Communism

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still question RICO and asset forfeiture. There is due process yet, it stinks of state authority before a citizens right to property. Why aren't more CEO con artists charged under RICO? It is not applied equally.
 
Heres the feeding chain as I see it,

First ya got your average Democrat, then you got your facist, Nazi, Communist, and Stalinist.

Anyway you put it, the modern Democrat is simply Facist/Nazi/Communist/Stalinist lite. They all hate freedom, and they all hate this country. And every one of them that has betrayed this country in speech or deed ought to be tried for treason. There is no excuse for a public servant to do what the modern Democrats do.
 
I really think the continued use of this outdated term is particularly juvenile. I would suggest you leave this boogieman in the closet and talk about issues directly. Anything else is frankly dishonest.
Click to expand...
"Communism" as Marx presented it, is an "ideal type." It's not necessary that it has happened, but it can be useful as a measuring stick.
 
Mike Irwin,

A "Department of Education".
Socialized medicine and welfare programs.
Foreign "developement aid" etc.
The funding, support and participation in the "United Nations" and it's elements like the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.

That's just a start. Tangible enough?
 
Equidistant

I think that asking which political party is closer to communism is like asking which political party is closer to God? The answer is neither. One is not closer or further from being communist, one is simply either communist or not communist.
If one were to analytically weigh the potential for Democrats to become economic socialists/communists and Republicans to become
militaristic/totalitarian dictators, then I believe that they can both be viewed as being equidistant from potentially becoming communist. ;)
 
Last edited:
Handy,

As I said, what communism claims to do versus what ends up happening has always been quite different correct? So much so that I tend to suspcion the end result was the desired result and not just a freak occurrence. As I pointed out most of the "10 planks" have been adopted by parties here. Whether it is a coincidence or not and whether it is succeeding or not I can't say.
 
A "Department of Education"
Socialized medicine and welfare programs.
Foreign "developement aid" etc.
The funding, support and participation in the "United Nations" and it's elements like the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.


Uhm... You do realize that each of those was established by Democrats, and their largest champions are Democrats?

I guess I get it, though. In order to prove that the Republican party isn't communist, it has to completely dismantle all of those programs. Of course, doing so would immediately bring the Democratic party back into power in this country, and then you'd find out who the true communists are.

Tangible enough? No, not at all. You've daisy picked a few programs that are more strongly supported by Democrats than they are Republicans and developed no case for just how supporting one of those programs makes the Republican party the left-hand-man of Stalin.

So, I'm still waiting for on-point examples, coupled with rational arguments, that Republicans are, in fact, closer to communism than Democrats.
 
"From each according to his abilities..." - I think Republicans are on board for that.

"...to each according to his needs." - I think Democrats are on board for that.
 
Unique,

That's the party line, but what are you specifically talking about? I had thought Clinton was somewhat original in fielding a successful welfare to jobs program.


The Reps use the "self made man" mantra to support deregulation and "trickle down" economics - but those are just theories, and bad ones at that.



As Mike points out, neither party is busting down the door to get rid of all the social programs. If a party actually believed that something was worthless, cut the program, not just half the funding.
 
Handy - I'm being half humorous and generalizing.

I think it is going to be a while before we appreciate what a good president Clinton really was. There, I said it! He did do a good job of getting people off welfare and contributing more to the country and themselves. Unemployment rates, the national debt, and crime rates coming down simultaneously was a well integrated and most impressive achievement.
I HATED his stance on gun control, but nobody's perfect, just ask Monica. LOL
 
Quote:
If they don't succeed, what do they have to do with communism?

