Ok Dems' do you want Communism or not?

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Justoneman
The Democrats keep going left and are now so far left I am suspecting they have crossed the line for moderate Dems if they exist on ATS. I continue thinking we all have to really stay neutral and watch so that one side doesn't sink too low.
removed bad link

I'm not sure that you understand the difference between communism and socialism.

socialism maintains the concept of personal property ownership, while communism removes it) and personal choice (socialism maintains personal choice in areas like education and religion, while communism removes it).
Source

I think that while you'll find that many Democrats advocate some form of socialism, very few advocate communism.

Oh I most certainly do and can teach the course. The leftist try to get away with ignoring the facts that don't fit their narrative which is one of the deceits being used against their targeted victims. Marx described socialism as a necessary step to achieve Communism. Socialism says take from A to give to B and that progresses as more as it changes to all in for communism. I recommend the movie Dr. Zhivago for a taste of what it was like transitioning to Communist USSR.

In HS and College, we studied and compared the types of gov. I was taught that Aristotle claimed the best gov was one with a selfless King. Selfless King's do not exist, therefore a Democratic style of gov is the best. The Romans expounded on it with the Republic to prevent mob rule. The OP covered that the D's are taking an approach similar to Red China.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Justoneman
The Democrats keep going left and are now so far left I am suspecting they have crossed the line for moderate Dems if they exist on ATS. I continue thinking we all have to really stay neutral and watch so that one side doesn't sink too low.
removed bad link

I'm not sure that you understand the difference between communism and socialism.

socialism maintains the concept of personal property ownership, while communism removes it) and personal choice (socialism maintains personal choice in areas like education and religion, while communism removes it).
Source

I think that while you'll find that many Democrats advocate some form of socialism, very few advocate communism.

Oh I most certainly do and can teach the course. The leftist try to get away with ignoring the facts that don't fit their narrative which is one of the deceits being used against their targeted victims. Marx described socialism as a necessary step to achieve Communism. Socialism says take from A to give to B and that progresses as more as it changes to all in for communism. I recommend the movie Dr. Zhivago for a taste of what it was like transitioning to Communist USSR.

In HS and College, we studied and compared the types of gov. I was taught that Aristotle claimed the best gov was one with a selfless King. Selfless King's do not exist, therefore a Democratic style of gov is the best. The Romans expounded on it with the Republic to prevent mob rule. The OP covered that the D's are taking an approach similar to Red China.

I dunno about the theory of socialism but...at least where I live it tends to work out more like...everybody pays for the things that most people use and benefit from. And the way it tends to work out is, say using healthcare. Everyone here can pay into the provincial medical system and be covered. Hospital visits, general practicioners and such are paid for by the medical plan. Specialists are free with referrals from another doctor. Dentists, elective surgeries and some other things are not covered. Private insurance and clinics are still available for those that wish to pay or can be provided by your employer.

I'm not saying it's a perfect system but how, for a small amount contributed by everyone, does this not allow the most freedom of choice for the most people? Those with money are still able to choose to pay for what they want, while those who have less money are able to get adequate care.

a reply to: Justoneman

Socialism seems to make sense in terms of a safety net for society. Beyond that is where the conflict starts. The entire one world thing starts with banking, not government. When you control the banks, you can control the government. You can lend money to your friends to buy any industry. The banking industry is already highly centralized worldwide.

As they take control of the individual countries they promise what the people want which is a free economy with the social safety net for insurance but instead put the country on the path to communism. Why have prosperity when you can have it all? Private property is illegal. It all goes to the bank.

People idealize systems they have never lived under. Stalin perfected the system. The violent Bolshevik method started WWII. Fascism was Europe's way to stop Communism. The plan to demoralize, destabilize, create incidents, etc. was slower. It is what we see today with all the social Marxism that started in the sixties.

Now the students from the sixties are running things. All the high schools and colleges teach communism under the flag of socialism. Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. He's a communist. Look up his history, he always has been. Voters can't tell the difference.

a reply to: toms54

The problem with socialism is that it's the camel's nose under the tent flap that brings on communism.

It sounds all nice to have some common or public goods that we all pay a little bit for so that everyone can benefit (or most everyone), but once you start, then the next vocal group comes along and says, "But see? You all pay for this and it doesn't cost you very much, really. Just a few dollars, and nearly all of you could also use this that we need ..." And before you know it, you are locked into a series of fights over what else should be socialized, and those "few dollars" her and there for this and that add up. People get poorer because their public outlay adds to more and more and they have less and less left over to pursue their own uncovered wants and needs.

