Barbara's Sharebook 

Some thots to revive and clarify the LEFT: Re-defining terms.

"PEACE" is such an amorphous term, used so loosely now, that it could mean almost anything. The Inquisition burned heretics in the name of "The Prince of PEACE". Every Xmas we get all these Peace, Peace, Peace cards. Every Xmas there's another WAR going on!

So I have decided instead to use the term, NO IMPERIALIST WAR! that makes it specific. Besides, while I do admire Pacifists and Quakers immensely, I am not all that non-violent in my views, as they are. I believe that indigenous peoples, for example, have a right to defend their lands, lives and communities either by non-violent means, or by arms. It is not for me to choose for them. I believe in the right of self-defense. I would not take away the right to defend themselves during invasion or occupation, for example, from Afghans or Iraqis. I would not take away the right of people to defend themselves any way they chose, from Hitler's Nazi stormtroopers, from Soviet Communist invaders, from British, French, Japanese, or any other Imperialists, including the United States. {My Dad, a civilian schoolteacher, was once caught in the crossfire of a 'Moro' uprising in the Phillipines, in the 1920's!}

People have the right to defend themselves; but NO-ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. That is why I will from now on, whenever possible, use the phrase "NO IMPERIALIST WAR" when others would use the wishy-washy, blah-nothing merely "feel-good" term covering anything and everything including masked aggression, "Peace".

The other loose term, "Social Justice", while fine in intent, actually MEANS, when you come RIGHT DOWN TO IT, it means SOCIALISM. Gasp! Because of propaganda, Americans have gotten all sorts of weird ideas about SOCIALISM. It is NOT A BAD THING! SOCIALISM and Social Justice, are terms that can be used for GOOD things interchangeably; but "SOCIALISM" expresses the REAL meaning, without euphemisms. {Besides, "Justice" is a term that here on Care2 has taken on some ambiguous meanings. Is it "Justice", or "revenge", to seek to punish someone in the same way that they hurt someone else? Some people here act like this is a proper thing; which is quite disturbing.}

SOCIALISM is not Communism; it is not Authoritarian or Totalitarian in its nature.

SOCIALISM is not Marxism; Socialism and Socialists existed before Marx wrote; and have continued to exist, after Marx wrote. {Marxists may be Socialists; but not all Socialists are Marxists.}

SOCIALISM merely means, that ALL HAVE A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO THE NECESSITIES OF SURVIVAL AS HUMAN BEINGS: TO FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER, MEDICINE AND MEDICAL CARE, and in today's society, TO AN EDUCATION.

ALL: all children, babies, the sick, the elderly, the handicapped, and the presently poor, homeless and unemployed. ALL. ALL have a RIGHT to the same basic necessities of life. Not ONLY the rich. ALL.

This has nothing to do with weird and obsolete 19th-century theories about "workers owning the means of production", etc. Nothing to do with theories of economics, arguments, ideologies, "predictions", theories of "history", etc. etc. etc. FORGET all that.

"Social Justice" implies that ALL have the ground floor of the BASIC NECESSITIES. Not that all have the "same things". People all have different perceived needs, wants and fancies! But you should NOT have a situation where John McCain can't even count the number of houses he owns; while millions sleep HOMELESS on the mean streets, in dangerous shelters, in Tent Cities -- including entire FAMILIES living this way. THAT is NOT "Social Justice". And REMEDYING that situation by building housing units for the poor, yes, that WOULD be SOCIALISM. Using Society's, and Nature's, resources for the benefit of ALL; NOT just for the few wealthy at the top.

I trust that Human Ingenuity COULD, if given half-a-chance, figure out how to bring this about. They already HAVE SOCIALIST measures, to one degree or another, in several countries of the world. You DON'T need a friggin' theory; that just stands in the way of practicality! Yes, Universal Health Care for All, in America, such as they have had for decades in ALL OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD; Yes, that would be SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. {You'd have to get rid of the Corporations to get there, the HMOs, etc.}

The CHIEF ENEMY of both SOCIALISM, and of the American People, {and of the entire PLANET}, is the huge and totally VILE and EVIL, Military-Industrial-Prison-Advertising Complex.

Jesus if he were living today, would be a SOCIALIST.

Imported from external blog