calling , Finger Pointing , Confusing the Subject and Questioning the Intelligence of their Opponent .



to the confused Liberal , Socialism means , security in cradling themselves in the arms of Government .
anonymous
2009-08-20 03:52:57 UTC
I don't know about all that racism stuff, but I do know one thing.

If I were a black person in America, I would be embarrassed to no end with this First Black President in America. I bet they didn't expect to get a rampant socialist dick tater like this guy is. If I were a prominent black leader in America, I would be all over every tv and radio talk show, denouncing the fraud known as Obama. WHERE ARE THE REAL AMERICANS?



Bigger Government=smaller freedoms
wolf
2009-08-21 08:22:32 UTC
Anti-socialism must not be necessarily

racism.



But socialism is always anti-racism!





Socialism means just this:



LIFE OF JOE THE REPUBLICAN



Joe gets up at 6 am and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.



All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.



He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.



In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.



Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.



He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.



Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.



If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemploy ment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.



It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.



Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.



Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety st andards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.



He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.



The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.



He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.



Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".
anonymous
2009-08-20 04:00:07 UTC
Most people on Yahoo Q & A don't know the true meaning of socialism or racism.
america first
2009-08-20 04:01:11 UTC
That whole your a racist if you don't drool over obama has lost its sting!

I don't believe in Obama, I don't believe in socialized health care and I don't believe in cap & trade! So Bring on the racist remarks. way I see it, the more they call us a racist the more I know we are right and they are wrong!
anonymous
2009-08-20 04:36:54 UTC
The issue is not that being against socialism = racism. The issue is that calling this particular president socialist when that word was rarely if ever used against President Clinton during his healthcare reform attempt - or against George W when he started the whole "bail-out" process and was a HUGE spender - smacks of something very close to racism. It is called red-baiting.







Red-Baiting and Racism: Socialism as the New Black Bogeyman

By Tim Wise

Tuesday, Aug 18, 2009



Throughout the first six months of his administration, President Obama -- perhaps one of the most politically cautious leaders in contemporary history -- has been routinely portrayed as a radical by his opponents on the far-right. In particular, persons who have apparently never actually studied Marxism (or if they did, managed to somehow find therein support for such things as bailing out banks and elite corporations) contend that Obama is indeed a socialist. Reducing all government action other than warmaking to part of a larger socialist conspiracy, the right contends that health care reform is socialist, capping greenhouse gas emissions is socialist, even providing incentives for driving fuel efficient cars is socialist.



That the right insists upon Obama's radical-left credentials, even as they push an Obama=Hitler meme (something they apparently think is fair, since, after all the Nazis were National Socialists, albeit the kind who routinely murdered the genuine article) only speaks to the special brand of crazy currently in vogue among the nation's reactionary forces.



As real socialists laugh at these clumsily made broadsides, and as scholars of actual socialist theory try and explain the absurdity of the analogies being drawn by conservative commentators, a key point seems to have been missed, and it is this point that best explains what the red-baiting is actually about.



It is not, and please make note of it, about socialism. Or capitalism. Or economics at all, per se. After all, President Bush was among the most profligate government spenders in recent memory, yet few ever referred to him in terms as derisive as those being hurled at Obama. Even when President Clinton proposed health care reform, those who opposed his efforts, though vociferous in their critique, rarely trotted out the dreaded s-word as part of their arsenal. They prattled on about "big government," yes, but not socialism as such. Likewise, when Ronald Reagan helped craft the huge FICA tax hike in 1983, in a bipartisan attempt to save Social Security, few stalwart conservatives thought to call America's cowboy-in-chief a closet communist. And many of the loudest voices at the recent town hall meetings -- so many of which have been commandeered by angry minions ginned up by talk radio -- are elderly folk whose own health care is government-provided, and whose first homes were purchased several decades ago with FHA and VA loans, underwritten by the government, for that matter. Many of them no doubt reaped the benefits of the GI Bill, either directly or indirectly through their own parents.



