View Full Version : America is slowly turning Communist
olhamada
03-26-2010, 14:41
Don't believe me? Read Marx/Engels "The Communist Manifesto". I just did. Scary.
The thing that prompted this was the recent passage of the new healthcare bill by our Congress.
Last night I also read through Lenin's "The State and Revolution". It is his interpretation of Marx and Engels' Manifesto. It is bone chilling to read through his section on the transition from a capitalistic democracy to a communistic society - and realize that much of what he says is happening right here, right now.
The class struggle of the proletariat (wage laborers) against the bourgeoisie (employers/owners) as a "normal" stage in societal development that leads from capitalism to class equalization through state mandated taxation and redistribution of wealth to eventual destruction of independently owned small business and even large corporations to governmentally controlled production and provision of services describes where we are headed by continuing on our current path.
This push to grow government to moderate and oversee the class struggle, the push to increase the government's hold on more and more of our lives, the push to increase and progressively tax businesses and individuals to bring this about, the push to equalize the classes by being "fair and balanced", etc... - is a slide away from capitalism towards Marxism/Leninism/Communism.
That said, we need to and must take care of the poor. We must make healthcare, shelter, clothing, and adequate nutrition available to all. We must focus on job creation and allow individual productivity. We must re-establish a national unity and cohesion. We must limit corruption (can't completely avoid it as long as you are dealing with humans) and the taking advantage of the less advantaged for the benefit of corporate America/Wall Street. But there are other ways to do it aside from government mandates, government growth, taxation, equalization, religious discrimination and complete separation of church and state. Pure unadulterated capitalism is heartless and unjust. But the other extreme is even worse. There is a balance.
Another thing - I am sick to death of the whole partisanship thing. It is not a party issue. The Dems are just as bad as the Repubs who are just as bad as the Dems. Their focus is on power, money, and control - and not the Republic.
It is not a partisanship thing. It is a struggle for upholding the original constitution of these United States while preventing the dissolutive course on which we currently find ourselves.
Marx, Engels, and Lenin believed true freedom comes from complete equality through government mandates and control. In fact, Lenin says communism is true democracy - where the people (workers) are heard and politicians (employers/owners) are not. What do you believe?
One of my friends called me out and said I felt this way because I am a doctor. My response was, "It's not the fact that I'm a doctor that makes me feel this way. It's the fact that I'm a patriot."
Thanks for letting me rant.
This push to grow government to moderate and oversee the class struggle, the push to increase the government's hold on more and more of our lives, the push to increase and progressively tax businesses and individuals to bring this about, the push to equalize the classes by being "fair and balanced", etc... - is a slide away from capitalism towards Marxism/Leninism/Communism.IMO, your own analysis disproves your central thesis.
The current administration's efforts to propagate middle class (bourgeoisie) interests and values is more indicative of an attempt to subvert the working classes from their revolutionary mission.
Moreover, IMO you are neglecting the role violence plays in Marxist-Leninist ideology. To Marx, "class warfare" was not a rhetorical flourish but a necessary component of revolutionary change.
Finally, before someone argues that today's "progressive" is yesterday's socialist, and therefore a communist, I would point out that while communist ideology allows for temporary alliances of convenience with leftist political parties, it points out that such arrangements must ultimately serve the objectives of communism, and, that at all times.The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.*
My $0.02.
__________________________________________________ ___________
* Source is here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm).
Chris Cram
03-26-2010, 16:03
IMO, your own analysis disproves your central thesis.
The current administration's efforts to propagate middle class (bourgeoisie) interests and values is more indicative of an attempt to subvert the working classes from their revolutionary mission.
Moreover, IMO you are neglecting the role violence plays in Marxist-Leninist ideology. To Marx, "class warfare" was not a rhetorical flourish but a necessary component of revolutionary change.
Finally, before someone argues that today's "progressive" is yesterday's socialist, and therefore a communist, I would point out that while communist ideology allows for temporary alliances of convenience with leftist political parties, it points out that such arrangements must ultimately serve the objectives of communism, and, that at all times.
