Stalin was a Progressive

[daveman]

So I guess that makes Frank a member in good standing with Stalin's most bitter enemy,

the Nazis.

You progressives can't seem to shake that whole binary thinking handicap, can you?

Hey, ya want binary thought, Frank covered that in yesterday's logical multi-car collision:

What is an American "Progressive" why the spiffy new title? Is it Democrat? No. Liberal? No. Conservative or Republican? Nope.

Well that just leaves the ideology and personalities Progressives admire: Mao, Stalin and Hitler

Doesn't get much more binary than that. Although to be fair -- I gotta give that last post of yours above an honorable mention.

'Sup Dave -- welcome back.

Thanks. You just make sure you don't condemn Carb's binary thinking.

 

[daveman]

Progressives are history's biggest mass murderers, Stalin, Hitler and Mao being the Top Three

Um....no...the khans have them beat....

Not even close.... Stalin alone killed more people than all the Khans...ever... What's astonishing is, according to some figures, the progressives have killed more people than the Black Death did.

I make it 158 million deaths attributable to American progressives.

 

[norwegen]

The Marxist sure as hell wasn't a right-leaning capitalist who saw value in the "bourgeoisie."

Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society.

Joseph Stalin
​

 

[NYcarbineer]

So I guess that makes Frank a member in good standing with Stalin's most bitter enemy,

the Nazis.

You progressives can't seem to shake that whole binary thinking handicap, can you?

If you want to make the argument that Hitler and the Nazis were not anti-Communist, by all means,

let's hear it.

 

[Crystalclear]

And Hitler was a conservative. He believed Christianity is great, was traditional on issues like gay marriage and the role of women in society. He also strongly believed in a national security state and was prejuidiced like many conservatives in the US at that time (KKK for example).

What point do you want to make, almost no progessives support Stalin and almost no conservatives Hitler.

And another required historical correction: The KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.



KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party | National Black Republican Association

Yeah, but you miss one thing. The Democrats are now the progressives, but in the past the Republicans were progressive and the Democrats conservative. This has changed the other way around the last 30 years and so the KKK people who then voted Democrat are now more likely to vote Republican.

 

[Pogo]

You progressives can't seem to shake that whole binary thinking handicap, can you?

Hey, ya want binary thought, Frank covered that in yesterday's logical multi-car collision:

What is an American "Progressive" why the spiffy new title? Is it Democrat? No. Liberal? No. Conservative or Republican? Nope.

Well that just leaves the ideology and personalities Progressives admire: Mao, Stalin and Hitler

Doesn't get much more binary than that. Although to be fair -- I gotta give that last post of yours above an honorable mention.

'Sup Dave -- welcome back.

Thanks. You just make sure you don't condemn Carb's binary thinking.

It took me a couple of hours to figure out what "Carb" meant -- I was out there cleaning my fuel injectors -- but reading it in context NYC was clearly mocking the OP and his inability to distinguish between pseudo-political labels and common English adjectives and then ramming that ignorance through a guilt by association fallacy. So that works about as well as your Rachel Carson myth.

 

[daveman]

So I guess that makes Frank a member in good standing with Stalin's most bitter enemy,

the Nazis.

You progressives can't seem to shake that whole binary thinking handicap, can you?

If you want to make the argument that Hitler and the Nazis were not anti-Communist, by all means,

let's hear it.

I see you haven't gotten any brighter in the last 6 months. That's okay -- I didn't expect you to.

The binary thinking is that since Frank opposes Stalin, he must be a Nazi.

 

[daveman]

And Hitler was a conservative. He believed Christianity is great, was traditional on issues like gay marriage and the role of women in society. He also strongly believed in a national security state and was prejuidiced like many conservatives in the US at that time (KKK for example).

What point do you want to make, almost no progessives support Stalin and almost no conservatives Hitler.

And another required historical correction: The KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.



KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party | National Black Republican Association

Yeah, but you miss one thing. The Democrats are now the progressives, but in the past the Republicans were progressive and the Democrats conservative. This has changed the other way around the last 30 years and so the KKK people who then voted Democrat are now more likely to vote Republican.

Yes, a lot of people tell themselves that.

 

[daveman]

Hey, ya want binary thought, Frank covered that in yesterday's logical multi-car collision:



Doesn't get much more binary than that. Although to be fair -- I gotta give that last post of yours above an honorable mention.

'Sup Dave -- welcome back.

Thanks. You just make sure you don't condemn Carb's binary thinking.

It took me a couple of hours to figure out what "Carb" meant -- I was out there cleaning my fuel injectors -- but reading it in context NYC was clearly mocking the OP and his inability to distinguish between pseudo-political labels and common English adjectives and then ramming that ignorance through a guilt by association fallacy. So that works about as well as your Rachel Carson myth.

Uh huh. What'd you use to clean your injectors?

 

[Pogo]

Thanks. You just make sure you don't condemn Carb's binary thinking.

