Democrate part is communist

[Milton Platt]

Democrate website Jobs and the Economy - Democrats

Communist party usa website What is the path to socialism for the USA?

Definition of communism

"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

Definition of socialism

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Notice the staunch similarity? Practically identical.

Now some quotes from the democrate site

"Democrats believe that our economy should strengthen our country and work for every American"

"making sure corporations, the wealthy, and Wall Street pay their fair share."

"Democrats cut taxes for working families, provided help for small businesses and homeowners"

"Democrats provided relief for hardworking Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own."

"making debt-free college available to all Americans, cracking down on companies that ship profits and jobs overseas, fighting for equal pay and paid leave, and ensuring the wealthiest citizens and largest corporations pay their fair share"

Now quotes from the communist site

"The transition to a socialist USA will be shaped by our country’s unique history and culture. Its wonderfully diverse working class and people will shape it."

"The means to achieve this goal will have to correspond to the end– solidarity, empathy, equality community, compassion and a dedication to putting people and our planet before profits."

"radical economic, political, social and cultural change."

Ok, basically what we got going on here and for you to see this you NEED a critical eye.

All of this is saying in its essence, government control. No liberty.

On one hand they are saying they want equality for all or prosperity for all.

But, you dont get that by over taxing the wealthy. Thats how the wealthy take there companies, along with there jobs out of your countries. And that then collapses your countries.

All you extreme lefties, particularly you young people need to wake up.[/QUOTE

You are guilty of black-and-white thinking. There is a continual spectrum of socialist and capitalist concepts that can be blended and adapted to form a better governing body. Times and societies change and governments need to be able to adapt.

I will agree with you that the extremes on both sides of the equation are off the mark.

 

[columbus]

Reality is complex. The more left you swing the more the country goes bad.

The less rules, the less taxes, the more prosperity. Its just the way it is.

And its also a matter of WHAT kind of rules and what kind of taxes.

This is simply not true, and anybody who knows US history can see it.

The Crash of 29 and the Great Depression weren't caused by socialism, much less communism. They were caused by unregulated laissez faire capitalism.
Libertarianism.
And the post WWII boom wasn't caused by capitalism. It was the result of a huge ramping up of American socialism.

More recently, the economic disaster that was the USA in 2007-9 wasn't because of communism, or even socialism. It was because of Republicans cutting taxes and regulations, that is capitalism.
This really isn't hard to see if you look at the facts.
Tom

 

[Jollybear]

You said the bank bailout was communist.

I pointed out that it was devised and implemented by Bush jnr and ex-Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson, therefore you must believe GWB and HP are commies.

You then said 'communism infiltrates'.

Do you genuinely believe GWB and HP were 'communist infiltrators'?

You have to understand that communism isnt just an organization or a government system, its a system of ideologies. These ideologies are in some peoples minds despite adherence to or not to an organization.

However, that aside, here is an interesting article from huffpost. Huffpost mind you is a left wing media outlet. So, its interesting that they would critisize bush as a communist.

George Bush Becomes a Socialist | HuffPost

But "the government" is the people.

Yea....but, the government is not ALL the people.

All the people; sitting down in informal meetings, town halls, committees, &c to decide on issues.

Oh if it wer only that simple....but, its not.

1, most people have busy lives and cannot go to these meetings, town halls and committees to say and vote there two cents.

2, no one should HAVE to go to these meetings because these meetings should not be voting other peoples liberty and money away from them.

3, anyone that does go to these meetings, the republic (i.e the constitution, the law) should put everyones two cents and votes in check.

There are no authoritarian leaders. There are only common citizens chosen on an ad hoc basis to organize various projects.

If it wer only that simple.....but, its not.

Whether one man signs or vetos a proposal or not, he is indirectly acting as an authority. Whether a mob of people are voting your liberties away or not, they as a collective are acting indirectly as an authority. The result is the same, your liberty and money is robbed of you. And every leftist i know is OK and just FINE with this. It amazes me and is concerning to me.

It's a co-op, not a dictatorship.

Yea.....again, its not that simple. Whats the difference between one man dictating your life vs a mob dictating your life? The only difference is the former is one man, the later is many. The results however are the SAME.

Thomas jefferson "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for lunch and the lamb protesting the vote".

Just because an authoritarian dictatorship in Russia or China calls itself "Communist" doesn't make it so.

I never said otherwise.

Im saying all communists MUST LOGICALLY be authoritarian, but not all authoritarians are communist.

This is simply not true, and anybody who knows US history can see it.

Ya, well theres lots of people who know US history who would disagree with you. But, towing that line gets us nowhere.

The Crash of 29 and the Great Depression weren't caused by socialism, much less communism. They were caused by unregulated laissez faire capitalism.
Libertarianism.

Disagree.

And the post WWII boom wasn't caused by capitalism. It was the result of a huge ramping up of American socialism.