My $0.02.
__________________________________________________ ___________
* Source is here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm).
Are you suggesting that today’s Progressive is not yesterdays Progressive?
Perhaps it is clear to those who want the change that a revolution could only come in response to anarchy. But an evolution could be achieved via social change…
*Saul Alinsky; Rules for Radicals
*The Invisible Committee; The Coming Insurrection
Don't believe me? Read Marx/Engels "The Communist Manifesto". I just did. Scary.
The thing that prompted this was the recent passage of the new healthcare bill by our Congress.
Okay. Can I just ask a simple question before this hysteria that is being created, gets out of hand?
WTF are the American people who do NOT support this shit supposed to do? Give in? Bow down? Look for the "Beast" mark that is coming?
Am just asking because this thread was started obviously to provoke some kind of thought, right? Not to scare....?:munchin
Holly
olhamada
03-26-2010, 16:55
Yes, Holly - to provoke thought and to motivate action through fear and knowledge.
You know the analogy of the frog in boiling water, right? We're in the same kettle. People go along with small seemingly innocuous changes, and then before you know it, we're so far downstream before we start thinking, "How'd we ever get here"?
The scary thing is, people are arguing about rights (civil, to bear arms, free speech, healthcare, etc...) yet they are not watching what is happening. We are missing the forest for the trees. We are so distracted, that we are allowing the government to lead us down a road that we really don't want to go down without much objection.
They promise great and wondrous things, yet the methods being used are slowly taking away our liberty. Actually, we are giving it away. Once it's gone, it ain't coming back.
And it not just the Dems.....
olhamada
03-26-2010, 16:57
Moreover, IMO you are neglecting the role violence plays in Marxist-Leninist ideology. To Marx, "class warfare" was not a rhetorical flourish but a necessary component of revolutionary change.
I fear it's coming.....just a matter of time.
Yes, Holly - to provoke thought and to motivate action through fear and knowledge.
I hear your analogies. Olhamada.
Provoking thought, "an action through Fear? " Hmmm. Guess folks should think about historical refferences at this point, and who our most famous motivators were, using fear as a tactic. In all honesty, all I know is that tactic is bad...but seemingly, with todays sheeple, there is no alternitive...:rolleyes:
Holly-->Just wondering...Does anyone else see the end as a religous war between THE Christians and THE Muslims?:munchin
Holly
Utah Bob
03-26-2010, 17:49
Dammit! Commies in the wood pile again?
They're harder to get rid of than head lice. Where's my M1 and my Tailgunner Joe T-shirt?:munchin
olhamada
03-26-2010, 18:02
Dammit! Commies in the wood pile again?
They're harder to get rid of than head lice. Where's my M1 and my Tailgunner Joe T-shirt?:munchin
HA!!:D:D
Dammit! Commies in the wood pile again?
They're harder to get rid of than head lice. Where's my M1 and my Tailgunner Joe T-shirt?:munchin
Don't know where it ia Sir...But can I have one???? Pleeeeease??????:) Will wear it proudly!!!:lifter
Holly
Anybody who thinks America today is anywhere close to or heading towards the social-political structures we once called 'Communism' has no inkiling of what that so-called 'communism' (actually Marxist-Socialism as they never came close to Marx's vision of communism) was.
BTDT.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Anybody who thinks America today is anywhere close to or heading towards the social--political structures we once called 'Communism' has no inkiling of what that so-called 'communism' (actually Marxist-Socialism as they never came close to Marx's vision of communism) was.
BTDT.
Ah Richard, there you go thinking again. Hard to drum up hysteria if you are going with logic.
Yes having read everything from the Bible, the Koran, Marx to Mein Kampf, you can find parallels in anything, but reading it while remembering the context of the times they were written and conditions, the parallels weaken considerable. I would not want to make decisions on healthcare or education today based upon what Marx wrote.
