Tell Congress to Oppose Any Tax Bill That Would Increase Taxes for Seniors! Take Action Now

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,258
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Communism

Message 21 of 104 (84 Views)
Read the opinion piece I posted. Thats pretty close. Its mostly a boogeyman..as was democracy to stalin. all contrived by the world military industrial complex.
So it begins.
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 22 of 104 (80 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:


The constitutional amendment process is the way to effect change. 

 


That argument begs the question..were any civil rights laws post womens sufferage constitutional because they werent amendments? See where you want to take this? In essence, what you are against is CULTURE CHANGE. see what "I" did there? I pointed out what you are doing. hey..accuse away..where do all your arguments lead to? By golly a feudal society of sorts, with a master class and an underclass..which is what happens without culture change..we dont want the south to lose its culture by merely passing laws do we? The alt right and its cohorts dont mind tossing middle class culture under the bus for that feudal society.

 

 Constitutional laws are a way to affect change also. have you forgotton the founders wanted a NATION OF LAWS? As you said to me on another post..."how do i know you are not making this up" . Liberal posters here provide all kinds of links to facts that debunk conservative/alt right opinion, yet conservative posters reply with opinions, alternative facts, sophistry, gaslighting, fallacial arguments, circular argument, hollow ideas and hollow words. Facts please.


I'm not sure what you are advocating - your point got lost in all the extraneous words.. I said that the constitutional amendment process is the way to change the constitution. But you seem to be challenging that.

 

If not the constitutional amendment process - how would you see the constitution being changed?


in this topic you have both asked for discussion and ducked it.

PNG

 


I have clearly dealt with the issue and "PNG" is all you got?? That is on a level with the childish "NCM".

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,383
Registered: ‎07-11-2013

Re: Communism

Message 23 of 104 (102 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:


The constitutional amendment process is the way to effect change. 

 


That argument begs the question..were any civil rights laws post womens sufferage constitutional because they werent amendments? See where you want to take this? In essence, what you are against is CULTURE CHANGE. see what "I" did there? I pointed out what you are doing. hey..accuse away..where do all your arguments lead to? By golly a feudal society of sorts, with a master class and an underclass..which is what happens without culture change..we dont want the south to lose its culture by merely passing laws do we? The alt right and its cohorts dont mind tossing middle class culture under the bus for that feudal society.

 

 Constitutional laws are a way to affect change also. have you forgotton the founders wanted a NATION OF LAWS? As you said to me on another post..."how do i know you are not making this up" . Liberal posters here provide all kinds of links to facts that debunk conservative/alt right opinion, yet conservative posters reply with opinions, alternative facts, sophistry, gaslighting, fallacial arguments, circular argument, hollow ideas and hollow words. Facts please.


I'm not sure what you are advocating - your point got lost in all the extraneous words.. I said that the constitutional amendment process is the way to change the constitution. But you seem to be challenging that.

 

If not the constitutional amendment process - how would you see the constitution being changed?


in this topic you have both asked for discussion and ducked it.

PNG

NCM

 

 

Have pity for Melania - she wakes up with a jerk every morning
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,258
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Communism

Message 24 of 104 (106 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:


The constitutional amendment process is the way to effect change. 

 


That argument begs the question..were any civil rights laws post womens sufferage constitutional because they werent amendments? See where you want to take this? In essence, what you are against is CULTURE CHANGE. see what "I" did there? I pointed out what you are doing. hey..accuse away..where do all your arguments lead to? By golly a feudal society of sorts, with a master class and an underclass..which is what happens without culture change..we dont want the south to lose its culture by merely passing laws do we? The alt right and its cohorts dont mind tossing middle class culture under the bus for that feudal society.

 

 Constitutional laws are a way to affect change also. have you forgotton the founders wanted a NATION OF LAWS? As you said to me on another post..."how do i know you are not making this up" . Liberal posters here provide all kinds of links to facts that debunk conservative/alt right opinion, yet conservative posters reply with opinions, alternative facts, sophistry, gaslighting, fallacial arguments, circular argument, hollow ideas and hollow words. Facts please.