Huh? I didn't say if that was or was not succeeding(although in all honesty the concept is far from dead.) What difference does it make if they are successful or not? This would be the same as saying someone burned a cake and as a result did not achieve the desired outcome so the entire act of cake baking was never engaged in which makes no sense at all. Also, communism is supposed to spread wealth right? So why in every instance it has been tried the same basic end results? If you follow the instructions and get the same outcome every time it should make you wonder,
 
I think it's a little too easy to forget just how fragile capitalism was in its more pure form and how easy it had been for moneyed interests to exploit the masses to the point that led to the rise of the social welfare state in the first place along with the ICC federal regulation starting with Teddy Roosevelt. What used to be the domain of the church in the middle ages, to collect alms for the poor and the widowed, became impossible with the rise of the modern nationalistic state to the point of where now there is a separation of church and state with nothing but the state to fill in the vacuum of caring for the elderly and downtrodden. I don't think that this was ever a matter if ideology as much as it was a matter of practicality and necessity. If the modern "welfare state" is viewed from the perspective of enacting that which is necessary to protect the private ownership of property and the means of production, then whatever "sudsidization" that exists today can be viewed as essential to the preservation of "relative" liberty for all.
I can recall some mention of a convergence theory several decades ago going back to the rewriting of the Russian Constitution during the Gorbachev
era whereby there was claimed that as the west moved to the left and the Russians to the right, somewhere between the two systems would meet in a sort of equilibrium. Of course there are always those waves of resentment, the smaller waves of backlash, and the echo of the words of Bush senior proclaiming a new world order.
 
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Uhm... You do realize that each of those was established by Democrats, and their largest champions are Democrats?
Click to expand...
That really isn't the issue. Is the "republican"-controlled WH waiting for permission to de-establish these departments from the "democrats"? Is George W Bush waiting for permission from those who put us in the U.N. to pull us out? UNESCO? Is the "republican" majority in Congress waiting for permission to put a stop to the funding for all these programs in this country? That criminal enterprize called the U.N.?

I guess I get it, though. In order to prove that the Republican party isn't communist, it has to completely dismantle all of those programs. Of course, doing so would immediately bring the Democratic party back into power in this country, and then you'd find out who the true communists are.
Click to expand...
BS. By your reasoning we are to be held hostage by these people indefinately - because "to undo what they have done will bring them back". By your reasoning the Reich shouldn't have been challenged because it would only "bring them back".

That is the biggest croc I have heard so far this year. We are on the steady road of communism - the conclusion on the present course will be a form of fascism. The gap between taxation and controls in this country and europe is becoming more fractional by the month. People here wince at some of the things going on over there - but we really are not that far behind them and there is plenty more already coming down the pipeline for us. I can not fathom what you might be contemplating as to what will be the "right time" for a showdown with these people.

All these things have come about under a progressive agenda spanning many decades. These people are the masters of the progressive agenda, and they are not going to allow an incremental slide the other direction. If there was any time in the modern history of this country we need a showdown with these people, it is now. Not "after the next election", or the one after that.

We have all heard every excuse for George W Bush and his "wooing the hispanic vote" and how he did not want to jeopardize his "re-election". It has been a sham from the beginning.

So, I'm still waiting for on-point examples, coupled with rational arguments, that Republicans are, in fact, closer to communism than Democrats.
Click to expand...
This condescending nonsense might make sense to some people - perhaps some too young to know any better, or some of the geldings that can not see something radically wrong with the current picture and our ongoing path. In the face of what has been rammed down our throats since the 1960s - let alone WW2 - and continues unchecked by the party that is supposedly the antithesis of the "democratic" party, it is pitiful. I cited several examples that are as blatantly communistic as it gets. Social security is another, and I could go on listing more.

Then there is the fiscal aspect - the national debt, and the trade deficits. It is insanity to think that the tax burden is not going to increase under the strain of increased spending at home and overseas, and wages decrease with the growing flood of cheap labor coming in and the export of an increasing catalogue of work.

All in the name of global socialism, communism or whichever name you choose. The "republican" party supports this as surely as their twins in the "democratic" party.

You are trying to defend the indefensible. The whole thing is a show, and neither George W Bush nor the party are going to do a thing to reverse it.
 
Jason,

You posted a list of legislative action from the communist manifesto, as if that somehow proved a connection to any country that used similar legislation.

I was pointing out to you that the existance of similar laws, completely absent the same intended affects, demonstrates nothing.

The Soviet Union had a strong military doctrine. We have a strong military doctrine. Is that meaningful?


The US may have laws that communists would also adopt. So what? If the communist doctrine is there to distribute wealth and property - and it isn't happening here (the opposite, in fact), what do legislative similarities demonstrate?

Nothing.
 