IMHO, Progressive has taken on a lot of meanings lately -- but I like to consider the ideas of a Roosevelt progressive (as in Teddy) a welcome respite from the standard fodder of what we now call our left and right.
Me thinks it's getting close, and I need to start looking for the Indian Chick, who'll move up in the mountains with me, and have a herd of children.
Buck
armymom1228
03-26-2010, 20:57
Dammit! Commies in the wood pile again?
They're harder to get rid of than head lice. Where's my M1 and my Tailgunner Joe T-shirt?:munchin
You told me to sell the T-shirt on Ebay. Just set fire to the woodpile. :D
Listen to 'em snap, crackle and pop in the evening bonfire.
:munchin
AM
Don't believe me? Read Marx/Engels "The Communist Manifesto". I just did. Scary.
The thing that prompted this was the recent passage of the new healthcare bill by our Congress.
Last night I also read through Lenin's "The State and Revolution". It is his interpretation of Marx and Engels' Manifesto. It is bone chilling to read through his section on the transition from a capitalistic democracy to a communistic society - and realize that much of what he says is happening right here, right now.
The class struggle of the proletariat (wage laborers) against the bourgeoisie (employers/owners) as a "normal" stage in societal development that leads from capitalism to class equalization through state mandated taxation and redistribution of wealth to eventual destruction of independently owned small business and even large corporations to governmentally controlled production and provision of services describes where we are headed by continuing on our current path.
This push to grow government to moderate and oversee the class struggle, the push to increase the government's hold on more and more of our lives, the push to increase and progressively tax businesses and individuals to bring this about, the push to equalize the classes by being "fair and balanced", etc... - is a slide away from capitalism towards Marxism/Leninism/Communism.
That said, we need to and must take care of the poor. We must make healthcare, shelter, clothing, and adequate nutrition available to all. We must focus on job creation and allow individual productivity. We must re-establish a national unity and cohesion. We must limit corruption (can't completely avoid it as long as you are dealing with humans) and the taking advantage of the less advantaged for the benefit of corporate America/Wall Street. But there are other ways to do it aside from government mandates, government growth, taxation, equalization, religious discrimination and complete separation of church and state. Pure unadulterated capitalism is heartless and unjust. But the other extreme is even worse. There is a balance.
Another thing - I am sick to death of the whole partisanship thing. It is not a party issue. The Dems are just as bad as the Repubs who are just as bad as the Dems. Their focus is on power, money, and control - and not the Republic.
It is not a partisanship thing. It is a struggle for upholding the original constitution of these United States while preventing the dissolutive course on which we currently find ourselves.
Marx, Engels, and Lenin believed true freedom comes from complete equality through government mandates and control. In fact, Lenin says communism is true democracy - where the people (workers) are heard and politicians (employers/owners) are not. What do you believe?
One of my friends called me out and said I felt this way because I am a doctor. My response was, "It's not the fact that I'm a doctor that makes me feel this way. It's the fact that I'm a patriot."
We've all been (at least those who lived through the cold war) conditioned to call government control, Communism. It really doesn't matter what term someone wants to call it, never mind the time wasted debating what's Marxism, Communism, and Fascism. It's all collectivism, and anti-American.
Thanks for letting me rant.
We've all been (at least those who lived through the cold war) conditioned to call government control, Communism. It really doesn't matter what term someone wants to call it, never mind the time wasted debating what's Marxism, Communism, and Fascism. It's all collectivism, and anti-American. The fact is, every time this country is at war and economically unstable, we lose a little more of our freedom and the government gains more power. From FDR's new deal, LBJ's great society, and now the total takeover of health care. You said, It's a slow take over". Yes, it's called Fabian Socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
It's all collectivism, and anti-American. The fact is, every time this country is at war and economically unstable, we lose a little more of our freedom and the government gains more power. From FDR's new deal, LBJ's great society, and now the total takeover of health care. You said, It's a slow take over". Yes, it's called Fabian Socialism.