Pretty soon, they find they can't afford something they truly need, and *they* are part of the next group fighting over the next socialized good which will chip away at the rest who are still standing alone.

This is why Margaret Thatcher was very wise when she said that the problem with socialism is that you always run out of other people's money.

It's not what anyone intends, but it is where it ends up because it's not a system about building people up. It's only about taking from everyone to hand out in a supposedly fair way. But when some never had to begin with and there is no provision for increased prosperity, it's doomed to be a system of diminishing returns from the start, and when people discover that they can vote themselves into their neighbors' pockets, they tend not to stop until the system collapses. It's always easier to take than to learn how to produce on your own.

This is why the system will never work so long as we have human nature.

The problem with even introducing socialism into the economy is that it can't be reversed.


Once entitlements start, they are next to impossible to eliminate.

So say we get a communist into the White House (again) and this time that person is more successful in implementing policy.


Once it's in place, the communists would want it to stay in place by guaranteeing that the next leader thinks the same way. That previous administration would have to weaponized government agencies and ignore the Constitution and rule of law to implement their ideological dictatorship.

Does any of this sound familiar yet?

what a stupid title to this thread, how can anyone take this seriously

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: toms54

The problem with socialism is that it's the camel's nose under the tent flap that brings on communism.

It sounds all nice to have some common or public goods that we all pay a little bit for so that everyone can benefit (or most everyone), but once you start, then the next vocal group comes along and says, "But see? You all pay for this and it doesn't cost you very much, really. Just a few dollars, and nearly all of you could also use this that we need ..." And before you know it, you are locked into a series of fights over what else should be socialized, and those "few dollars" her and there for this and that add up. People get poorer because their public outlay adds to more and more and they have less and less left over to pursue their own uncovered wants and needs.

Pretty soon, they find they can't afford something they truly need, and *they* are part of the next group fighting over the next socialized good which will chip away at the rest who are still standing alone.

This is why Margaret Thatcher was very wise when she said that the problem with socialism is that you always run out of other people's money.

It's not what anyone intends, but it is where it ends up because it's not a system about building people up. It's only about taking from everyone to hand out in a supposedly fair way. But when some never had to begin with and there is no provision for increased prosperity, it's doomed to be a system of diminishing returns from the start, and when people discover that they can vote themselves into their neighbors' pockets, they tend not to stop until the system collapses. It's always easier to take than to learn how to produce on your own.

This is why the system will never work so long as we have human nature.

Your description is the way the public sees it. It's along the lines of what is taught in school. If things worked that way they would be easier to control. Lenin from Russia started an organization called Comintern dedicated to bringing about world communism. They tried to establish a Communist party in every country around thee world. It wasn't entirely successful creating violent revolution worldwide but was very influential especially in Europe. It broke up with WWII but left different organizations in its' wake along with groups like the Frankfort school in Germany and all those communist parties. Russia still actively promoted communism until the end of the USSR.

Now it continues under its' own momentum. Here is part of an interview from someone that worked for the KGB. The full interview is also available and worth listening to. In this interview from 1984, Yuri Bezmenov articulates the method. This, not socialism, is the source of the new communist movement. Socialism is the disguise.

Why is anything but voluntary society even on the table?

a reply to: DBCowboy

If hypothetically you got a "communist" into the white house... it wouldn't be communism, because Communism is the abolishment of the State/Government, if anything it would be State-socialism, which is not communism

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Haha, your college professors have done a number on you guys!

They've so brainwashed you that you'll keep chasing that white whale, the mythical communism that can never, ever exist, but you'll keep right on chasing it anyway because they've got you convinced it's Utopia, and it really is -- No Place.

a reply to: ketsuko

No, I am not a Communist,

it seems those who talk about communism, but don't even get the ideology correct has been brainwashed by the American Red Scare, basic communist ideology calls for the abolishment of State/Government, and Classes (amongst other things) and the monetary systems.

when referencing "Communist Dictators" Yes, they were "Communist" but they ran a dictatorship, they used communist ideology to gain power,

Socialism is the transitional period between Capitalism and Communism, these dictators (whilst believing in the communist ideology) refused to give up power, refused to abolish the State, refused to abolish monetary systems, refused to hand over the means of production the workers etc) so, No, according to communist ideology it wasn't "Communism"

it was their dictatorships version of "authoritarian socialism"

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: DBCowboy

If hypothetically you got a "communist" into the white house... it wouldn't be communism, because Communism is the abolishment of the State/Government, if anything it would be State-socialism, which is not communism

Jesus Christ!