It took me a couple of hours to figure out what "Carb" meant -- I was out there cleaning my fuel injectors -- but reading it in context NYC was clearly mocking the OP and his inability to distinguish between pseudo-political labels and common English adjectives and then ramming that ignorance through a guilt by association fallacy. So that works about as well as your Rachel Carson myth.

Uh huh. What'd you use to clean your injectors?

Kool-Aid. I know, it's not recommended but there was such a glut of it here, it had to go somewhere...

 

[Pogo]

And another required historical correction: The KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.



KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party | National Black Republican Association

Yeah, but you miss one thing. The Democrats are now the progressives, but in the past the Republicans were progressive and the Democrats conservative. This has changed the other way around the last 30 years and so the KKK people who then voted Democrat are now more likely to vote Republican.

Yes, a lot of people tell themselves that.

Of course in reality none of that's entirely accurate, any more than it would be accurate to imply that a given political party today represents the same thing it did 50, 100, or 150 years ago --- which I know Dave would never do...

The KKK (the first one) was started by CSA Army veterans, not politicians, as were several other vigilante groups at the time that wanted to ignore surrender and continue the Civil War. Meanwhile the Democratic Party, being the largest and oldest and in the South (where a president from a then-upstart new party had just defeated them) in effect the only party, represented very different factions in different regions. That was a time when a Liberal or Conservative might belong to either party, and in the South those conservatives were all Democrats. So "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party" is quite a stretch, implying some kind of natal relationship. For being a Democrat in Mississippi was a whole different ball game from being a Democrat in Massachusetts.

The Klan was gone and driven out by the end of the 1870s. The new Klan revived in 1915 by an ex-minister doctor named Simmons, did get involved in politics and actually elected a few governors and a Senator, who were all Republicans. This second Klan also got a Democratic governor (Walton) impeached when he tried to drive them out of Oklahoma.

So the KKK has always involved conservatives but political party has been whatever was convenient at the time. If there was any political party at all.

 

[daveman]

It took me a couple of hours to figure out what "Carb" meant -- I was out there cleaning my fuel injectors -- but reading it in context NYC was clearly mocking the OP and his inability to distinguish between pseudo-political labels and common English adjectives and then ramming that ignorance through a guilt by association fallacy. So that works about as well as your Rachel Carson myth.

Uh huh. What'd you use to clean your injectors?

Kool-Aid. I know, it's not recommended but there was such a glut of it here, it had to go somewhere...

 

[daveman]

Yeah, but you miss one thing. The Democrats are now the progressives, but in the past the Republicans were progressive and the Democrats conservative. This has changed the other way around the last 30 years and so the KKK people who then voted Democrat are now more likely to vote Republican.

Yes, a lot of people tell themselves that.

Of course in reality none of that's entirely accurate, any more than it would be accurate to imply that a given political party today represents the same thing it did 50, 100, or 150 years ago --- which I know Dave would never do...

The KKK (the first one) was started by CSA Army veterans, not politicians, as were several other vigilante groups at the time that wanted to ignore surrender and continue the Civil War. Meanwhile the Democratic Party, being the largest and oldest and in the South (where a president from a then-upstart new party had just defeated them) in effect the only party, represented very different factions in different regions. That was a time when a Liberal or Conservative might belong to either party, and in the South those conservatives were all Democrats. So "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party" is quite a stretch, implying some kind of natal relationship. For being a Democrat in Mississippi was a whole different ball game from being a Democrat in Massachusetts.

The Klan was gone and driven out by the end of the 1870s. The new Klan revived in 1915 by an ex-minister doctor named Simmons, did get involved in politics and actually elected a few governors and a Senator, who were all Republicans. This second Klan also got a Democratic governor (Walton) impeached when he tried to drive them out of Oklahoma.

So the KKK has always involved conservatives but political party has been whatever was convenient at the time. If there was any political party at all.

You seem to be leaving out a large number of prominent Democrat Klan members.

Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pogo]

Yes, a lot of people tell themselves that.

Of course in reality none of that's entirely accurate, any more than it would be accurate to imply that a given political party today represents the same thing it did 50, 100, or 150 years ago --- which I know Dave would never do...

The KKK (the first one) was started by CSA Army veterans, not politicians, as were several other vigilante groups at the time that wanted to ignore surrender and continue the Civil War. Meanwhile the Democratic Party, being the largest and oldest and in the South (where a president from a then-upstart new party had just defeated them) in effect the only party, represented very different factions in different regions. That was a time when a Liberal or Conservative might belong to either party, and in the South those conservatives were all Democrats. So "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party" is quite a stretch, implying some kind of natal relationship. For being a Democrat in Mississippi was a whole different ball game from being a Democrat in Massachusetts.

The Klan was gone and driven out by the end of the 1870s. The new Klan revived in 1915 by an ex-minister doctor named Simmons, did get involved in politics and actually elected a few governors and a Senator, who were all Republicans. This second Klan also got a Democratic governor (Walton) impeached when he tried to drive them out of Oklahoma.

