by masoudA

Was listening to Glenn Beck on his national radio program today.   The talk was about America’s move towards socialism.   He is suggesting some “entity” that Obama is a part of!! is trying to drive America into communism.   Glenn Beck calls the entity as “Progressivism” –  acknowledging the well intensions and the fact that these truly seek progress……   But that is not the point of this thread- I just wanted to give you a bit of background…

A mature lady from an ex communist country from Eastern Europe called and made the most interesting comment about the well intensions and how things always end.   She called the socialists/communists as “Equalizers” – people who have the nobility to want to make sure all members of human societies end up as equals with equal rights.  

She said: The equalizers always fail to equalize themselves.  

For me this said it all – but at the same time I must say, us Iranians are having it even worst.   What the Islamists seek has no nobility – what they seek is neither equality nor progress of any kind. 

Disclaimer to IR staff - save your comments about Glenn Beck.    This is not about him.   If you wish to discuss him start a separate blog. 


Recently by masoudACommentsDate
Arab Spring
Nov 28, 2012
Sep 28, 2012
The Fool!!
Sep 25, 2012
more from masoudA
hamsade ghadimi

masoud jan

by hamsade ghadimi on

equity means fairness, justice and all the other good things that are defined under equality.  equality is equity in a 50/50 manner; hence, implying equal.  you're thinking about the equity in your home when you hear the word.  if i give a homeless a dollar, i am being equitable.  it doesn't mean that he'll be equal to me after receiving the dollar but he will be better off by a dollar. so if you were talking about all americans being equal as in living in the same exact house, having the same exact income, and having the same exact savings in their bank, then i misspoke.  otherwise, i think i'm talking about the same thing but with a more extensive vocabulary.

equity consideration in a democratic country is made by the people through their representatives.  therfore, a republican politician should pursue the what he thinks his constituents feel equitable.  same goes for the democrat, and independent. i hope you get my drift on the equity/equality dealio.


Communism vs Socialism

by capt_ayhab on

Many particularly in USA and mostly listener of personalities such as Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity use these two concepts interchangeably. In actuality however there are profound difference between Socialism and Communism.

communism is more of a  POLITICAL movement to abolish the [classes] where private ownership of property is abolished. Examples can be cited: China and EX Soviet block, where tyrannical central government dictates every single aspect of human life.


Socialism in the other hand is a ECONOMIC concept which centers on public or direct labor ownership/administration of the resources[mean of production]. Example that can be cited are Sweden and many of Scandinavian/European  countries.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization (usually in the form of economic planning ).

Socialism particularly Modern Socialism advocates selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies[i.e. in USA examples that can be cited: Social Security, Medicaid Medicare and various social programs], while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise

Karl Marx father of communism believed  that the only way to solve the problem Inequality is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie) to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions. 

But Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology.

Ref: "Communism". Columbia Encyclopedia. 2008.  



THanx for great contributions - all of you

by masoudA on

Dear Hamsayeh.   You are bringing into the converstation the concept of "Equity" which has nothing to do with Equality (I am sure U are aware) that was part6 of my discussion.  The question is: Are you saying Equity (Personal Worth) is something that is part of our human nature and shall never leave room for equality?  If so then I fully agree.   However as Kourosh said - where do we stop with the drive for equity? 

Kourosh jaan - I fully agree with you - but we do need to find a solution.   Of-course equilibrium is not even distribution of wealth, but a fair distribution to all.   But capitalists are correct when they push for smaller government.   Depending on how it is defined - A fair distribution of wealth may require a government bigger than the actual population.   The funds needed to monitor often leave little to be distributed - which has been the killer for all past attempts.   As for Capitalism - I think they can start moving towards sanity by puting a "Cap" on capitalism.   It will reduce (not eliminate) a lot of "Greed" related issues we face here in America. 



hamsade ghadimi


by hamsade ghadimi on

there are probably many educated people who actually agree with the conclusions of beck.  i'd like to think that they patronize the shows that include the georgetown republicans rather than listening to the 'shout in your face' personalities.  ages ago, i used to regularly listen to william f. buckley jr.'s show on pbs.  ideologically, he was the mentor to the reaganites with his compassionate conservatism.  even if i disagreed him, i found him likeable and his analyses thought-provoking.

therefore, i don't think that people who have a different concept of equity than me as necessarily less educated or having some kind of moral flaw.  but i prefer to argue the actual issues rather than participate in the name-calling routine and shouting matches that are the norm in some forums.

remember the 'moghol' movie in iran.  the advertisement was 'moghola oomadan, moghola oomadan' (mongolians are coming).  i never saw it but i heard that there were no mongols in the movie.  the movie was about the fear of mongolians and was not the action-packed movie that people preceived.  now we're dealing with the 'socialists are coming, socialists are coming.'