Can we cut the bullsh#t?

Your "ideal" communism doesn't exist outside of a f###ing classroom.

I'm talking real world, in-your-face typical communism that'll happen here.

a reply to: DBCowboy

1. I am NOT a communist

2. No type of communism will ever happen in the so-called USA, the thought that it will/would is just Americanised propaganda red scare tactics that both the rightists and leftists use

3. If we are going to talk about "communism" why not talk about the actual ideology and not some propaganda nonsense

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Cut the crap!

We all know what very hypothetical, only will ever exist on paper type of communism everyone likes to hold over ours heads when we say it will never, ever work.

Yes, we get it. If everyone all worked equally hard to produce the things society needed and it was all pooled and shared out equally ... yeah, nice story and all, but the fly in the ointment is human nature.

There will always, always be people who will want more and better than everyone else. There will always, always be those will work harder or just plain slack and let everyone else carry their dead weight. There will always, always be those who are either more or less able than the rest of us, etc.

So the only way to even approach that perfect system on any sense of scale is to have a class of people enforcing it, and that's where it all breaks down into the horror show we always, always see.

So to sit there and whine about your "no true communism," is like pointing at a grey horse and complaining that it's not really a unicorn. Of course it's not, and it's impossible for it ever to be.

This thread is painful. Starting right off the bat with the assertion that Dems have any connection with communism whatsoever.

They are corporatists all the way, just like their corrupt Rep brethren. Which can't be communist by definition.

And as someone else pointed out in this thread, money rules the world.
It's corporatism that you have to fear. Too bad so many of you are doing their fighting for them. They have trained you well.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you!

So many try to paint "real" communism as something wonderful and great and has never happened.


Those that push communism might as well own it that they want an authoritarian state. AKA Democrats.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Justoneman

What's the difference between Communism or Capitalism ?
The way I see it the rich get richer and the poor stay poorer under both systems.

Political systems and personal affiliation to those systems makes no sense if you are a member of the proletariat , Democracy only offers us the illusion of choice , there are no Democrats or Republicans only them or us.

Time for change.

There is an easy difference between capitalism and communism.

Under capitalism, improving your life is up to you.

Under communism, improving your life is up to your government.

There lies the ideological difference between conservatives and liberals.

Hope that helps...

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: DBCowboy

1. I am NOT a communist

2. No type of communism will ever happen in the so-called USA, the thought that it will/would is just Americanised propaganda red scare tactics that both the rightists and leftists use

3. If we are going to talk about "communism" why not talk about the actual ideology and not some propaganda nonsense

Part of a series on Marxism Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Theoretical works[show] Philosophy[show] Economics[show] Sociology[show] History[show] Aspects[show] Variants[show] People[show] Red flag II.svg Socialism portal Symbol-hammer-and-sickle.svg Communism portal Socrates.png Philosophy portal v t e "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Part of a series on Marxism Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Theoretical works[show] Philosophy[show] Economics[show] Sociology[show] History[show] Aspects[show] Variants[show] People[show] Red flag II.svg Socialism portal Symbol-hammer-and-sickle.svg Communism portal Socrates.png Philosophy portal v t e "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

BS, you champion that crap.

en.wikipedia.org...

Good luck to the basement dwellers.

Part of a series on Marxism Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Theoretical works[show] Philosophy[show] Economics[show] Sociology[show] History[show] Aspects[show] Variants[show] People[show] Red flag II.svg Socialism portal Symbol-hammer-and-sickle.svg Communism portal Socrates.png Philosophy portal v t e

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

ETA;

Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common within the socialist movement. For example, it was used by August Becker in 1844[5] and Louis Blanc in 1851.[6] The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Étienne-Gabriel Morelly,[7][8] who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society", including:[9]

wow, the edit didn't work well, it must be commie.

What's the difference between Communism or Capitalism ? The way I see it the rich get richer and the poor stay poorer under both systems.

They are both bad. America was great when it had a mixed economy, now its going too far towards oligarchy and fascism and we will probably be a full blown monarchy within 50 years with no rights or money for 90% of the people.