# How Progressivism, Socialism, and Communisim all share a common bond:  Collectivism



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

As a political and economic system, socialism is government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods, the control of money, and the abolition of profit and private property. These ideas also describe communism and progressivism.

Socialism originated at the end of the 18th century in several "social studies." The studies evaded the Enlightenment's giant strides in providing jobs and raising the standard of living of hundreds of thousands who had been far worse off before the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

In the 1840s, the term communism was coined to describe a militant form of socialism. Marx and Engels used the word in the title of their work, The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848. Later both Marx and Engels referred to themselves as socialists, and Marx's work remains the basis of socialist thought.

In 1878, a schism split communists from socialists. The socialists advocated "gradualism," the idea that capitalist society could be changed by reform from within. The communists advocated the violent overthrow of government. It was only a matter of methodology. They remained glued together by their fundamental ideas.

Progressivism started sometime after the Civil War as an attempt to help poor people through self-help programs operated by private charities. Progressives usurped the effort. They, too, evaded the advances achieved by the Industrial Revolution.

As early as the 1890s, progressives elected politicians who promised to take over utilities, improve city services and tenement housing codes. Other states joined in. By 1903 a wide range of progressive political and economic ideas were adopted to regulate railroads and utilities. They pressured government to raise corporate taxes. They advocated workmen's compensation---paid for by businesses---and child labor laws, which denied income to the very poor.

In 1906 progressives passed the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act. In 1913 progressives established the Federal Reserve. In 1914, they established the Federal Trade Commission and the Anti-Trust Act, extending government regulation of business. In 1916, they again raised corporate taxes, organized a railroad commission to set rates and established a conservation commission.

World War I interrupted the progressive's juggernaut lumbering toward total government control of the economy. However, it was resumed with the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, although now referred to as the welfare state. Another name, the same ideas.

The sameness of these doctrines, which many people believe represent different points of view, arises from a single source.

There are only two ways to regard man's relationship to society: either he has the right to live for his own sake, or he must live for others. Whichever principle you espouse places you in one or the other of opposing camps.

If you accept the principle that man has the right to live for his own sake, you are an individualist. If you believe that man must live for others, you are a collectivist.

If man has the right to live for his own sake, then that right must be protected and so, the initiation of physical force must be outlawed. In such a society no one's rights may be violated with impunity; so, government has only one job: to protect individual rights domestically by means of the courts and the police, and by means of the military in matters of foreign aggression. Individualism limits government.

In a society in which rights are protected and from which the initiation of physical force is banned, men are free to trade value for value as they choose, working at what they choose, disposing of their earnings and property as they see fit, enjoying their life as they like. This is capitalism, the economic system in which all property is privately owned.

Our constitution explicitly states the individual's right to life, property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Enumerated, too, are freedoms that follow from individual rights---such as, for example, the freedom to peaceably assemble, the freedom to petition the government to redress wrongs, the freedom to keep and bear arms, and so forth.

If you believe that man must live for others, government becomes your ruler. There is no alternative. A large group seeking to plan and execute some plan requires by its nature a leader, or leadership. In a nation of people who believe man should live for others, the government becomes that leader simply by claiming that it represents everyone in the group.

But the government is a group of men. If you believe you must live for others, it is that group of men that will tell you what to do, how to do it and when to do it. It is that group of men that will regulate and control every aspect of your life, from hopscotch to hospital.

Progressivism, socialism, communism are all expressions of collectivism. But collectivism as repeatedly shown in countless examples throughout history cannot work. So, necessarily, the collectivist seeks an accommodation. He is willing to allow vestiges of capitalism, not too much but enough to keep the leaders in shoes and jets to fly to their vacation spots. All else is controlled and regulated by government, which is what we have today: A "mixed economy."

No matter how you describe him politically, Mr. Obama is a collectivist. It doesn't matter whether you say he's a socialist, a progressive or a communist. It all adds up to collectivism. It all adds up to---like it or not, accept it or not---everyone being forced to live for others.

The question is: why should men live for others when they can better live their own life? They "should," according to collectivists, because it gives collectivists power over men's actions, which is what all forms of collectivism are about.

