Yes, You're A Communist

[washamericom]

PC thinks there is "essentially" no difference between North Korea and Vermont.

The second amendment is the only thing standing between Vermont and North Korea

as a vermonter i can promise never to use bernie as a human shield (against N. Korea).

 

[Norman]

100 million dead...

It should make any rational human being scared.

 

[Dr Grump]

Erm, communism is totalitarian. You must be completely clueless.

Is it? really?

A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless,[3] implying the end of the exploitation of labor.

"Hey, if I define communism as everything that is awesome, then communism is awesome". No shit Sherlock, no shit... What a regressed individual...

Oh, communism in it's purist form is anything but awesome, but it does have its good moments. I'm just trying to balance the ledger with PC's uber neocon agenda that pure capitalism is such a fantastic system <sarcasm in case you missed it - much like everything else you've missed that I have posted on this thread>

 

[Moonglow]

4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?

US military..

 

[Moonglow]

100 million dead...

It should make any rational human being scared.

Genghis Khan killed more..

 

[Dr Grump]

Nazism and communsim.....two peas in the same Leftist pod.

When are you going to learn PC that Stalin, Hitler AND Lenin were narcissistic sociopaths who didn't give a shit about anybody else but themselves?

My main objection to this pathetic thread is that you are somehow trying to marry the rather mild inclusiveness of liberal thought in the US as somehow equal to those three retards. You do nothing to try and enhance debate. Your train of thought would go well at the National Enquirer as a source of nothing more than alarmist rhetoric that adds nothing to the political debate. You are the Goebbels of the USMB. Well done!

 

[there4eyeM]

The liberal use of money to produce real wealth is not a problem. 'Capitalism' should really have a different suffix, as it isn't an 'ism' as most others. It is merely a way that economics can function. Particularly as it was being invented at the Renaissance, it was quite liberating. Turning it into a philosophy or quasi-religion is absurd. All its foibles, errors and horrors have been displayed in history. As with any other human endeavor, motivation is the key.
If Christianity functioned as it should in America, U.S. capitalism would be under proper control; i. e., personal moral control.

"If Christianity functioned as it should in America, U.S. capitalism would be under proper control; i. e., personal moral control."

And yet another lesson to clear up your muddled thinking:
The service that is an inherent part of capitalism is more in accord with Judeo-Christian values than is socialism/Liberalism.


Mull that over.

'Service'? What 'service'?
Apparently another version of Christ and associated teachings has been revealed to you. Mine refer more to the Beatitudes and the Christian communities in Acts. There, if we are to believe the New Testament, goods were held in common, with each member receiving or contributing as necessary. Capitalism had nothing to do with it.

See....now you have earned 'dunce.'
Service...as in Wal-Mart
Socialism....as in the motor vehicle department.
"...if we are to believe the New Testament, goods were held in common, with each member receiving or contributing as necessary..."
Bogus.

"For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. (2 Thess. 3:10)"

Well, you certainly have provided an example of bogus.
Are your examples supposed to be of 'service' or what? Walmart is a service? The MVD is socialism? Have yo lost it, or did you just never have it?
Continued bogus: look again at what the citing of the Christian Community's function said, "with each member receiving and contributing as necessary."
You have earned the right to go back and learn what 'dunce' means.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Surprising how many good Americans have been fooled into accepting, and voting for, communism. And when the truth is revealed, they are startled, incensed, and furious that anyone would say such a thing.

But it's true. There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.

How did communism become the public religion of America? The following will explain, ....as we say in science....'its origin and insertion."


In a recent thread, one that illustrated the connections between environmentalists, communists, with the confiscation of private property, a government school graduate demonstrated how offended she was by posting this as part of a scathing disavowal of the above:

"OP tries to connect communism to the moderate left wing democrats." One More Of Those Environmentalist Fairytales

Clearly, an intervention is sorely needed.

It follows:



1. Karl Marx's lethal philosophy is the basis of both communism and of Nazism.

a. A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." NYTimes, November 27, 1925.

b. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

c. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
Vladimir Bukovsky.



2. I don't use "lethal" in a cavalier fashion: Over 100 million men, women, and children were slaughtered by Soviet Communism alone. When that fact was stated, one inveterate Liberal poster laughed, and said 'You sure it wasn't 100 billion?'
And the horrors of Nazism are well known. But both began here:

a. "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

b. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

c. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first."
George Watson.




And this is what we find leading the Democrat Party this very day:
"Bernie Sanders Makes His Pitch for Socialism" Bernie Sanders Outlines A Vision for Fixing American Society



Read more- if you dare, Liberals.

I don't necessarily agree with the inferences shown here but I thought it was interesting!

If you don't agree with it.....what do you find incorrect about it.


This may help:
1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

2. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong!
Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

The cartoon is an oversimplification. Two essential figures are missing: the government and the consumer. Consumers and laborers could be one and the same but in today's global economy that might not be as axiomatic as it once was. In the first illustration the owner of the means of production should be throwing a few pennies back towards the workers...just enough to ensure they can survive, buy his products and most importantly: keep production going. In the second illustration the government would own the means of production and should be throwing social benefits, living wages and a safe working environment back towards the workers. The latter is communism in t's purest form.


