I don't think even Beck knows what Beck is trying to say anymore
November 23, 2010 11:04 pm ET by Ned Resnikoff
What does Glenn Beck think communism is? His definition seems to change from month to month. That's why, for example, he could decide in July 2009 that Van Jones is a "communist-anarchist radical," and then, in March of this year, tell his audience that communism and anarchism are opposites. But as much as he's contradicted himself on the topic in the past, last night is probably the first time that he did so in under a minute.
The topic was the People's Republic of China. Here's how he opened the segment:
BECK: I want you to have conversations at the dinner table with your friends and family, because we're headed toward the system of government that China has. And you'll hear all the leaders, all around the world, China is the new model, right? China is the new model. It's great to see the sudden reverence that we have for China.
They are a communist country. Just like they were under Chairman Mao.
Stop for a moment. Take note. Beck is saying that China is every bit the communist nation that it was during the height of the Cold War. Got it? Good.
Here's some more of the transcript:
BECK: China is the same country today, except they don't call it communism anymore. They call it state capitalism. Well, are they capitalists? Well, yes. They're not -- they're not communists really because what is communism? Communism is state- controlled, state-owned, state-run. Nobody owns anything. So, that's not communism because now they let people make money. They let people own things. All right. But not entirely. So, it's not communism. Look it up in the dictionary.
Wait, wait, wait. What? Glenn! You just told us they were communists! Like, thirty seconds ago.
And if you're confused now, wait till you read the rest:
BECK: What is the -- what is the step between communism and capitalism? It's socialism. So, it's a socialist country, right? Now state -- state capitalism. It's capital "S." State capitalism, which is equal to the nation. It's not local. It will be -- one world government. State capitalism -- it's actually national socialism. Gee, who had national socialism? Who had -- hey, that's right. That's the government setting the pace of the economy using private companies to be the engine. Who had this system? That's right. National socialism, somebody had it. We should look that up. You have privately-owned companies -- you just have to do what the state says. In China, it's completely different because they have privately-owned companies who have to do what the state says.
Well, I know we wouldn't take national socialism because that was Germany. Germany had this. That is "National Socialism," it's the Nazi Party. So, if we wouldn't go for national, let's just capitalize the "S" in that way we don't freak anybody out, because we will say that, no, no, not national socialist, it's state. And everybody is freaked out by communism and it's not communism because you still get to own things. You just have to do what the state says. So, let's call it capitalism when actually it's national socialism - - let's call it state capitalism. And the world will feel so much better. Do you understand? This is what progressives do. They just change the words. Change the meaning, it's national socialism. It's what Hitler said could never be defeated. What are you hearing from people? You will never beat China.
Don't worry, there's a visual aid:
And they love him for it.
The most topical and relevant answer to Glen's question is not Hitler but George W Bush. Blackwater, Haliburton, etc....
Most economic organizations are not very democratic in a market driven society. If you then have political democracy subverted by the economic powers, the people running the show don't look much different from a board of directors or a politburo. A strong, democratic and transparent government is a necessary counterweight or check & balance.
Your text to link here...
No proof, no logical step, just a blatant statement of fact like everyone should know this... It's too bad he isn't a journalist because then he'd actually have to PROVE his "logic"...
Then again, he COULD be psychotic...
That literally mad me dizzy!!