It is not, in other words, a simple belief in smaller government or lower taxes that animates the near-hysterical cries from the right about wanting "their country back," from those who have presumably hijacked it: you know, those known lefties like Tim Geithner and Rahm Emanuel. No, what differentiates Obama from any of the other big spenders who have previously occupied the White House is principally one thing -- his color. And it is his color that makes the bandying about of the "socialist" label especially effective and dangerous as a linguistic trope. Indeed, I would suggest that at the present moment, socialism is little more than racist code for the longstanding white fear that black folks will steal from them, and covet everything they have. The fact that the fear may now be of a black president, and not just some random black burglar hardly changes the fact that it is fear nonetheless: a deep, abiding suspicion that African American folk can't wait to take whitey's stuff, as payback, as reparations, as a way to balance the historic scales of injustice that have so long tilted in our favor. In short, the current round of red-baiting is based on implicit (and perhaps even explicit) appeals to white racial resentment. It is Mau-Mauing in the truest sense of the term, and especially since Obama's father was from the former colonial Kenya! Unless this is understood, left-progressive responses to the tactic will likely fall flat. After all, pointing out the absurdity of calling Obama a socialist, given his real policy agenda, will mean little if the people issuing the charge were never using the term in the literal sense, but rather, as a symbol for something else entirely.



Read the rest of the article at the link below:
anonymous
2009-08-20 03:58:15 UTC
yes its always been that way for propaganda, Castro pulled that same card in Cuba when he first took power the facts: Cuba is 90% black and all of the top Communist leadership is white Spanish btw the dictator he toppled was half black so much for the racists in power thing
Tommy G
2009-08-20 03:50:12 UTC
Opposition = racism but it is a pack white people saying it.
yesctyr
2009-08-20 03:49:16 UTC
You know if we all wore helmets 24 hours a day we could save that one person per year(average) that is struck by an olive sized meteor and killed -where do you draw the line that enough is enough?
anonymous
2009-08-20 03:51:53 UTC
i have never heard of that, if ur anti socialism, that means that u wanna make the strong survive and crap and it doesnt matter about all the poor people which is hoot as **** cause its not their fault they are poor. socialism is equality not about race, but about economic status and stuff. the only thing is that poor people cant help being born poor.



actually, it seems to me that america isnt super socialist these days, if we were, then things would be a lot different and america wouldnt be such a capitalist country.
electricpole
2009-08-20 03:52:37 UTC
"Racism" has a history of being defined as whatever the Left decides it to be at the moment. A convenient spoiler to any argument counter to theirs. They brandish it indiscriminately like a weapon, to derail any and all disagreement to their agendas.

The word has become so diluted that actual racist and racist propaganda gets ignored in a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" fashion.
oldstyleman_2000
2009-08-20 03:52:28 UTC
Just what do you think socialism is. I'd wager the rest of my years pay that you do not have a clue. Only been told by the right wing talking heads that "socialism bad" "Obama socialist". How about this, crack a dictionary, learn what socialism is and then go find another reason to hate the president.
anonymous
2009-08-20 03:51:18 UTC
Yes some media pundits have already declared the word socialism to be the new "N" word. Those people should be ashamed for race baiting and stiring up racial tensions where they do not exist.
anonymous
2009-08-20 03:57:30 UTC
Yeah, just because a republican says heil Hitler, or N word, or says all blacks are on welfare. or call Obama the magic n word, or hate Hispanics. etc. etc.. And because their policies are anti minority, xenophobic etc etc.. doesn't make them racist. It makes them republicans.





@the person below me



Batista the dictator was white Hispanic. The people fought against Castro were white Cubans, look at the speech given by JFK when they returned. They supported the dictatorship because they were part of the status quo.
anonymous
2009-08-20 05:17:21 UTC
not every thing is racism some times it i just don't like you but because some one is different color they want to call it racism i don't care black,white,red,yellow if i don't like You them its not racism its i don't like you nothing more or less
Earl Hickey
2009-08-20 04:10:07 UTC
"You can't have capitalism without racism and you can't have racism without capitalism." -- Malcolm X



Socialism is government by the working class where the interests of people and society are paramount rather than the pursuit of profits by a wealthy elite. It is the working class struggle against the poverty and other evils inflicted upon them by capitalism.



