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

[slackjawed]

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]

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...

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]

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

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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...

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

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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.'

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.'

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.

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]

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]

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]

Funny that.

ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT ARE COLLECTIVIST!