So, if you wonder about those who seek power over other men, it's instructive to recognize that all collectivist doctrines depend on the values that the able create.

Consider, for instance, the slogans of both socialism and communism. Socialists declare, "From each according to his ability; to each according to work performed." Communists declare, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

Notice "from each." Who are they? They are the men of ability. If you're one, you might want to think about whether you want to be an individualist or a collectivist when you cast your next vote.


----------



## Luissa (Jan 25, 2010)

Why are you guys obsessed with words that end in "ism"?
And China had a form of socialism long before the 18 century, when your country has only 10% farmable land, the Warlord system doesn't really work out too well for the peasant.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 25, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Why are you guys obsessed with words that end in "ism"?
> And China had a form of socialism long before the 18 century, when your country has only 10% farmable land, the Warlord system doesn't really work out too well for the peasant.



yes, I love a good prism.


----------



## Luissa (Jan 25, 2010)

I guess we should let people put poor beef out there, not monitor work envirnments, and God forbid we help the little guy. And PS just because Marx called himself a socialist, doesn't mean he was one.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Why are you guys obsessed with words that end in "ism"?
> And China had a form of socialism long before the 18 century, when your country has only 10% farmable land, the Warlord system doesn't really work out too well for the peasant.



Not all Isms are bad.  For example federalism.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

Luissa said:


> I guess we should let people put poor beef out there, not monitor work envirnments, and God forbid we help the little guy. And PS just because Marx called himself a socialist, doesn't mean he was one.



and you though I was going off the deep end   

Chill sweety....i wasn't going there in the post please dont project others opinions onto mine, which is similar to the one in the op.

Feel free to criticize ANYTHING I said in it and I will debate that criticizm with you.

EDIT:  Yeah you were relevant considering the meat act in the article i posted.


----------



## Luissa (Jan 25, 2010)

You are some against big government, you included meat inspection in you OP. Where were you trying to go with it?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

Luissa said:


> You are some against big government, you included meat inspection in you OP. Where were you trying to go with it?



Considering that act is used as an example I should probably not have given you grief on that, sorry .

The intent of the thread was to show people why many connect progressives, socialists, and communists together and lumped them as one group. The similarities are greater than the differences and they are all based on collectivism.   

The US, a constitutional republic, was founded on idividualism and federalism.  (more isms )


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 25, 2010)

i knew it, pilgrim is a woman.







i also wanted to applaud sylvia for including the -ism schism in her piece. for shizzm!


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 25, 2010)

I'm against communism, socialism and collectivism.
They always fail.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> I'm against communism, socialism and collectivism.
> They always fail.



The ideals behind those ideas are good.  Its just in practice those forms of government always end up in the people who live under said governments getting screwed over.

If you could really run a true communist government that would be great for everyone, but power always corrupts and we saw what happens first hand in the soviet union last century.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 25, 2010)

I am for individualism, including all the responsibilities that come with it, in order to enjoy the freedom that it entails.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> I am for individualism, including all the responsibilities that come with it, in order to enjoy the freedom that it entails.



I love my country's constitutionalism, idividualism, and federalism (as in the federalist papers).


----------



## Ragnar (Jan 25, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > I'm against communism, socialism and collectivism.
> ...



I disagree with your ideal*ism*. But I do agree very much with almost everything else you said. I'm an individualist of the "radical" variety myself. (laissez-faire capitalist)

I do take issue with the idea that WWI interupted progressivism, if anything W. Wilson's presidentcy was as close to fascism as we likely will ever see in America. Otherwise, right on!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

Ragnar said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



Thanks man.  Its healthy to disagree with some stuff.   Like I said in my opinion communism at its purest of intentions is a good form of government, its just that you can't translate those intentions into reality without human nature getting in the way.

Therefore we are left with the one great forum of government, OURS.  

Americanism, Constitutionalism, Republicism (no not republicans read THE REPUBLIC), Individualism, Federalism, capitalism....my list of good isms is growing


----------



## Bill O'Olberman (Jan 25, 2010)

Yeah down with anything collectivist. Wait, isnt Christianity a belief set thats supposed to be rooted in altruism/collectivism?