Wellllllll before Fabianism there were all these creeping little issues like (to name a few) judicial review, the Bank of the US, the Louisiana Purchase, creating a standing army, taxation, implied powers, etc. - IOW - it's a story that has been in the making since the founding of this nation...and will continue as long as the nation exists.
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight."
- The American President (1995)
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
olhamada
03-27-2010, 07:25
Anybody who thinks America today is anywhere close to or heading towards the social-political structures we once called 'Communism' has no inkiling of what that so-called 'communism' (actually Marxist-Socialism as they never came close to Marx's vision of communism) was.
BTDT.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Point taken. I never said we were close to becoming a Communist country. I said that we were slowly headed in that direction.
If you will, consider all the changes in our social and political structure over the past few years/decades, including those changes that have been passed and promoted in the past few months. Now read what Marx, Engels, and Lenin have to say about Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism, paying particular attention to Lenin's thoughts on the transitioning from a Capitalistic democracy to a Communistic society. There are some frightening resemblances to our current state.
Now draw a continuum with Capitalism on one end and Communisim on the other. In which direction are we moving? Towards a more capitalistic society? or towards a socialistic/communistic paradigm? I don't think anyone would say that we are becoming more capitalistic. Liberty is dying and whether or not America will ever become communistic isn't the point. We are certainly moving in that direction (away from Capitalism) and it has to stop.
The changes that we have undergone, and are undergoing, are leading us down that path. Expanded government, increased controls and regulation, redistribution of wealth, class struggle (entitlement and "equatibility"), governmental ownership of industry and production, the progressive increase in taxation to provide expanded governmental services, an environment unfreindly to small business, governmental takeover/regulation of the stock market, and on and on.......
Though they do have some good points regarding social fairness, corruption of government, governmental ties to banks and the stock market, inadequate representation in the halls of Congress, etc...., thier solution is simply unacceptable.
Now, just for giggles, compare their writings to those of Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, etc.... HUGE difference.
We have to halt and reverse this progression to save our union. Marx, Engles, and Lenin bellieved that what we are experiencing is a "normal" maturation of a society that will eventually end up in a communistic state as the working class rises up to overthrow the owner/employer class - with the help of the government, of course.
BTW, what does BTDT stand for?
Cheers! :-)
BTW, what does BTDT stand for?
Not Richard, but it commonly stands for Been There, Done That.
Masochist
03-27-2010, 11:52
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cuban-leader-applauds-US-apf-124808403.html?x=0&.v=1
Cuban leader applauds US health-care reform bill
Dubious endorsement? Cuban leader endorses US health care reform, says it's about time
Paul Haven, Associated Press Writer
Thursday March 25, 2010, 12:39 pm EDT
HAVANA (AP) -- It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.
Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.
"We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."
But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.
And he said it was remarkable that the most powerful country on earth took more than two centuries from its founding to approve something as basic as health benefits for all.
"It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence ... the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago," Castro wrote.
The longtime Cuban leader -- who ceded power to his brother Raul in 2008 -- has continued to pronounce his thoughts on world issues though frequent essays, titled "Reflections," which are published in state newspapers.
Cuba provides free health care and education to all its citizens, and heavily subsidizes food, housing, utilities and transportation, policies that have earned it global praise. The government has warned that some of those benefits are no longer sustainable given Cuba's ever-struggling economy, though it has so far not made major changes.
In recent speeches, Raul Castro has singled out medicine as an area where the government needs to be spending less, but he has not elaborated.
While Fidel Castro was initially positive about Obama, his essays have become increasingly hostile in recent months as relations between Cuba and the United States have soured. Washington has been increasingly alarmed by Cuba's treatment of political dissidents -- one of whom died in February after a long hunger strike.
Cuba was irate over the island's inclusion earlier this year on a list of countries Washington considers to be state sponsors of terrorism. Tensions have also risen following the arrest in December of a U.S. government contractor that Havana accuses of spying.
In Thursday's essay, Castro called Obama a "fanatic believer in capitalist imperialism" but also praised him as "unquestionably intelligent."