The interests of the wealthy capitalist minority are diametrically opposite to those of the majority working class. The wealthy resolve this problem by dividing the working class in the age-old divide-and-rule attack.



The real division of society is class, not race, gender or religion. This can be easily understood as the capitalists make more as workers toil harder and longer for less and less, as good-paying jobs are "off-shored" to cheap-labor locations, as benefits are slashed or eliminated, as public funds are diverted to bank rescues and imperialist wars. The only way for a wealthy, capitalist minority to maintain power and promote their own financial pursuits is to divide the working class majority. This is done in a number of ways and racism is one of those ways.



Racism also provides an easy way to rally the public for imperialist war. We constantly heard right-wing propagandists railing against "towel heads" in the run up to the current war in the Middle East. There is a long history of such name calling and demonizing of foreign peoples as the ruling class beats the drum for imperialist conquest.



The fundamental social division is class, not race or gender

28 May 2009

World Socialist Web Site

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/pers-m28.shtml



Excerpt:



The American ruling class has gone further than any other in the world to suppress any public discussion of class. From the late 1940s on, the anti-communist witch-hunting associated with Senator Joseph McCarthy spearheaded a drive to effectively outlaw any public discussion of socialism, Marxism or the class divisions in American society.



In response to the social eruptions of the 1960s—the civil rights struggles and urban riots, the mass movement against the Vietnam War, and major struggles by the labor movement—the American bourgeoisie began to utilize identity politics to divide and confuse the mass opposition to its policies and block the emergence of the working class as an independent social force.



Black nationalism, “Chicano” nationalism, women’s liberation and gay liberation all emerged, to name only the most heavily promoted forms of identity politics. In each case, real social grievances of significant sections of the American population were divorced from their connection to the socio-economic foundation—the division of society between the relative handful of capitalist owners of the means of production, and the vast majority of the population who must sell their labor power to make a living.



The Democratic Party became the principal vehicle for peddling the politics of race and gender, recruiting a layer of black, female and Hispanic politicians who engage in populist demagogy that uses race and gender to counterfeit an orientation to the interests of the oppressed masses of American society. But Republican administrations have learned how to engage in such posturing as well.



For the past 12 years for instance, under two Democratic presidents and one Republican, the post of US Secretary of State has been occupied by, in succession, a white woman, a black man, a black woman, and a white woman. This exercise in “diversity” has not the slightest progressive significance. It has not democratized American foreign policy or made it one iota more conciliatory to the interests of the oppressed, either internationally or within the United States. Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton are all representatives, not of “blacks” or “women,” but of the most rapacious imperialist ruling class on the planet.



Barack Obama is the culmination of this process. Celebrated as the first African-American president, he has overseen the greatest handover of resources to the billionaires and Wall Street speculators in history. In the restructuring of the auto industry, with ever-escalating demands for cuts in jobs, pay and benefits for auto workers, he has set the stage for the greatest assault on the working class since the Reagan administration smashed the PATCO air traffic controllers strike in 1981 and gave the signal for a nationwide campaign of wage-cutting and union-busting. In this, Obama demonstrates that the class he serves, not the color of his skin or his social origins, is the decisive political factor.
?
2009-08-20 03:50:06 UTC
Being Anti Socialist means you don't like interacting with people, people might get offended or they might think you don't like them.



So it is not a good thing for you because it just makes people think that you don't like them or don't want to be with them so obviously they will get offended but may not let you know that they feel that way.
anonymous
2009-08-20 03:51:13 UTC
you havent a clue what socialism truly is and yes 100% of the posts are racist.
anonymous
2009-08-20 03:50:17 UTC
No it doesn't.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...