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 25, 2010)

Bill O'Olberman said:


> Yeah down with anything collectivist. Wait, isnt Christianity a belief set thats supposed to be rooted in altruism/collectivism?



and it is not a form of government, at least at the moment.
deflection fails


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 25, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > I am for individualism, including all the responsibilities that come with it, in order to enjoy the freedom that it entails.
> ...



Marxists criticize this use of the term "collectivism," on the grounds that all societies are based on class interests and therefore all societies could be considered "collectivist." Even the liberal ideal of the free individual is seen from a Marxist perspective as a smokescreen for the collective interests of the capitalist class. Social anarchists argue that "individualism" is a front for the interests of the upper class. As anarchist Emma Goldman wrote:

    'rugged individualism'... is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by the [ruling] classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit ... That corrupt and perverse 'individualism' is the straitjacket of individuality. ... [It] has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions driving millions to the breadline. 'Rugged individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen.' ... Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the many pretenses the ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and political extortion.

Ludwig von Mises wrote:

    On the other hand the application of the basic ideas of collectivism cannot result in anything but social disintegration and the perpetuation of armed conflict. It is true that every variety of collectivism promises eternal peace starting with the day of its own decisive victory and the final overthrow and extermination of all other ideologies and their supporters. ... As soon as a faction has succeeded in winning the support of the majority of citizens and thereby attained control of the government machine, it is free to deny to the minority all those democratic rights by means of which it itself has previously carried on its own struggle for supremacy.
Wapedia - Wiki: Collectivism


----------



## Bill O'Olberman (Jan 25, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah down with anything collectivist. Wait, isnt Christianity a belief set thats supposed to be rooted in altruism/collectivism?
> ...



Christians attempt to use the government in much the same way progressivists attempt to use the government as a mechanism to achieve their ideal of "the greater good." 

I am in no way trying to advance/defend progressivism, socialism, or communism but just throwing religion in mix as a altruist belief set thats rooted in collectivism. Personally I abhor them all equally.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

Bill O'Olberman said:


> Yeah down with anything collectivist. Wait, isnt Christianity a belief set thats supposed to be rooted in altruism/collectivism?



If someone tried to make america a Theocracy I would be bitching about that too, especially considering I dont have a religion.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



Thats a very interesting take on individualism.   I disagree with the assertations in the first 2 paragraphs but it was interesting to read none the less.

Thanks for making this post, it was great to read even if I didn't agree with some of it.


----------



## Ragnar (Jan 25, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



And the way you framed it is interesting, as an "ideal". That's hard to be critical or really, as opposed to "Communism works in theory, but not real life" (what kind of theory "works" but not in real life) or "Communism looks good on paper" (yeah, so does 1+1= 11) or some other construction. Ideal takes the idea into the land of fantasy so maybe I was wrong to be critical. (who would dis someone's fantasy?)

Anywho, power to the "good ism's"! (though I would put Capital*ism* first every time)


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 25, 2010)

Ragnar said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Ragnar said:
> ...



I see where your going with the logic there.


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 25, 2010)

Capitalism, in its modern form, requires collectivism.  What's a corporation if it isn't a collective?

As far as individualism is concerned, it's a fable.

It seems to me that the ideological advocates of extreme individualism are really saying....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0lfCcbQPyk]YouTube - Skyhooks - Why Don't You All Get Fucked (1978)[/ame]


----------



## Luissa (Jan 25, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Jefferson also thought wanted small government which was based mostly on agruiculture, I will also add Jefferson more than doubled the size of the government during his term. Are fouding father's set up an education system and funded exploration, they also were smart enough to know the government had to change with the people.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Jan 25, 2010)

So the weak should ALWAYS die? I know you are going to say this is absurd but isn't it the logical conclusion of individualism? The STRONG should ALWAYS RULE? Might makes RIGHT?