H. ghadimi

by KouroshS on

You are referring to the "simplify and repeat" concept right? what else could possibly make it more disgestable for the typical audience who may not be necessarily adequately-educated.

Maryam Hojjat

Kourosh S, Somehow I agree with you!

by Maryam Hojjat on

but in a capitalist sociaty at least you have freedom.

Maryam Hojjat

MasoudA, Thanks for your Blog!

by Maryam Hojjat on

I usually listen to Glen Beck daily.  I like his show and his logic not being a defender of socialists/communists since he proves them by reality around us & mathematical graphs of the economy.   I feel sorry for socialists / communists followers after what they have seen to happen to those communists country.

The Equalizers always fail to Equalize themselves! Such a great statement!


Yeah sure

by KouroshS on

With all due respect masoud A jan

A lot of people just keep on dreaming and want to "rethink" and Redo and replan everything on end, Just an excuse to cause a drag  without getting anything meaningful done. How much more "rethinking" does it take when companies in the private sectors are literally throwing out workers like bags of garbage and force them into facing the consequences of loss of their position?

It is said that socialism practically takes away your choices. in various areas in your life. Well fine. What is the point of having options when you can not afford either one of them? Where is the stability that a society needs in the world of capitalism?

Capitalism is as much a nasty and foundation-wrecking a disease as pure socialism if not worse.


hamsade ghadimi

equity whether under

by hamsade ghadimi on

equity whether under socialism, capitalism, anarchism, or a democracy is something all people value.  sense of equity may differ from one person to another; however, striving for equity will never be passe.  socialism is just another school of thought that focuses on the importance of equity.  the republicans in this country believe in equity just like the democrats.  i find it troubling when the right-wingers use words such as socialism, liberlaism, welfare, and progressive to be negative.  instead of addressing issues of fairness, they like to label people and then attack the label.

even if i agree with someone on what equitable means, i may not agree with him on the method to achieve it (e.g., communism).  to simplify these concepts a la beck may be more digestable for some, and at the same time, comical for others.  i read and commented on your piece because i formally use these concepts in my work and was sincerely wondering what the cryptic message of the radio caller meant to you.


Hamsade Ghadimi

by masoudA on

It's the old Orwellian "Animal Farms" concept of: All animals are equal, except for the ruling Pigs that are more equal!!   Yes you got it, the evil is in the implementation.   The fact is that after so many equilizers failing in so many different places in bringing progress or equilibrium!!  - some are still seeking socialism.   It appears to be a disease that has to be cured in every society for every other generation.   I am not against equilibrium - we just need to rethink what it is and how to get there. 

PS - your little wise-crack this not go un-noticed.  But what the hell at least you too the effort to read and respond to the point of the thread.   Thanx

hamsade ghadimi

what does "The equalizers

by hamsade ghadimi on

what does "The equalizers always fail to equalize themselves" mean?  you claim it said it all for you.  

does it mean those who come to power as "equalizers" don't lead by example?  or do they fail to make things equal?  do those who preach it (and don't become powerful) fail to lead by example or make an impact?  at any rate, i'm glad that you're learning something from glen beck and his followers.  would you just articulte it better so that we understand?  thanks :)



by masoudA on

So it did go over your head - and you could not help your urge to discredit the message because of the messenger, who wasn't even Beck!!....   Well at least you are not IR staff. 

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

This makes no sense

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

So we can't make fun of you for listening to Glenn Beck (Terms of Service).

You don't want us to make fun of Glenn Beck (you say this isn't about him).

You quote some random lady whose comment doesn't even apply to Iran.

I was waiting for some connection. Maybe I'm too IRI agent-y to get it.