America is slowly turning Communist

[olhamada]

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.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by olhamada

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.

[Chris Cram]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

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

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Chris Cram

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>> (notice the date of the editorial).

[DJ Urbanovsky]

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.

[olhamada]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

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

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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?" 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).

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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!!!
( Oh and, I will be there with ya...to do what I can)

Holly

[craigepo]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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.

[Marina]

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]

Originally Posted by Marina

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.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by olhamada

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....?

Holly

[olhamada]

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.....