 When human beings live together in SOCIETIES there MUST be a sharing of RESOURCES which are necessarily limited or the weak will ALWAYS be VICTIMIZED by the POWERFUL. 

The problem I have with your viewpoint PLYMCO is that the weak are FORCED to rely upon the HUMAN DECENCY of the powerful which I am afraid to say is NOT in large enough supply to care for all the people born less fortunate or into the wrong family. Eventually MOST of the resources will be controlled by the VERY FEW families NOT by merit but by BIRTH. Do you consider that to be a GOOD thing?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Jan 25, 2010)

Take an agrarian society for example. A man losses both his arms in a horrible plow accident should he be cast out of society because he can no longer contribute? Should he be mercifully killed quickly? Should he do the noble thing and cast himself upon the stones at the bottom of a cliff? Should his wife and young children be left to beg for scraps? How do you reconcile these things?


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 25, 2010)

I would offer than unless the no-armed farmer was a complete asshat, the rest would take care of him and even find something for him to do, like run around and spit at the birds to keep them away from the crops.
he best be nice because he would need someone to pick his nose for him, as the picking fingers are connected to the arms, and those are missing.


----------



## Ragnar (Jan 25, 2010)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> So the weak should ALWAYS die? I know you are going to say this is absurd but isn't it the logical conclusion of individualism? The STRONG should ALWAYS RULE? Might makes RIGHT?
> 
> When human beings live together in SOCIETIES there MUST be a sharing of RESOURCES which are necessarily limited or the weak will ALWAYS be VICTIMIZED by the POWERFUL.
> 
> The problem I have with your viewpoint PLYMCO is that the weak are FORCED to rely upon the HUMAN DECENCY of the powerful which I am afraid to say is NOT in large enough supply to care for all the people born less fortunate or into the wrong family. Eventually MOST of the resources will be controlled by the VERY FEW families NOT by merit but by BIRTH. Do you consider that to be a GOOD thing?



No, that's why we have the military, police and the courts. (a.k.a. the legitimate powers of government, to protect the people from force or fraud)

Resources are not "necissarily" limited, that is subject to human invention, work and creativity all of which flourish when people are free to keep the rewards of their labor.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Jan 25, 2010)

Eventually ALL wealth will be controlled by the VERY FEW.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Jan 25, 2010)

And yes resources ARE limited. Productivity will not increase in perpetuity.


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 25, 2010)

Collectivism is necessary to fight against oppression and give a voice to people, who as individuals, don't have one.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 25, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Collectivism is necessary to fight against oppression and give a voice to people, who as individuals, don't have one.



And when the collective becomes the oppressor, another collect must form to fight the oppression of the first, ad infinitum.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Jan 25, 2010)

Just for fun


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHi0Uymw42Y]YouTube - Coyote catches the Road Runner[/ame]


----------



## Ragnar (Jan 25, 2010)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> And yes resources ARE limited. Productivity will not increase in perpetuity.



Not for those who ask why, but certainly for those who ask why not.

The greatest resource is the human mind and that has no limit.


----------



## rdean (Jan 25, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Why are you guys obsessed with words that end in "ism"?
> And China had a form of socialism long before the 18 century, when your country has only 10% farmable land, the Warlord system doesn't really work out too well for the peasant.



Don't forget "jism".  

Look what the conservatives are into.  

Anti education
anti civil rights
anti science
clear class distinctions between the gawdly rich and the breeder poor

Republicans, kill and maim tens of thousands of Americans "keeping us safe" by sending them to their deaths overseas in senseless wars.  But oh, do those wars make money.
Don't we all feel safe?

Name 5 things Republicans have done for this country in the last 10 years.  4 things.  Two things.  Ok I can't think of anything either.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 26, 2010)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> So the weak should ALWAYS die? I know you are going to say this is absurd but isn't it the logical conclusion of individualism? The STRONG should ALWAYS RULE? Might makes RIGHT?
> 
> When human beings live together in SOCIETIES there MUST be a sharing of RESOURCES which are necessarily limited or the weak will ALWAYS be VICTIMIZED by the POWERFUL.
> 
> The problem I have with your viewpoint PLYMCO is that the weak are FORCED to rely upon the HUMAN DECENCY of the powerful which I am afraid to say is NOT in large enough supply to care for all the people born less fortunate or into the wrong family. Eventually MOST of the resources will be controlled by the VERY FEW families NOT by merit but by BIRTH. Do you consider that to be a GOOD thing?



