Communism Ascendant

[PoliticalChic]

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.” 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.


2. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
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


Any inequality that occurs is based on the inequality of human nature.
It was ever so, and will continue to be so.

Wise up.

In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government. The ideas of the socialists and their fears were not only proven right but governments across the globe have used them in various ways and to varying degrees of success.

As economies develop there are new and different challenges and solutions to think about. In the past unions were absolutely critical in making sure that the economic gains in the economy were shared across the classes. This shifted the power in both the economy and politics towards labor and away from capital. In the age of globalization, automation, the slow death of unions, and a rising service industry power has shifted once again. It has shifted away from large portions of labor and towards capital.

In order for economic progress to continue to be shared economies have become more and more reliant on either mercantilist type practices and/or transfer payments.

Here is the fallacy in your post, right up front.

"In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government."

There is no such attempt to address the bogus 'inequality" in any capitalist system.

There is in a political system, for reasons unrelated to economics.


This may help....take notes:

"What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“….by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And they’llkeepit.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not –cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills.That’swhat makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News



Now we get to see if you are capable of learning.
Liberals, for the most part.....

.....are not.

A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition. You then didn't even really argue against what I actually said. Or whatever you copied and pasted didn't even address what I said.

Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials? I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff.

1. "A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition."
You have yet to provide any 'statement of fact.'
I just proved that.

2. "Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials?"
Screaming 'cut and paste' is a Liberal's attempt to avoid confronting the facts that I provided.

I notice that you weren't able to provide examples of 'slanted' aspects in the piece provided.
That pretty much ends any possibility of cachet on your part, huh?


3. "I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff."
Yet, here you are exhibiting the usual Liberal plagiarism.....mouthing what the NYTimes, the DNC, MSNBC, and the Communist Manifesto tell you to.

And, as history has shown, the result of every totalitarian fantasy is death and oppression.
So....where is your 'thinking for yourself'?
Not in evidence.

Hey...remember when I said Liberals are rarely capable of learning?
Thank for proving it.


See ya.'

Everything you just said is nonsensical. It is either factually incorrect, irrelevant, or a blatant straw man fallacy. Without copying and pasting it is clear you can't really follow along in a conversation well enough to have one. I will give you another chance to address the points that I already made. The odds don't seem to be in your favor.

OMG!


You came back with an "Oh, yeah....that's what you think!!!" post.

Brilliant.



You're dismissed.

 

[Bombur]

In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government. The ideas of the socialists and their fears were not only proven right but governments across the globe have used them in various ways and to varying degrees of success.

As economies develop there are new and different challenges and solutions to think about. In the past unions were absolutely critical in making sure that the economic gains in the economy were shared across the classes. This shifted the power in both the economy and politics towards labor and away from capital. In the age of globalization, automation, the slow death of unions, and a rising service industry power has shifted once again. It has shifted away from large portions of labor and towards capital.

In order for economic progress to continue to be shared economies have become more and more reliant on either mercantilist type practices and/or transfer payments.

Here is the fallacy in your post, right up front.

"In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government."

There is no such attempt to address the bogus 'inequality" in any capitalist system.

There is in a political system, for reasons unrelated to economics.


This may help....take notes:

"What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“….by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And they’llkeepit.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not –cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills.That’swhat makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News



Now we get to see if you are capable of learning.
Liberals, for the most part.....

.....are not.

A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition. You then didn't even really argue against what I actually said. Or whatever you copied and pasted didn't even address what I said.

Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials? I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff.

1. "A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition."
You have yet to provide any 'statement of fact.'
I just proved that.

2. "Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials?"
Screaming 'cut and paste' is a Liberal's attempt to avoid confronting the facts that I provided.

I notice that you weren't able to provide examples of 'slanted' aspects in the piece provided.
That pretty much ends any possibility of cachet on your part, huh?


3. "I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff."
Yet, here you are exhibiting the usual Liberal plagiarism.....mouthing what the NYTimes, the DNC, MSNBC, and the Communist Manifesto tell you to.

And, as history has shown, the result of every totalitarian fantasy is death and oppression.
So....where is your 'thinking for yourself'?
Not in evidence.

Hey...remember when I said Liberals are rarely capable of learning?
Thank for proving it.


See ya.'

Everything you just said is nonsensical. It is either factually incorrect, irrelevant, or a blatant straw man fallacy. Without copying and pasting it is clear you can't really follow along in a conversation well enough to have one. I will give you another chance to address the points that I already made. The odds don't seem to be in your favor.

OMG!