Your "expert" is a Roman Catholic priest and gay rights activist. Interesting combination. I cant tell if he is a Rightist or Leftist. In either case his speech is shortsighted and wrong!

I can agree with the statement predicting the negative impact raw capitalism would have on the working class. Indeed the GOP has been the standard bearer for that kind of irreverent paradigm even before the Great Depression made their dream a reality.

I can only marvel at the thought that your "expert" forgot the evils of unbridled Capitlaism are no better than the evils of unbridled Communism:

4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?

US military..

So you're saying that Stalin's USSR was just like the US military?

 

[Mac1958]

I would think that if you want to change someone's mind about being a euro-socialist or a socialist or a communist, your approach would probably not be to attack them, insult them, and engage in name-calling. Doesn't seem like a very intelligent tactic to me.

Funny, come to think of it, that's how Regressive Lefties approach race issues. The behaviors of the wingers are so similar!

A good reminder that if we actually want to improve things, we'd be smart to culturally marginalize the wingers first.
.

 

[Moonglow]

Surprising how many good Americans have been fooled into accepting, and voting for, communism. And when the truth is revealed, they are startled, incensed, and furious that anyone would say such a thing.

But it's true. There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.

How did communism become the public religion of America? The following will explain, ....as we say in science....'its origin and insertion."


In a recent thread, one that illustrated the connections between environmentalists, communists, with the confiscation of private property, a government school graduate demonstrated how offended she was by posting this as part of a scathing disavowal of the above:

"OP tries to connect communism to the moderate left wing democrats." One More Of Those Environmentalist Fairytales

Clearly, an intervention is sorely needed.

It follows:



1. Karl Marx's lethal philosophy is the basis of both communism and of Nazism.

a. A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." NYTimes, November 27, 1925.

b. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

c. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
Vladimir Bukovsky.



2. I don't use "lethal" in a cavalier fashion: Over 100 million men, women, and children were slaughtered by Soviet Communism alone. When that fact was stated, one inveterate Liberal poster laughed, and said 'You sure it wasn't 100 billion?'
And the horrors of Nazism are well known. But both began here:

a. "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

b. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

c. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first."
George Watson.




And this is what we find leading the Democrat Party this very day:
"Bernie Sanders Makes His Pitch for Socialism" Bernie Sanders Outlines A Vision for Fixing American Society



Read more- if you dare, Liberals.

I don't necessarily agree with the inferences shown here but I thought it was interesting!

If you don't agree with it.....what do you find incorrect about it.


This may help:
1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

2. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong!
Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

The cartoon is an oversimplification. Two essential figures are missing: the government and the consumer. Consumers and laborers could be one and the same but in today's global economy that might not be as axiomatic as it once was. In the first illustration the owner of the means of production should be throwing a few pennies back towards the workers...just enough to ensure they can survive, buy his products and most importantly: keep production going. In the second illustration the government would own the means of production and should be throwing social benefits, living wages and a safe working environment back towards the workers. The latter is communism in t's purest form.


Your "expert" is a Roman Catholic priest and gay rights activist. Interesting combination. I cant tell if he is a Rightist or Leftist. In either case his speech is shortsighted and wrong!

I can agree with the statement predicting the negative impact raw capitalism would have on the working class. Indeed the GOP has been the standard bearer for that kind of irreverent paradigm even before the Great Depression made their dream a reality.

I can only marvel at the thought that your "expert" forgot the evils of unbridled Capitlaism are no better than the evils of unbridled Communism:

4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?

US military..

So you're saying that Stalin's USSR was just like the US military?

one form, the ecclesiastical kind..

 

[there4eyeM]

That seems like a leap (post #588).

 

[Mr Natural]

She sure does seem to have a hair up her ass over an ideology that went out of business back in the '90s.

 

[Moonglow]

That seems like a leap (post #588).

This is a serious thread?

 

[Norman]

Erm, communism is totalitarian. You must be completely clueless.

Is it? really?

A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless,[3] implying the end of the exploitation of labor.

"Hey, if I define communism as everything that is awesome, then communism is awesome". No shit Sherlock, no shit... What a regressed individual...

Oh, communism in it's purist form is anything but awesome, but it does have its good moments. I'm just trying to balance the ledger with PC's uber neocon agenda that pure capitalism is such a fantastic system <sarcasm in case you missed it - much like everything else you've missed that I have posted on this thread>

Did you read the manifesto? No you didn't. That is all fluff talk, besides "common ownership" is impossible in a stateless society. That is why the "anarcho-communist" view is absolutely hilariously contradictory.

Here is one of the historical moments of communism: 100 million dead.

And hjere is the actual manifesto, if someone wants to read the horrors of what communism is about. And yes, the basket case communist countries have every right to call themselves communist based on this. (Maybe with the exception of China, which is nowadays one party dictatorship, and has abandoned the communist vision).

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

Pure capitalism is simply not comparable to communism. Free individuals in the absence of coercion achieve amazing things, and very productive countries. This is a fact.

 

[JQPublic1]

Well, this drawing shows that some one does not agree with you!