No thats not what I'm saying at all.  I understand where you are coming from but the same can be said for communist and socialist regimes.   How many millions starved to death under stalin and Mao?   

Like I said in theory socialist, progressive, and communist ideals are good.  Their intentions are honorable.   However when played out as a government system they end up causing more suffering, poverty, and death than our constitutional republic style of government has.

The facts of the matter are 70million chinese starved to death under MAO's communist regime and over 10million were intentionally starved under the the regime of Stalin.    

Unfortunately due to human nature those types of governments will always end the same way.  This is because their very setup centralizes power in the hands of the government and puts the trust and welfare of the people in the hands of that government.   Our system keeps the power in the peoples hands (unless the people are too inept to keep the power, such as you have seen in the USA over the last few decades).


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 26, 2010)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Take an agrarian society for example. A man losses both his arms in a horrible plow accident should he be cast out of society because he can no longer contribute? Should he be mercifully killed quickly? Should he do the noble thing and cast himself upon the stones at the bottom of a cliff? Should his wife and young children be left to beg for scraps? How do you reconcile these things?



That is EXACTLY what communist regimes such as MAO and Stalin did to people like that.  

Which is why I dont like them.   I know the below is beck but just spend the 5 min and watch what the people in it have to say.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2FHQjsFMog]YouTube - Part 6| Glenn Beck Documentary: "The Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free...Or Die" - 01/22/10[/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 26, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM...The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
_John Kenneth Galbraith_

Your posted piece serves as a prime example.

_'There are only two ways to regard man's relationship to society: either he has the right to live for his own sake, or he must live for others. Whichever principle you espouse places you in one or the other of opposing camps.

If you accept the principle that man has the right to live for his own sake, you are an individualist. If you believe that man must live for others, you are a collectivist.'_

This statement IS pure collectivism. It is the logical fallacy of false dilemma. 

It comes from a mind controlled by polarized thinking. Support thinking like this at your own peril.

Vladimir Lenin -  "It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."

Benito Mussolini - "O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us

George W. Bush - "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

_'If you accept the principle that man has the right to live for his own sake, you are an individualist. If you believe that man must live for others, you are a collectivist.'_

A civil society requires only of the individual that he consider the right of others, and demand that others rights be equally protected...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 26, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Collectivism is necessary to fight against oppression and give a voice to people, who as individuals, don't have one.



Now who's drinking the Kool aid   

Individualism is the only way to keep liberty.


BFGRN  You have me pegged way wrong.  You assume I'm a hardcore conservative and that I think its all or nothing, both assumptions are innacurate.  Our society does respect the rigths of others and looks out for those less fortunate, and we are not a collectivist style society.   Sure we have our faults and people fall through the cracks but Poor people in america have it way better than poor people in other countries.  

Are you denying that these forms of government, the forms that emulate "collectivism", have failed throughout history and caused more pain and suffering than freedom and prosperity?


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 26, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM...The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
> _John Kenneth Galbraith_
> 
> Your posted piece serves as a prime example.
> ...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM...The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
> ...



The part that you bolded is already done in the USA, which is part of the reason I thought his post was off base (which I stated in the post before yours)


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 26, 2010)

I know pilgrim, but I like that statement so much I just couldn't help myself.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Jan 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM...The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
> ...






You've got the "clap"? OUCH! LOL!


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 26, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Collectivism is necessary to fight against oppression and give a voice to people, who as individuals, don't have one.
> ...



Your author thinks it's 'all or nothing'. And she has a sick and twisted mind. I'm not assuming anything except that you started this thread with garbage, and that you support that garbage.

The progressive movement grew out of a groundswell to combat 'caused pain and suffering'. It was much less about ideology and much more just common human decency. It fought for and demanded respect FOR the individual; defined as all human beings no matter their age, gender or station in life.