You came back with an "Oh, yeah....that's what you think!!!" post.

Brilliant.



You're dismissed.

You have not demonstrated an ability to think for yourself yet.

Your first response confused a statement of fact for a logical fallacy. Your attempt to prove your argument amounted to a copy and past job of an article that had no relationship to what I said.

I am not that interested in arguing against every nonsensical thing you post as you try and run away from the facts. You are saying you are done but you never even started.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Now, lest one see this as singling out Roman Catholics, Mainline Protestants had 'given up the ghost,' or at least the fight, far, far earlier.



'In 1907, a group of Methodists formed the Methodist Federation for Social Service (MFSS). The aim was to influence other Protestant groups. The next day, the group is received by President Theodore Roosevelt in the White House. One of the leaders, Harry F. Ward drafts a Social Creed that will be adopted by the 1908 General Conference and by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America.' MFSA History Timeline



9. In the early Twenties the Communist Party made considerable gains in its program to infiltrate the churches. This effort was led by such prominent "American" clergymen as Harry F. Ward ("one of the leading collaborators of, andapologistsfor, the Soviet Union."...), Jerome Davis, William B. Spofford, and Albert Rhys Williams. at the 1942 convention of the Federal Council of Churchescalled for:


Ultimately,"a worldgovernment of delegated powers." Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism. Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty. International control of all armies and navies. A universal system of money.... Worldwide freedom of immigration. Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade .... A "democratically controlled" international bank ....
APOSTASY -- The National Council Of Churches



Clergy, is seems, are the most naive, and easily led.

No wonder so many are Liberals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. The Social Gospel enthusiasts switched the aim from labor rights to attacks on the “profit motive,” …capitalism, e.g., this Pope referring to the one economic system that has lifted masses of people out of poverty, to be largely evil (“the dung of the devil”)....



“The church, therefore, in the opinion of the federation, must accept
the Marxist point of view…The federation, therefore, wants the religious leaders to preach areligious creed, not based upon the Bible and in defense of the American way of life, but one that is based upon the atheistic foundationsof the philosophy of Marx. The federation wants the ministers todeclare their judgment against the social economic system under whichAmericans live and prosper today in favor of the Socialist system,which in Russia and the satellite countries has brought the peoples.”

Read the eBook Investigation of Communist activities in the New York City area. Hearings Volume pt. 5-6 pp. 1969-2143 by United States. Congress. House. Committee on Un-Am online for free page 22 of 24




The amazing thing is that so many of the clergy continue with this infatuation after seeing over one hundred million of their fellow human beings slaughtered in the name of 'economic equality."


...mind you...not producing any such 'economic equality,' just talking about it.

 

[Bombur]

Straw man - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No one is arguing for a dictatorship. I understand it is easier for you to copy and paste stuff instead of addressing the reality in front of you but it can be kind of hard to watch.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Straw man - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No one is arguing for a dictatorship. I understand it is easier for you to copy and paste stuff instead of addressing the reality in front of you but it can be kind of hard to watch.

Straw man - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No one is arguing for a dictatorship. I understand it is easier for you to copy and paste stuff instead of addressing the reality in front of you but it can be kind of hard to watch.

Hey....only two lies in this post!

You're improving!
That was tongue in cheek.



Those, like you, who endorse any iteration of totalitarianism....
Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism


a. actually do aim for a dictatorship....

and

b. favor a governance scheme which mis-views human nature.

A reading of the history of the last century reveals what a fool you are.



Now....write soon...y'hear?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP poses the question as to why no one in our secular society thinks or speaks of communism in the same way that one thinks or speaks of Nazism.

The answer is the cloak of respectability that the most popular President provided for communism.....



11. September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there wasfreedom of religion in the USSR.

"The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step ina massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137


a. The following analysis of Dennis J. Dunn's "Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow."

"Adopting the "pseudoprofound theory of convergence,"Rooseveltians claimed that the Soviet Union "was moving ineluctably toward democracy"(pp. 3-4). The author alleges that "moral relativism" promptedRoosevelt to mislead the American public and ignore his foreign policy advisors in order to provethat Stalin was an evolving democrat, not "a genocidal megalomaniac guided by the higher power of revolutionary inevitability ..." (Dunn, p. 4, 6).


b. In contrast, "Traditionalists" rejected the theory of convergence. ... they viewed Stalin as "a murderer, a liar, and a vicious opponent of the United States and of pluralism generally." Imbued with "absolute morality," Traditionalists wanted Roosevelt to compel the Soviets to adopt democracy and "the minimumstandards of moral behavior that were outlined in the world's principal religions and moral codes."