I'm not sure what you are advocating - your point got lost in all the extraneous words.. I said that the constitutional amendment process is the way to change the constitution. But you seem to be challenging that.

 

If not the constitutional amendment process - how would you see the constitution being changed?


in this topic you have both asked for discussion and ducked it.

PNG

 

So it begins.
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 25 of 104 (98 Views)

Richva wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 

But, back to the basics - what do you think of Marx's vision of government? Is it desireable, is it practical?


True, we can elect Communists if we want - and the question is what sort of government do we want? As to wealth redistribution by the government - again, true, however is that the sort of government we want?

Marx thought government would fade away.  I doubt anyone believes that will ever happen no matter how anti-government they are.  I am not sure what YOU think Marx said about government but I have not seen anything in your posts. 

Then YOU haven't been reading MINE very well. That "fade away" aspect reflects the naivity and danger as illustrated by Stalin, etal.

 

Please define wealth redistribution.  Taxing those who have been the beneficiaries of our economic system and using it to build the infrastructure to help those who have not benefitted? Schools, lunch programs, roads, ....

It is simply the government deciding who is entitled to whose money. Read the posts about the 1%ers and Uberrich and you'll get a sense of the mindset I am referring to.

 

I miss your point about infrastructure for those who have not benefited. Roads are roads - what has "benefited" to do with that?


 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,568
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Communism

Message 26 of 104 (102 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

 

But, back to the basics - what do you think of Marx's vision of government? Is it desireable, is it practical?


True, we can elect Communists if we want - and the question is what sort of government do we want? As to wealth redistribution by the government - again, true, however is that the sort of government we want?

Marx thought government would fade away.  I doubt anyone believes that will ever happen no matter how anti-government they are.  I am not sure what YOU think Marx said about government but I have not seen anything in your posts. 

 

Please define wealth redistribution.  Taxing those who have been the beneficiaries of our economic system and using it to build the infrastructure to help those who have not benefitted? Schools, lunch programs, roads, ....

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 27 of 104 (93 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 


How is it an insult to point out (very accurately) that a poster  "continues to label  any cooperative economic effort as Marxism which wither shows a profound ignorance or a blatant disregard of the facts." ????


1) If you have to ask, you are suffering the maladies described in that post;

2) Do you have no interest in the topic beyond something to fight about?


Any one who continually labels any cooperative economic effort as Marxism or "neo-Marxism" truly does display either ignorance or a blatant disregard for facts. This is simply factual and if someone takes offense, so be it.

It is, by definition. As you may recall we had a topic about Mandragon. it was a totally freely organized coop that offered a Marxist economy - but not society.

 

As far as the topic:  Communism has the same end result as unbridled and unregulated capitalism - - - - - - - - a very small percentage of society ends up with 90% or more of the total wealth and income.

You are confusing Stalinist Communism with Marxist Communism. Is that intentional or simply a case of being uninformed?

 

What is with your apparent obsession with Marxism and Communism?

It is a powerful force in the world and has been for over a century and a half. Certainly at least as worth discussing alt-right which you define as "Read your posts".


 


Communism is just a boogeyman of the alt right. 
 
Message 1 of 1 (6 Views)

 

Yes indeed there was a stalinist threat. But I also believe Truman, with Democrats and republicans twisted the threat to extreme capitalist purposes. 

 

 

parts of the link, but i recomend reading all of it Smiley Happy

 

In the United States, Communism has become a bad word over the decades. Although public opinion is most likely slightly less polarized than during the years of the Cold War, there is still a quite prevalent fear among conservatives of Socialist authoritarianism.

https://progressivespring.com/2014/09/12/conservative-propaganda-communist-boogeyman-myth/

 

Pretty good opinion piece laying out Stalinists, Trotskyites, marx, and that great big boogeyman created by capitalism.

 

 

The standard conservative line of thought goes something like this:

1) The United States is not a Communist country because Communists, being fundamentally opposed to capitalist domination of the world economy over the long term course of societal evolution, cannot be patriotic Americans.

2) Any and all individuals who share any connection to Communist ideology are, therefore, opposed to the American system, and, thus, seek an abrupt end to the “greatness” that is (and has been since the universe was created by the God of the bible some 6000 years ago) the United States.