Your author dismisses it, so if we follow her 'with us or against us' mentality, then she must forfeit her right to vote and return to second class citizenry...

_'By 1903 a wide range of progressive political and economic ideas were adopted to regulate railroads and utilities. They pressured government to raise corporate taxes. They advocated workmen's compensation---paid for by businesses---and child labor laws, which denied income to the very poor.'_


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> I know pilgrim, but I like that statement so much I just couldn't help myself.



   I hear that I like it too.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 26, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



I understand what you are saying which Is why I made the post you quoted above explaining to you what I think.

The second part of that post had a question I posed directly to you that I am curious about.    

Do you deny that these forms of government, the forms that emulate "collectivism", have failed throughout history and caused more pain and suffering than freedom and prosperity throughout history?  If you do deny that please broaden my horizons with an example of a government.


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 26, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Collectivism is necessary to fight against oppression and give a voice to people, who as individuals, don't have one.
> ...



Collectivism is the idea behind the unions that helped shape our labor and safety regulations.  Without the work they did and battles they fought decades ago your liberty wouldn't be worth squat today.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 26, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Your article is liberal bashing in sheep clothing...there is no form of government called progressivism.

In any large society, only a mix of individualism and collectivism works. Generally, societies and countries become oppressive when malignancy is man-made...despotism.

Conservatives gravitate toward powerful authoritarian leaders, liberals and progressives are appalled by them...


----------



## Bobby Hawk (Feb 12, 2011)

Very good article however you did miss one important point.  What most people miss it that there is a link between Progressivism, Communism, Socialism.  You indicated they were all based on collectivism, and that is somewhat true.  The reason they are all founded in collectivism is because they are all based on the same doctrine.  All of these are denominations of the same doctrine, that being Stoic doctrine and the dialectic method.  

Hegel based his doctrine of philosophy of the Greek Stoic doctrine, as did Kant and all the students of Hegel.  It this base doctrine which is most often overlooked by most folks attempting to understand the the common functionality of Socialism, Communism, and Progressivism.  Further, one who studies this subject will find that Liberation theology is the 4th leg of this table. 

A study of stoic doctrine and the use of the dialectic method would provide ample insight into anyone who wishes to understand the doctrine of Stoic philosophy and its related denominations (Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Liberation Theology).  Many think of these as political systems when in actually they are all a Theocracy where the state of authority figure (dictator), is viewed as the deity which provides for the collective of people.   Some insight is provided by the Apostle Paul who encountered these believers in Acts 17 (starting around verse 15) an later summed up their belief as being a doctrine of men. The account is written in Colossians chapter 2.


----------



## Intense (Feb 12, 2011)

Bobby Hawk said:


> Very good article however you did miss one important point.  What most people miss it that there is a link between Progressivism, Communism, Socialism.  You indicated they were all based on collectivism, and that is somewhat true.  The reason they are all founded in collectivism is because they are all based on the same doctrine.  All of these are denominations of the same doctrine, that being Stoic doctrine and the dialectic method.
> 
> Hegel based his doctrine of philosophy of the Greek Stoic doctrine, as did Kant and all the students of Hegel.  It this base doctrine which is most often overlooked by most folks attempting to understand the the common functionality of Socialism, Communism, and Progressivism.  Further, one who studies this subject will find that Liberation theology is the 4th leg of this table.
> 
> A study of stoic doctrine and the use of the dialectic method would provide ample insight into anyone who wishes to understand the doctrine of Stoic philosophy and its related denominations (Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Liberation Theology).  Many think of these as political systems when in actually they are all a Theocracy where the state of authority figure (dictator), is viewed as the deity which provides for the collective of people.   Some insight is provided by the Apostle Paul who encountered these believers in Acts 17 (starting around verse 15) an later summed up their belief as being a doctrine of men. The account is written in Colossians chapter 2.



The one thing missing here is Conscience, Hmmmm........ and we know why. Yep, I see the pattern too.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 12, 2011)

Funny that.

ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT ARE COLLECTIVIST!


----------