Well, the cartoonist is entitled to be wrong.


I'm never in that circumstance.


Until June 21, 1941, Stalin and Hitler were joined-at-the-hip blood brothers.

But what happened AFTER that?

Simple.....Franklin Roosevelt decided he loved Stalin more than Hitler, and made certain that Stalin survived and communism had a cozy home in Americ.


Simple, huh.....just like you.

Evidently FDR made the right choices. We now have a thriving middle class as a result. It's just that simple, huhnh!

In that case, you must imagiine......I almost said 'think'.....that the Founders were wrong, and Roosevlet, and Stalin, are more correct.

The Founders offered us a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


None of these doctrines subscribe to these views...Liberalism, communism, Nazism, socialism, Progressivism, or fascism.


And neither do you.

First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.. I think the forefathers would have approved of FDR and his actions to create a middle class. Average people without money cannot buy from those who produce things. Our economic health depends on people spending money in the market place.

I wouldn't equate Liberalism with communism or fascism. Socialism? Ok to some degree. Fascism is a right wing descriptor and there is nothing Liberal there. Are you getting sleepy? Tired? Or are you just plain obtuse?

 

[there4eyeM]

Well, the cartoonist is entitled to be wrong.


I'm never in that circumstance.


Until June 21, 1941, Stalin and Hitler were joined-at-the-hip blood brothers.

But what happened AFTER that?

Simple.....Franklin Roosevelt decided he loved Stalin more than Hitler, and made certain that Stalin survived and communism had a cozy home in Americ.


Simple, huh.....just like you.

Evidently FDR made the right choices. We now have a thriving middle class as a result. It's just that simple, huhnh!

In that case, you must imagiine......I almost said 'think'.....that the Founders were wrong, and Roosevlet, and Stalin, are more correct.

The Founders offered us a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


None of these doctrines subscribe to these views...Liberalism, communism, Nazism, socialism, Progressivism, or fascism.


And neither do you.

First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.. I think the forefathers would have approved of FDR and his actions to create a middle class. Average people without money cannot buy from those who produce things. Our economic health depends on people spending money in the market place.

I wouldn't equate Liberalism with communism or fascism. Socialism? Ok to some degree. Fascism is a right wing descriptor and there is nothing Liberal there. Are you getting sleepy? Tired? Or are you just plain obtuse?

You obviously have missed Poli's (very often repeated) insistence that her definitions apply to all political terms.
To put it simply, if it does not fit her agenda (read Ayn Rand/Ann Coulter; Poli is a feminist, after all), it is 'left', 'evil', anti-American and and down right nasty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nazism and communsim.....two peas in the same Leftist pod.

When are you going to learn PC that Stalin, Hitler AND Lenin were narcissistic sociopaths who didn't give a shit about anybody else but themselves?

My main objection to this pathetic thread is that you are somehow trying to marry the rather mild inclusiveness of liberal thought in the US as somehow equal to those three retards. You do nothing to try and enhance debate. Your train of thought would go well at the National Enquirer as a source of nothing more than alarmist rhetoric that adds nothing to the political debate. You are the Goebbels of the USMB. Well done!

Imagine...a documented fool suggesting that I 'learn.'


Let's do that again:
1. You were afraid to take the 'quiz' I provided.

2. Nazism and communism are both socialism...as is the current Democrat Party....starting with the redistributist in charge.

3. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.


... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der NationalsozialistischeDeutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the NationalSocialistGerman Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands."
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian


How's that, Dr. Fool???

 

[Dr Grump]

[QU
Did you read the manifesto? No you didn't. That is all fluff talk, besides "common ownership" is impossible in a stateless society. That is why the "anarcho-communist" view is absolutely hilariously contradictory.

Here is one of the historical moments of communism: 100 million dead.

And hjere is the actual manifesto, if someone wants to read the horrors of what communism is about. And yes, the basket case communist countries have every right to call themselves communist based on this. (Maybe with the exception of China, which is nowadays one party dictatorship, and has abandoned the communist vision).

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

Pure capitalism is simply not comparable to communism. Free individuals in the absence of coercion achieve amazing things, and very productive countries. This is a fact.

Actually it doesn't back up your point of view. The ideals of communism was a reaction to 1 percent of the population owning 99 percent of the wealth (sound familiar), with that 1 percent not willing to play nice. That is what happens when greedy people throw 99 percent of the rest to the wolves. Thus pure capitalism doesn't work.

I agree with your last paragraph. But no country has pure capitalism either - including your United States. Let us not forget that a lot of west European nations do not have the same notions of freedom that that US has but they have achieved amazing things. Marie Curie was not American, nor was Bell or Fleming or Tesla. I could go on.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

100 million dead...

It should make any rational human being scared.

Genghis Khan killed more..

A lie.
And....I've proven that before...so, you are a liar.

The wars associated with Khan's name accounted for less than half that.

 

[Dr Grump]

How's that, Dr. Fool???

Terrible. Comparing US liberals to Nazism and Communism is pathetic. Alarmist. And just plain wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin.

As an aside, I'm still awaiting your to write your own shit instead of copying and pasting every little thing you post.