"I hope that the stupid things he sometimes says about Cuba don't cloud over that intelligence," he said.
Utah Bob
03-27-2010, 12:16
Don't know where it ia Sir...But can I have one???? Pleeeeease??????:) Will wear it proudly!!!:lifter
Holly
You might want to re-think that.:D
You might want to re-think that.:D
Yes Sir....:o:o
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight."
- The American President (1995)
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02
In this case, am in agreement with you Sir! It is one of the things that makes America great! ( And not in the past tense either)...IMVSHO, as long as there are those in the Country willing to fight to uphold its Constitution, whether civilian or our brave military, then we still are a great Nation!
And yes, I may be way off the mark here...just trying to keep the fight alive.:munchin
Holly
Team Sergeant
03-27-2010, 14:02
IMO, your own analysis disproves your central thesis.
The current administration's efforts to propagate middle class (bourgeoisie) interests and values is more indicative of an attempt to subvert the working classes from their revolutionary mission.
Moreover, IMO you are neglecting the role violence plays in Marxist-Leninist ideology. To Marx, "class warfare" was not a rhetorical flourish but a necessary component of revolutionary change.
Finally, before someone argues that today's "progressive" is yesterday's socialist, and therefore a communist, I would point out that while communist ideology allows for temporary alliances of convenience with leftist political parties, it points out that such arrangements must ultimately serve the objectives of communism, and, that at all times.
My $0.02.
__________________________________________________ ___________
* Source is here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm).
Historian,
Violence is not usually the first technique employed in a revolution. In this country, unlike 99% of the rest of the world's nations we have individuals with the capacity to effect change in any political situation. IMO the current administration is quite aware of this and unlike hugo chavez, will not do anything as drastic as overtly shutting down dissenting media centers or attempting to control segments of the internet.
That said this "health care bill" IMO is nothing more than government run healthcare (socialism) and a giant leap in the socialist direction. And we all know socialism is a stepping stone to communism/dictatorship. No one here is threatened by "healthcare", free individuals are up in arms over the current administration mandating how we spend our money, or impinging on our freedoms.
And while we're not yet "turning communist" we are quickly moving in a direction of pure socialism. What I see coming is not a revolution, but I see violence in our future, not as "revolutionary change" but defending what tens of thousands have paid for with their lives, Freedom, and Freedom of Choice.
And as you have thoughtfully pointed out "Finally, before someone argues that today's "progressive" is yesterday's socialist" I've already said just that Historian, except I did not add the caveat "and therefore a communist" because I don't believe that part to be true. You see IMO the current crop of extreme left "progressives" are nothing more than thumb-sucking, bed-wetting, cowards that have no spine and definitely do not possess the brutal nature required to be a "true" communist.
I've heard it said by others and it was well written, I will not fire the first shots, but make no mistake, when they are fired I will take my place, upfront, in defending the Constitution of the United States of America and all it stands for.....
TS
Entire post.TS--
With respect, while you and I disagree on specifics, I believe that we are in agreement that the current president and his political supporters want to change fundamentally American society and politics into configurations that run contrary to this nation's foundational values and that we both find loathsome.
Where you see creeping, incremental socialism, I see an inchoate opportunistic grab for power for its own sake. I think he is more influenced by Machiavelli than by Marx.
In my opinion, the president is a fraud of the worst sort. I think he deliberately cultivates an aura of ambiguity so that friend and foe alike will believe that he is this, that, or the other as long as it suits his own ambitions.
I strongly suspect that the president is goading his opposition into the types of debates as evidenced in this thread in order to 'divide and conquer.' He seeks to radicalize his opposition into militant/revolutionary rhetoric to keep his own supporters from listening to what we have to say.
So when I voice my disagreement with views that the current president is a socialist, a communist, or a fascist, I do so not simply as a matter of political theory or historical interpretation--and definitely not to antagonize members of this BB--but because I feel that when we resort to such labels, we are playing into his hands.
My $0.02.