I would like mention one issue, the growing of tobacco in the U.S. The quotas that the gov't sets for farmers to grow it haven't been lower for something like 100 years. The domestic farmers are being forced to take so much land out of production that there isn't enough domestic tobacco being grown to meet the manufacturer's needs. The result is that imported tobacco from 3rd world countries has had to be increased to make up the slack. Thus, the Republicans currently in control, are either playing a game of global socialism by redistributing what used to be American wealth globally, or simply opening the tobacco co.'s doors to untold amounts of cheaper tobacco, in price and quality. Whatever the reason, socialism or corporate greed, it's anti-American. Then they use the health issue of tobacco to justify it just as the state gov't's did when they all sued the tobacco co.'s pants off and are making every tobacco consumer pay for it, and now the farmers too, and every state and citizen that profits indirectly as well. Is the forced lowering of domestic production justifiable, and who benefits and why? I'm talking about choosing between survival for Americans or foreigners, it's just the tip of the iceberg of a similiar pattern in industry after industry, and it's doesn't have anything to do with a gov't handout, but rather what causes the need for a new gov't handout: to make up for the damage the gov't has caused to people who were previously productive. Virtually every industry in America has exported production to foreign soil to some degree, with the brunt of it going to "The People's Republic of China". :barf:
 
Handy,

If a recipe is being followed line by line I think it is a safe bet there is an intended outcome. Looking at this scientifically, the result of communism would appear to always to consolidate wealth and power in the hands of the few and to give small hand outs to the peasantry to keep them pacified. By your logic that communism is what it claims to be(versus what actually happens) everyone in Cuba has a net worth of $550 million since Fidel does. If I introduced the hypothesis that bringing water up to 212 degrees would make nice cool water you could drink with a straw while the water is rolling at the top and you try it and burn your mouth six times do you really think try #7 will produce a different result or would you consider my guess to be incorrect at least if not an outright lie?
 
I think it is going to be a while before we appreciate what a good president Clinton really was.
Click to expand...
Please don't include me in that "we". I already appreciate what a "good" President Bubba was. Before his hedonistic, narcissistic, pathologically lying, um... shall we say ample self showed up, the gun grabbing pinko Democrats had a death-grip on the House, the Senate, and even occasionally had a clown like Carter in as Prez.

Then Bubba came along, and the hilarity ensued. He put his unelected wife in charge of foisting upon the American people one of the largest tenants of socialism - socialized healthcare - and thanks to the fact that most people would rather belt-sand their own genitals with #40 grit than look at or listen to her, the whole boondoggle went down in flames. Puuuurrrfect!

His cult of personality was so strong that while his sycophants were worshipping him they failed to notice that we (the other we) snatched the House back, and made great strides toward securing the Senate for a very long time.

And sure, a person can acurately say that Bubba inspired terrorists - both within and without our borders - to constantly attack and embarass us, and that he twisted and warped our military with bizarre social experiments that hobbled our ability to defend ourselves, but in the final analysis he only showed our enemies that even 8 years of an America hating clown as President doesn't mean that we still won't kick ass and take names when enough becomes enough.

No, it won't take me years to appreciate the fact that Bubba sold out his socialist buddies in order to bathe himself in limelight from every quarter. Not at all. The very fact that he was willing to limit one of the Democrats most powerful bribes... um "entitlements" by adopting the conservative idea of welfare reform makes my happy as can be. The fact that he exposed (exposed hehe... I said exposed) the true nature of feminists and other assorted hypocrites by sexually harassing women - all while the feminists et al. sang his praises - is a delight I truly never thought I'd see in my lifetime.

So sure, he sent his minions forth from time to time to burn down churches, and to murder women and children in remote cabins, but hey, ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omlet right?

Thanks Bubba! ;)
 
Jason,

You might take note of all the other laws passed in the US that aren't in your list. The laws we have must be considered as part of a whole since they all interact.


Just because Marx thought some particular idea would be nifty for HIS program, that doesn't demonstrate that the idea only works for communism.


In any case, every item on your list you note as not happening - yet. So it seems that you feel we haven't passed ANY communist laws, but your crystal ball indicates we will? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top