3) To preserve all that was good about the “glorious” America of the past, citizens must renew the capitalism of the past and reject any and all philosophies which seek to challenge the status quo.

4) Both Communism and Socialism are the exact same thing, therefore any effort at raising the status of the working classes (which falls more generally under the umbrella of Socialism as this stage comes before Communism in the Marxist paradigm) in the United States amounts to a direct challenge to the American way of life.

There are several criticisms to be leveled at this type of thinking:

1) Socialism and Communism, although similar, are by no means the same thing.

2) The ways in which Communism is portrayed by American conservatives represent a gross misrepresentation of the key differences between Communism in theory and Communism in practice.

3) Although some liberals do, indeed, embrace Socialist (and even Communist) thought, the majority still exist within the established American system and, therefore, would receive no immediate benefit from the destruction of said system.

4) Even if, hypothetically, all Democrats were hardcore Communists, there is a clear-cut limit to the amount of political change that can be forced onto a system within any finite period of time, therefore one can conclude that this fact would, indeed, amount to a near irrelevancy.

5) Historically, especially during the Cold War, Democrats like John F. Kennedy represented some of the harshest critics of Communism as it existed in the Soviet Union and other places around the world, because of this one can conclude that criticism of Communism stems much less from ideology in itself, but from geopolitical struggle............

...

Communist thought spans a huge area of ideological framework. In many ways the ideas of Socialism factor in quite well to this philosophy. When Karl Marx formulated his ideas on “class struggle” he sought to instigate a process of “continual revolution,” wherein the working classes would eventually take control of the system which they compose.

 

{Culture change anyone? progress? or MAGA?}

 

The “higher purpose” of ideology, therefore,  consists in the organization of societies. A related example would be the rise of Nazism in Germany in the years following the First World War (1914-1918). This movement sought to exemplify the propagandized virtue of “German-ness.”

In much the same way “American-ness” has been propagandized by those within the establishment who seek as their goal the exploitation of the populace. This idea has then been used by propagandists in the past to brand any and all individuals opposed to the statist paradigm as enemies of the state system.

 

Many of the political changes implemented during and after the Russian revolution were extremely beneficial to huge sectors of the populace. It is most definitely true, however, that the system in place under the Tsars could have been managed in much more efficient ways. The Soviet system that took its place quickly became the embodiment of the establishment.

This can be connected in many ways to any number of revolutionary movements throughout history. Once the revolution is over, the establishment must crush dissent from without and within.

 

Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) became, in many ways, the personification of the Soviet Union. To those in the United States he would also later be seen as the definition of Communism. In reality, Stalin betrayed the Communist ideal, and, thus, is easily more representative of extreme authoritarian practice. It is important to remember that the end goal of Communism is a stateless society, the Soviet Union under Stalin was far from that.<<<< {will the real marxist please stand up}

 

Many theistic conservatives make the somewhat erroneous contention that all things which are “evil” come from those lifestyles, like those of the atheist and agnostic which do not necessarily affirm the existence of God. Necessarily Communism, which tends toward atheism, falls into much the same category.

 

Socialism as a philosophy aims to create a society based on cooperative action. It exists as a means to wrestle control of the means of production from those who, in the capitalist system, own the working classes in one way or another. Necessarily there are many different forms of socialist thought that run the gambit from totalitarianism to anarchism.{ why real lefties can't get elected..infighting.}

 

 

Those (mainly poorly informed conservatives) who claim that all liberals, or, by extension, all Democrats, are de-facto Socialists seem to have missed the point entirely. Regardless of the political posturing that goes on in the public realm of pundits, it is clear that to a great extent both Republicans and Democrats are highly pro-establishment.

The establishment thrives off of the capitalist system and to that end neither party (especially not Republicans) wishes to remove it any time soon. To that end president Obama has little impetus or ability to impose an imaginary “socialist hellscape,” wherein all private property is confiscated and the mansions of the wealthy are reduced to burning piles of rubble.

 

On one side, conservatives like Rick Santorum claim that Barack Obama is a bourgeois elitist. On the other individuals like Glenn Beck claim that he is an agent of proletarian (and somehow simultaneously Fascist) revolution. Well, which is it?