You see IMO the current crop of extreme left "progressives" are nothing more than thumb-sucking, bed-wetting, cowards that have no spine and definitely do not possess the brutal nature required to be a "true" communist.
I've heard it said by others and it was well written, I will not fire the first shots, but make no mistake, when they are fired I will take my place, upfront, in defending the Constitution of the United States of America and all it stands for..... TS
Very well articulated Sir, in every way, shape and form!!! TS, you have compiled the thoughts of all that follow this logic! Can only hope that the "progressives" get their pants wet with fear, when they realize just who is at the "front of the line!" Kick some ass Sir!!!:lifter
( Oh and, I will be there with ya...to do what I can:mad:)
Holly
craigepo
03-27-2010, 15:46
You see IMO the current crop of extreme left "progressives" are nothing more than thumb-sucking, bed-wetting, cowards that have no spine and definitely do not possess the brutal nature required to be a "true" communist.
TS
TS's observation might be the problem.
I have no doubt that if Nikita Kruschev appeared, thumping a podium, espousing many of the present administration's views, our citizens might figure out what's going on. However, have those same views come out of the mouth of a decent-looking, articulate guy, and the folks think it's a great idea.
Given the situation, the present approach is much more effective, if in fact a person was wanting to absolutely change the American ideal.
A brutal nature can manifest itself in various ways. Predatory ideology. Thuggish long-time acquaintances. Exquisitely planned ambush vice rapid violence of action. Targeted killings (drone attacks). Sitting in a church for 20 years listening to vile racism without batting an eye.
The quiet ones will break you and not even care. The quiet ones are the ones in the back of the room, watching, thinking, plotting. They are calm, contemplative creatures that would kill you, given the chance. The quiet ones are the ones that attack you from the front while you're watching your back.
"More nuanced, less theatrical, more cunning, less concerned with repressive modes of control than with manipulative modes of consent." (John Pilger)
GratefulCitizen
03-28-2010, 14:39
A brutal nature can manifest itself in various ways. Predatory ideology. Thuggish long-time acquaintances. Exquisitely planned ambush vice rapid violence of action. Targeted killings (drone attacks). Sitting in a church for 20 years listening to vile racism without batting an eye.
The quiet ones will break you and not even care. The quiet ones are the ones in the back of the room, watching, thinking, plotting. They are calm, contemplative creatures that would kill you, given the chance. The quiet ones are the ones that attack you from the front while you're watching your back.
"More nuanced, less theatrical, more cunning, less concerned with repressive modes of control than with manipulative modes of consent." (John Pilger)
Don't see these politicians as that particular type of "brutal".
These guys are blow-hards.
That being said, they're still capable of nihilistic acts of rage.
(such as passing legislation which will get them thrown out of office...)
Like most narcissistic manipulators, they have 4 tricks, generally used in the same order:
1. Escalation: escalate the intensity and rhetoric / bluff.
-This is to intimidate the weak-minded.
2. Isolation/ostracization: try to use numbers or the appearance of numbers.
-This is just an attempt to coerce those who are overly responsive to social pressures.
3. Extortion: This is not a bluff.
-If you gave them power over something you valued, you're gonna get burned.
4. Martyrdom: They will do their best to cast themselves as victims in a last ditch attempt to manipulate and to recruit new "resources" to exploit.
-If you look closely during this phase, you'll notice the weakness in their expressions, voices, and words.
After that, they just recycle the tricks.
These methods are common to any pre-teen or teenager.
Those currently in power just never grew up.
Watch what they do, you'll see these 4 tricks recycled over and over.
Expatriate
03-29-2010, 13:37
Definitely heading towards socialist bureaucracy, not towards communism however.