More recently, the economic disaster that was the USA in 2007-9 wasn't because of communism, or even socialism. It was because of Republicans cutting taxes and regulations, that is capitalism.
This really isn't hard to see if you look at the facts.
Tom

So far you provided no facts, just statements and assertions.

The recession happened due to the markets NOT being TRUELY free.

Free Markets Didn’t Create the Great Recession

The great depression happened due to the markets NOT being TRUELY free.

 

[Shad]

And the post WWII boom wasn't caused by capitalism. It was the result of a huge ramping up of American socialism.

Do you serious;y believe this given the destruction caused in Europe and Asia?

 

[Augustus]

ou have to understand that communism isnt just an organization or a government system, its a system of ideologies. These ideologies are in some peoples minds despite adherence to or not to an organization.

"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

The bank bailout, QE, etc. have been the greatest wealth transfer in history from the people to private organisations, all done to prop up the capitalist banking and financial services industries.

If you're an actual communist, you couldn't ask for anything better than the collapse of the banking system and economic disaster as that gives you the opportunity to bring everything under government control.

However, that aside, here is an interesting article from huffpost. Huffpost mind you is a left wing media outlet. So, its interesting that they would critisize bush as a communist.

George Bush Becomes a Socialist | HuffPost

Did you miss the mocking tone of the article?

 

[Jollybear]

"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

Your not getting it. Communism collapses because of two fundemental reasons.

1, because it missmanages the distribution of wealth. Whether that wealth comes in the form of MONEY or what money buys, like food/clothes/housing/business/ect. And

2, because it destroys INCENTIVES.

Also, the soviet union (i.e. communism) taxed and gave subsidies.

Cuba, a current communist country taxes and gives subsidies as well.

But, anyway, its irrelavent whether the system uses money currency or not. Communism happens by the two things i stated above.

The bank bailout, QE, etc. have been the greatest wealth transfer in history from the people to private organisations, all done to prop up the capitalist banking and financial services industries.

Yea...... CRONY-CAPATALISM. Not the same as true free market capatalism. And cronyism in practice is the same in practice as communism.

If you're an actual communist, you couldn't ask for anything better than the collapse of the banking system and economic disaster as that gives you the opportunity to bring everything under government control.

That is very true! And perhaps thats there sinister plan.

However, lets presuppose its all under the governments control for a moment. Ok, so two things STILL MUST happen.

1, management of wealth

2, incentives

Communism, whether it uses money or just materal stuff (i.e. food/clothes/housing/business/ect) still creates this problem of mismanagement of wealth and creates the problem of lowering incentives.

Did you miss the mocking tone of the article?

No.......sir! I sure didnt miss it. However, you missed what was mocked!

The mock was bushes inconsistency with the republican conservative ideals. The article KNEW correctly what socialist/communist ACTIONS wer, interestingly enough.

 

[Woberts]

So, communisms history was not one of death?

Indeed.

 

[Augustus]

Yea...... CRONY-CAPATALISM. Not the same as true free market capatalism. And cronyism in practice is the same in practice as communism.

Crony capitalism, the clue is in the name.

No.......sir! I sure didnt miss it. However, you missed what was mocked!

The mock was bushes inconsistency with the republican conservative ideals. The article KNEW correctly what socialist/communist ACTIONS wer, interestingly enough.

You seem to be missing a layer of the satire

 

[Jollybear]

Indeed.

Ok, if indeed there history was one of death, why be a communist?

 

[Jollybear]

Crony capitalism, the clue is in the name.

Whats your point?

You seem to be missing a layer of the satire

Why dont you break down what you think im missing.

 

[Woberts]

Ok, if indeed there history was one of death, why be a communist?

The benefits outweigh the negatives. A truly egalitarian society vs not.

 

[Jollybear]

The benefits outweigh the negatives. A truly egalitarian society vs not.

So.....its ok to be immoral if being immoral accomplishes a moral world?

 

[Valjean]

So.....its ok to be immoral if being immoral accomplishes a moral world?

That does seem to be the right-wing attitude, though their conception of a moral world seems rather self serving.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

2, because it destroys INCENTIVES.

Heh... I think you just admitted that you don't consider improved well-being of society to be an "incentive."

When did you stop caring about the welfare of other people?

 

[Jollybear]

Heh... I think you just admitted that you don't consider improved well-being of society to be an "incentive."

The thing is, to GET TO that kind of society your talking about, it destroys incentives.

When did you stop caring about the welfare of other people?

By hating communism, im in fact CARING for other people more then you.

 

[Jollybear]

That does seem to be the right-wing attitude, though their conception of a moral world seems rather self serving.

No, its in fact NOT self serving. Because we right wingers believe in helping others of our own volition, not by government force.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The thing is, to GET TO that kind of society your talking about, it destroys incentives.

So it's incentives that you care about, eh? If so, I trust you're very supportive of measures that turn externalities into direct costs, right?

After all, a company that can pollute for free has no incentive to operate cleanly, but a company that's working with a carbon tax does.