 

Calling someone a Communist for advocating changes which are also favored by Communists is akin to branding an individual as a hedonist for enjoying a glass of wine every once in awhile. This is the type of criticism that the Obama administration has undergone during its tenure.

 

 

 but..but.. 


I have seen no one here callled a Communist - have you? 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 28 of 104 (96 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

gruffstuff wrote:

My point was that the Constitution does not address our economic system. Period.

 

No question about it, it does not.

 

Though I will say slavery is an example of a free market mentality, and slavery is in the Constitution.

 

I will also say we fought a war to correct that injustice, and amended the Constitution to correct the bad judgement and greed that allowed slavery.

 

Thank the wisdom of the founding fathers for allowing an amendment process, it's almost like they anticipated that conflict and tried to avoid it by freeing slaves on their deaths.

 

Still slavery was always wrong, the drive to reduce the cost of labor was to much,  even for the founding fathers.

 

 


True - the Constitution does not address the economy, only the freedom of the people. On the other hand Communism does address the economy in that the State controls it. 


The Constitution doesnt prevent us from electing communists, just totlitarians. As far as that goes, it doesnt prevent wealth redistribution to the poor  and working class either. 

 


True, we can elect Communists if we want - and the question is what sort of government do we want? As to wealth redistribution by the government - again, true, however is that the sort of government we want?

 

But, back to the basics - what do you think of Marx's vision of government? Is it desireable, is it practical?

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,258
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Communism

Message 29 of 104 (90 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 


How is it an insult to point out (very accurately) that a poster  "continues to label  any cooperative economic effort as Marxism which wither shows a profound ignorance or a blatant disregard of the facts." ????


1) If you have to ask, you are suffering the maladies described in that post;

2) Do you have no interest in the topic beyond something to fight about?


Any one who continually labels any cooperative economic effort as Marxism or "neo-Marxism" truly does display either ignorance or a blatant disregard for facts. This is simply factual and if someone takes offense, so be it.

It is, by definition. As you may recall we had a topic about Mandragon. it was a totally freely organized coop that offered a Marxist economy - but not society.

 

As far as the topic:  Communism has the same end result as unbridled and unregulated capitalism - - - - - - - - a very small percentage of society ends up with 90% or more of the total wealth and income.

You are confusing Stalinist Communism with Marxist Communism. Is that intentional or simply a case of being uninformed?

 

What is with your apparent obsession with Marxism and Communism?

It is a powerful force in the world and has been for over a century and a half. Certainly at least as worth discussing alt-right which you define as "Read your posts".


 


Communism is just a boogeyman of the alt right. 
 
Message 1 of 1 (6 Views)

 

Yes indeed there was a stalinist threat. But I also believe Truman, with Democrats and republicans twisted the threat to extreme capitalist purposes. 

 

 

parts of the link, but i recomend reading all of it Smiley Happy

 

In the United States, Communism has become a bad word over the decades. Although public opinion is most likely slightly less polarized than during the years of the Cold War, there is still a quite prevalent fear among conservatives of Socialist authoritarianism.

https://progressivespring.com/2014/09/12/conservative-propaganda-communist-boogeyman-myth/

 

Pretty good opinion piece laying out Stalinists, Trotskyites, marx, and that great big boogeyman created by capitalism.

 

 

The standard conservative line of thought goes something like this:

1) The United States is not a Communist country because Communists, being fundamentally opposed to capitalist domination of the world economy over the long term course of societal evolution, cannot be patriotic Americans.

2) Any and all individuals who share any connection to Communist ideology are, therefore, opposed to the American system, and, thus, seek an abrupt end to the “greatness” that is (and has been since the universe was created by the God of the bible some 6000 years ago) the United States.

3) To preserve all that was good about the “glorious” America of the past, citizens must renew the capitalism of the past and reject any and all philosophies which seek to challenge the status quo.

4) Both Communism and Socialism are the exact same thing, therefore any effort at raising the status of the working classes (which falls more generally under the umbrella of Socialism as this stage comes before Communism in the Marxist paradigm) in the United States amounts to a direct challenge to the American way of life.