A) The communist ideal is the complete absence of the State. They themselves don't seem to be overly sure how this works but a kind of woolly picture of helping the each others fellow man for no reward other than itself seems to be the general picture. The passing of this healthcare bill is hardly a 'passing away of the State'. Or indeed an attempt at seizing the means of production for the workers.
and
B) As has already been pointed out Communism implies some sort of violence of action, at least a coup d'etat or class warfare. This administration isn't really engaging in either - for starters it's highly arguable that the US doesn't really possess a rigid class system to struggle against in the first place (At least not in the same fold as Old World powers - the adage about the British being able to start a class system in an empty room seems to be unnervingly accurate)
Obama's agenda at its core would seem to be far more aimed at creating total dependence upon the government - creating a nation of bureaucrats - than creating a 'classless utopia' or 'worker's paradise'.
Communism is merely another yet to be realized theory - and the dust bin of History is full of them.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Peregrino
03-29-2010, 14:04
TS-- --------------- I strongly suspect that the president is goading his opposition into the types of debates as evidenced in this thread in order to 'divide and conquer.' He seeks to radicalize his opposition into militant/revolutionary rhetoric to keep his own supporters from listening to what we have to say.
So when I voice my disagreement with views that the current president is a socialist, a communist, or a fascist, I do so not simply as a matter of political theory or historical interpretation--and definitely not to antagonize members of this BB--but because I feel that when we resort to such labels, we are playing into his hands.
My $0.02.
"Historian" - There might be something to your argument we should all be considering. Ideas motivate and words mean things. Who's winning the "hearts and minds?" :munchin Mao 101 says "Create a climate for revolution". Phase One of a US sponsored insurgency = "Create a climate for revolution". Everybody says "set the stage". Now the question becomes "who gains and maintains the sympathy of the audience?" After all - they're the ones who will decide if the show was worth the money (sacrifice).
Peregrino
03-29-2010, 14:21
IMHO, Progressive has taken on a lot of meanings lately -- but I like to consider the ideas of a Roosevelt progressive (as in Teddy) a welcome respite from the standard fodder of what we now call our left and right.
Having read T Roosevelt's party platform, I'm not surprised at what today's "progressives" have evolved into. TR was a heroic figure (popular mythology) but I find his progressive politics repugnant. The Comisars would have approved of him.
GratefulCitizen
03-29-2010, 19:52
Just a thought...
In the war of ideas, the left is consistently choosing the battlefield.
There will be some shifting of power this fall, so why keep talking about the left's agenda (even to oppose it)?
An alternative would to ignore what they are talking about and start talking up what new things will be implemented after the elections.***
Discussing their agenda does nothing to change it.
It's time to put them into the past tense.
***
I'd be a big fan of eliminating all forms of federal withholding...and making taxes due on the first monday of every November.
Starting in 2012. :D
Definitely heading towards socialist bureaucracy, not towards communism however.
Right, not communism - statism, like what the French do. Use the state to achieve economic and social goals. Direct the economy to achieve social justice. UGH! It's kind of like fascism-lite.
Now, if you are/were a reader of Ayn Rand you would recall that centrally-controlled industries invite bureaucratic rot and eventually lead to civil unrest as govt chooses winners and losers.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Karl Marx
Every country has statism to some degree - public utilities, national defense, etc. Some really whacked out countries like Iran, China, Zimbabwe, etc. have deep statism with a large percentage of GDP coming from state-owned business.
Just a thought...
An alternative would to ignore what they are talking about and start talking up what new things will be implemented after the elections.***
Discussing their agenda does nothing to change it.
It's time to put them into the past tense.
That's a great point. You don't hear much positive coming out of conservatives just now (at least I don't). Maybe that is the way it is at this time in the election cycle. Aspiring candidates don't want to get their ideas out too early because the opposition will co-opt them or start campaigning again them?
Plus we won't have a national debate until 2011-12. Until then, it will be at the state level. Palin seems to be the only nationwide voice directly taking on Dems. If other conservatives don't get into the public arena this year, she will have a natural leader position in 2011.
I'd hate to see the Republicans eat their own rather than exploit opportunities in 2012.
...only the United States, the UK (who despite their larger social welfare state still pour proportionally about the same amount of their GDP into their naitonal defense as America does),... :confused:
According to the CIA Factbook, the US spends around 4.06% of its GDP on the military and the UK spends about 2.4% of its GDP on its military.