These pleas, however, went unheeded as Roosevelt remained intent on pursuing "his policy of uncritical friendship toward Stalin"(Dunn, pp. 8-9)."
H-Net Reviews





Had Roosevelt been the man that Reagan was, I have no doubt that the America of today would more closely reflect the America memorialized in our founding documents.

 

[Bombur]

So your response is to double down on your straw man and then copy and paste again.

Is this really the best you can do?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So your response is to double down on your straw man and then copy and paste again.

Is this really the best you can do?

No....I'm just getting a kick out of revealing what a dope you are!
I'm not that worried about what you think because I can see you don't do that too often.

I bet you're not the only one who sees that you can't find a single error in any of my posts....just the usual Liberal 'is not, is not!'

 

[Bombur]

So your response is to double down on your straw man and then copy and paste again.

Is this really the best you can do?

No....I'm just getting a kick out of revealing what a dope you are!

Ohhh BURN!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So your response is to double down on your straw man and then copy and paste again.

Is this really the best you can do?

No....I'm just getting a kick out of revealing what a dope you are!

Ohhh BURN!

What??

You require more remediation???

OK...but just one more: socialists, Liberals, Progressives all need to learn this truth:

Good things come to people who go out and earn them.

 

[Bombur]

So your response is to double down on your straw man and then copy and paste again.

Is this really the best you can do?

No....I'm just getting a kick out of revealing what a dope you are!

Ohhh BURN!

What??

You require more remediation???

OK...but just one more: socialists, Liberals, Progressives all need to learn this truth:

Good things come to people who go out and earn them.

When you say "earn" you really mean copy and paste don't you.

Come on you can tell me the truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So your response is to double down on your straw man and then copy and paste again.

Is this really the best you can do?

No....I'm just getting a kick out of revealing what a dope you are!

Ohhh BURN!

What??

You require more remediation???

OK...but just one more: socialists, Liberals, Progressives all need to learn this truth:

Good things come to people who go out and earn them.

When you say "earn" you really mean copy and paste don't you.

Come on you can tell me the truth.

See what I mean....you simply repeat the bogus 'copy and paste.'

It says nothing about the content provided.

Know what 'nothing' means?

It refers to what you know.



Now stop begging. You've been given all the education you're going to get today.

 

[Bombur]

There is nothing bogus about your copy and paste addiction.

There is nothing bogus about your inability to engage in a conversation.

The only thing anyone can learn from your posts is that relying on copying and pasting instead of thinking for yourself is lame-sauce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is nothing bogus about your copy and paste addiction.

There is nothing bogus about your inability to engage in a conversation.

The only thing anyone can learn from your posts is that relying on copying and pasting instead of thinking for yourself is lame-sauce.

So....have you been able to find any errors in my posts, yet?

No?

That's OK....keep looking. (How to keep an idiot entertained!)

 

[Moonglow]

Poor Polichic, caught up in her own personal computer paradox overload...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poor Polichic, caught up in her own personal computer paradox overload...

Hey, look!

Another moron rushes in and realizes he has nothing to say!

I get such a kick out of you guys.

 

[Bombur]

There is nothing bogus about your copy and paste addiction.

There is nothing bogus about your inability to engage in a conversation.

The only thing anyone can learn from your posts is that relying on copying and pasting instead of thinking for yourself is lame-sauce.

So....have you been able to find any errors in my posts, yet?

No?

That's OK....keep looking. (How to keep an idiot entertained!)

I literally just pointed out two problems with your posts.

Like I said, you are incapable of addressing what is being said. So you just post gibberish and copy and paste something.

 

[Moonglow]

Poor Polichic, caught up in her own personal computer paradox overload...

Hey, look!

Another moron rushes in and realizes he has nothing to say!

I get such a kick out of you guys.

So you have a bruised ass?

Say anything? What was it, 3 days ago you posted and OP about the same thing for the last 7 years...

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is nothing bogus about your copy and paste addiction.

There is nothing bogus about your inability to engage in a conversation.

The only thing anyone can learn from your posts is that relying on copying and pasting instead of thinking for yourself is lame-sauce.

So....have you been able to find any errors in my posts, yet?

No?

That's OK....keep looking. (How to keep an idiot entertained!)

I literally just pointed out two problems with your posts.

Like I said, you are incapable of addressing what is being said. So you just post gibberish and copy and paste something.

Actually...no you haven't.
In effect, you have verified everything I've posted.

I should have warned you: You can go blind from my pure awesomeness!