There are several criticisms to be leveled at this type of thinking:

1) Socialism and Communism, although similar, are by no means the same thing.

2) The ways in which Communism is portrayed by American conservatives represent a gross misrepresentation of the key differences between Communism in theory and Communism in practice.

3) Although some liberals do, indeed, embrace Socialist (and even Communist) thought, the majority still exist within the established American system and, therefore, would receive no immediate benefit from the destruction of said system.

4) Even if, hypothetically, all Democrats were hardcore Communists, there is a clear-cut limit to the amount of political change that can be forced onto a system within any finite period of time, therefore one can conclude that this fact would, indeed, amount to a near irrelevancy.

5) Historically, especially during the Cold War, Democrats like John F. Kennedy represented some of the harshest critics of Communism as it existed in the Soviet Union and other places around the world, because of this one can conclude that criticism of Communism stems much less from ideology in itself, but from geopolitical struggle............

...

Communist thought spans a huge area of ideological framework. In many ways the ideas of Socialism factor in quite well to this philosophy. When Karl Marx formulated his ideas on “class struggle” he sought to instigate a process of “continual revolution,” wherein the working classes would eventually take control of the system which they compose.

 

{Culture change anyone? progress? or MAGA?}

 

The “higher purpose” of ideology, therefore,  consists in the organization of societies. A related example would be the rise of Nazism in Germany in the years following the First World War (1914-1918). This movement sought to exemplify the propagandized virtue of “German-ness.”

In much the same way “American-ness” has been propagandized by those within the establishment who seek as their goal the exploitation of the populace. This idea has then been used by propagandists in the past to brand any and all individuals opposed to the statist paradigm as enemies of the state system.

 

Many of the political changes implemented during and after the Russian revolution were extremely beneficial to huge sectors of the populace. It is most definitely true, however, that the system in place under the Tsars could have been managed in much more efficient ways. The Soviet system that took its place quickly became the embodiment of the establishment.

This can be connected in many ways to any number of revolutionary movements throughout history. Once the revolution is over, the establishment must crush dissent from without and within.

 

Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) became, in many ways, the personification of the Soviet Union. To those in the United States he would also later be seen as the definition of Communism. In reality, Stalin betrayed the Communist ideal, and, thus, is easily more representative of extreme authoritarian practice. It is important to remember that the end goal of Communism is a stateless society, the Soviet Union under Stalin was far from that.<<<< {will the real marxist please stand up}

 

Many theistic conservatives make the somewhat erroneous contention that all things which are “evil” come from those lifestyles, like those of the atheist and agnostic which do not necessarily affirm the existence of God. Necessarily Communism, which tends toward atheism, falls into much the same category.

 

Socialism as a philosophy aims to create a society based on cooperative action. It exists as a means to wrestle control of the means of production from those who, in the capitalist system, own the working classes in one way or another. Necessarily there are many different forms of socialist thought that run the gambit from totalitarianism to anarchism.{ why real lefties can't get elected..infighting.}

 

 

Those (mainly poorly informed conservatives) who claim that all liberals, or, by extension, all Democrats, are de-facto Socialists seem to have missed the point entirely. Regardless of the political posturing that goes on in the public realm of pundits, it is clear that to a great extent both Republicans and Democrats are highly pro-establishment.

The establishment thrives off of the capitalist system and to that end neither party (especially not Republicans) wishes to remove it any time soon. To that end president Obama has little impetus or ability to impose an imaginary “socialist hellscape,” wherein all private property is confiscated and the mansions of the wealthy are reduced to burning piles of rubble.

 

On one side, conservatives like Rick Santorum claim that Barack Obama is a bourgeois elitist. On the other individuals like Glenn Beck claim that he is an agent of proletarian (and somehow simultaneously Fascist) revolution. Well, which is it?

 

Calling someone a Communist for advocating changes which are also favored by Communists is akin to branding an individual as a hedonist for enjoying a glass of wine every once in awhile. This is the type of criticism that the Obama administration has undergone during its tenure.

 

 

 but..but.. 

So it begins.
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,258
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Communism

Message 30 of 104 (81 Views)
lol. or hitler.
So it begins.