Whether or not it is a good idea, spending around 1.6%+ less of our GDP on the military would allow for a pretty significant amout of $$$ to be used elsewhere.
However, stuff like this wears on me:
Gates: F-35 Fighter Jet Cost, Schedule Woes 'Unacceptable'
Time, 26 Mar 2010
<snip>
While the nation was preoccupied waging two wars, the F-35 was lurking in the background, devouring dollars like there was no tomorrow. New data suggest that the program - the most costly in Pentagon history after the even more expensive F-22 fighter, which Gates killed - has been out of control. "Affordability," declared an internal Pentagon report critical of the F-35, "is no longer embraced as a core pillar." A too-ambitious design lashed to a too-ambitious schedule has driven up costs so fast and so high that even the Pentagon - long practiced at ignoring such mismanagement - couldn't stand it any longer.
It's a strange predicament for the modest jet that was supposed to be the cheap end of the military's high-low warplane mix of F-22s and F-35s. The Pentagon launched the F-35 Lightning II program a month after 9/11. Over the past eight years, the price-per-plane has doubled - from $69 million to as much as $135 million - even as none of the 2,443 on-order planes have been delivered. The program's cost has soared from $197 billion to as much as $329 billion. Plans to profit from prospective sales of more than 700 of the single-engine, single-seat fighters to eight allied nations are beginning to look like wishful thinking.
<snip>
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Are you suggesting that today’s Progressive is not yesterdays Progressive?Chris--
Yes. IMO many of those who call themselves "progressives" today have appropriated a movement that they do not appreciate. Many of today's "progressive" initiatives do not reflect the values of progressive reforms advocated during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Those values included a sense of collective social responsibility rooted in religious faith and practice, nationalism, and patriotism.
While in some instances, the progressives of yesteryear took some of these values to distasteful extremes (most notably Woodrow Wilson), it is hard to discount the fact that they loved their country and sought ways to bring America into the modern era without compromising America's core values.
MOO, today's progressive movement suffers from three ills. First, it has been appropriated by opportunists who care more about their own power than anything.* Second, too many "true believers" have accepted uncritically the interpretation that yesterday's progressive is synonymous with today's "liberal." This acceptance means that left of center progressives have forgotten that in its most effective form, the progressive movement transcended political, social, sectional, and racial lines.
Third, today's "progressives" have forgotten that while pacifism was an element of the initial movement, martialism (NOT militarism) was a much stronger component. Consequently, the progressive era (c. 1890-1920) was a period during which the army and the navy were reconfigured to be effective institutions with modern equipment led by professionals.
Today's self-described "progressive" has a slightly different vision for America's armed services.
My $0.02.
______________________________
* Some progressives are aware of this ongoing appropriation <<LINK (http://www.progressive.org/mag_reed0508)>> (notice the date of the editorial).
DJ Urbanovsky
04-17-2010, 08:23
Personally, I don't think we're seeing anything new, and I don't think it's about a particular flavor of politics. I think it's about the pillaging of the people by a small caste of well moneyed and privileged individuals who all know one another, and to whom the rest of us are merely disposable cash cows. And it all goes back further than America.
Allow me to quote our first Secretary of Defense James Forrestal: "These men are not incompetent or stupid. They are crafty and brilliant. Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor."
Politics is inherently divisive. And that is what these men want. Division. Because if we're busy bickering at one another, we're not paying attention to them, asking the hard questions, or working together. And we're remaining subservient rather than elevating ourselves. Need an example? Look at how often our mainstream media tosses out the race card lately. It's not about politics at all. It's about division.
Irishsquid
04-18-2010, 03:09
Edit: Nevermind.
If Obama was a Marxist, the bale out would have happened differently. We the people (proletariat) would have gotten a nice check rather than the investment bankers (bourgeois). Probably just the usual greed and corruption. Maybe we are heading to the mid 1800's laissez faire wage slavery life style.