Right?

 

[Valjean]

No, its in fact NOT self serving. Because we right wingers believe in helping others of our own volition, not by government force.

No, you right-wingers are a dog-eat-dog, sink-or-swim crowd. You believe in competition, not co-operation; that it's not government's place to help those unable to help themselves; not government's place to prevent exploitation by unregulated business.

Oddly, you seem to support the draconian aspects of government, like the Patriot Act. You're fine with government surveillance and control. You're fine with cutting regulations and letting corporations exploit us with exorbitant costs for pharmaceuticals, healthcare, housing or education, but oppose people getting together -- ie: government -- to alleviate these impediments. You right-wingers support all the oppressive aspects of government while opposing all the helpful, pro-social aspects.
We "socialist," left-of-centrists are exactly the opposite.

You want government to keep the people in their place. You're fine with eliminating social mobility. As corporate apologists, you want a cheap, compliant workforce. You're fine with cutting salaries, safety regulations, social supports, &c. You're fine with removing protective regulations like pollution, financial or workplace safety rules.
You're anti-social.

 

[metis]

No, you right-wingers are a dog-eat-dog, sink-or-swim crowd. You believe in competition, not co-operation; that it's not government's place to help those unable to help themselves; not government's place to prevent exploitation by unregulated business.

Oddly, you seem to support the draconian aspects of government, like the Patriot Act. You're fine with government surveillance and control. You're fine with cutting regulations and letting corporations exploit us with exorbitant costs for pharmaceuticals, healthcare, housing or education, but oppose people getting together -- ie: government -- to alleviate these impediments. You right-wingers support all the oppressive aspects of government while opposing all the helpful, pro-social aspects.
We "socialist," left-of-centrists are exactly the opposite.

You want government to keep the people in their place. You're fine with eliminating social mobility. As corporate apologists, you want a cheap, compliant workforce. You're fine with cutting salaries, safety regulations, social supports, &c. You're fine with removing protective regulations like pollution, financial or workplace safety rules.
You're anti-social.

And this is what we've seen over and over again with so many of these "right-wingers", namely that even though the generally don't accept the basic ToE, they never the less are heavy into what's called "social Darwinism". The Gospel actually puts most of its emphasis on love and compassion for all, and yet these right-wingers disregard that so as to adapt their right-wing secular agenda.

And now the Trump administration is planning to cut nearly 700,000 people from food stamps so as to save money, which goes to show us where their "heart" really is. Jesus fed the crowd whereas Trump takes food away even from children from poor families.

But wait, they'll have an excuse for this as well.

 

[Jollybear]

So it's incentives that you care about, eh? If so, I trust you're very supportive of measures that turn externalities into direct costs, right?

After all, a company that can pollute for free has no incentive to operate cleanly, but a company that's working with a carbon tax does.

Right?

No, there is incentives to not polute. The incentives is you dont want your environment to be dirty or toxic a d you want your costumers support.

No, you right-wingers are a dog-eat-dog, sink-or-swim crowd.

No wer not. In fact the statistics show that on average right wingers give more to charities then lefties. So much for lefties compassion. There a bunch of hypocrites. All they want is government to steel from the ritch to give to them.

You believe in competition, not co-operation; that it's not government's place to help those unable to help themselves; not government's place to prevent exploitation by unregulated business.

Whats wrong with compitition? If a business man is making stupid decisions and doesnt work hard and doesent serve with all his heart, he deserves to have his rivals beat him. Its not governments business to rob others to bail him out.

Oddly, you seem to support the draconian aspects of government, like the Patriot Act. You're fine with government surveillance and control.

Im not fine with government control. Excessively.

You're fine with cutting regulations and letting corporations exploit us with exorbitant costs for pharmaceuticals, healthcare, housing or education, but oppose people getting together -- ie: government -- to alleviate these impediments. You right-wingers support all the oppressive aspects of government while opposing all the helpful, pro-social aspects.
We "socialist," left-of-centrists are exactly the opposite.

This is a false accusation.

You want government to keep the people in their place. You're fine with eliminating social mobility. As corporate apologists, you want a cheap, compliant workforce. You're fine with cutting salaries, safety regulations, social supports, &c. You're fine with removing protective regulations like pollution, financial or workplace safety rules.
You're anti-social.

Man, it isnt even worth responding to you. More smears.

And this is what we've seen over and over again with so many of these "right-wingers", namely that even though the generally don't accept the basic ToE, they never the less are heavy into what's called "social Darwinism". The Gospel actually puts most of its emphasis on love and compassion for all, and yet these right-wingers disregard that so as to adapt their right-wing secular agenda.

And now the Trump administration is planning to cut nearly 700,000 people from food stamps so as to save money, which goes to show us where their "heart" really is. Jesus fed the crowd whereas Trump takes food away even from children from poor families.

But wait, they'll have an excuse for this as well.

Its ABLE BODIED people trump is after. Not the others.