So the KKK has always involved conservatives but political party has been whatever was convenient at the time. If there was any political party at all.

You seem to be leaving out a large number of prominent Democrat Klan members.

Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All Southerners. Which is the point I just made. All except for David Duke, which represents the temporal shift. Again, as noted: always conservatives, aligned with whatever political party was convenient in the time and place. The Southern Republicans of today are the Southern Democrats of yesterday; parties change according to convenience; the conservatism remains the foundation.

You had already tried to float that tired old idea that the Democratic Party invented slavery, or some variation thereof (yawn) so I presented the contrary. We're a team. You set 'em up, I knock 'em down.

Long story short: in the pre-party-shift South, Klan were usually Democrats if they were with a political party at all. In the midwest and west, and in the post-shift South, they were usually Republicans. Whatever was expedient in that time and place. That is, if they were involved in political activity at all.

 

[Crystalclear]

Yes, a lot of people tell themselves that.

Of course in reality none of that's entirely accurate, any more than it would be accurate to imply that a given political party today represents the same thing it did 50, 100, or 150 years ago --- which I know Dave would never do...



The KKK (the first one) was started by CSA Army veterans, not politicians, as were several other vigilante groups at the time that wanted to ignore surrender and continue the Civil War. Meanwhile the Democratic Party, being the largest and oldest and in the South (where a president from a then-upstart new party had just defeated them) in effect the only party, represented very different factions in different regions. That was a time when a Liberal or Conservative might belong to either party, and in the South those conservatives were all Democrats. So "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party" is quite a stretch, implying some kind of natal relationship. For being a Democrat in Mississippi was a whole different ball game from being a Democrat in Massachusetts.



The Klan was gone and driven out by the end of the 1870s. The new Klan revived in 1915 by an ex-minister doctor named Simmons, did get involved in politics and actually elected a few governors and a Senator, who were all Republicans. This second Klan also got a Democratic governor (Walton) impeached when he tried to drive them out of Oklahoma.



So the KKK has always involved conservatives but political party has been whatever was convenient at the time. If there was any political party at all.

You seem to be leaving out a large number of prominent Democrat Klan members.



Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you totally ignore the fact that those Democrat Klan members were right-wingers, not progressives. They cannot be linked to the Democrat party as it has been the last 10 years. But also not to the Republicans, they might vote for one of the 2 parties, but nobody wants them.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Kochs, Segregation, and Joseph Stalin - YouTube

1930's ussr



racist in the 50's



All done by dad, not them

Fail, so hard, it needs a word of it's own

 

[GreenBean]

Of course in reality none of that's entirely accurate, any more than it would be accurate to imply that a given political party today represents the same thing it did 50, 100, or 150 years ago --- which I know Dave would never do...



The KKK (the first one) was started by CSA Army veterans, not politicians, as were several other vigilante groups at the time that wanted to ignore surrender and continue the Civil War. Meanwhile the Democratic Party, being the largest and oldest and in the South (where a president from a then-upstart new party had just defeated them) in effect the only party, represented very different factions in different regions. That was a time when a Liberal or Conservative might belong to either party, and in the South those conservatives were all Democrats. So "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party" is quite a stretch, implying some kind of natal relationship. For being a Democrat in Mississippi was a whole different ball game from being a Democrat in Massachusetts.



The Klan was gone and driven out by the end of the 1870s. The new Klan revived in 1915 by an ex-minister doctor named Simmons, did get involved in politics and actually elected a few governors and a Senator, who were all Republicans. This second Klan also got a Democratic governor (Walton) impeached when he tried to drive them out of Oklahoma.



So the KKK has always involved conservatives but political party has been whatever was convenient at the time. If there was any political party at all.

You seem to be leaving out a large number of prominent Democrat Klan members.

they might vote for one of the 2 parties, but nobody wants them.

But you totally ignore the fact that those Democrat Klan members were right-wingers, not progressives.

Right winger and left winger is simply a label of convenience - Hitler and Stalin - in their day were considered "Progressives" , Stalin a left Winger , and Hitler applauded by the American Progressive community. RW / LW labels mean very little

They cannot be linked to the Democrat party as it has been the last 10 years. But also not to the Republicans,

They can historically be linked to the Democratic Party - as the link you provided bears out .

They can not be linked to the Republicans , although progressives and liberals , fond of their semantic two step shuffle shoe word games, when all else fails, continuously try to do so.

 

[Pogo]

You seem to be leaving out a large number of prominent Democrat Klan members.

they might vote for one of the 2 parties, but nobody wants them.

But you totally ignore the fact that those Democrat Klan members were right-wingers, not progressives.

Right winger and left winger is simply a label of convenience - Hitler and Stalin - in their day were considered "Progressives" , Stalin a left Winger , and Hitler applauded by the American Progressive community. RW / LW labels mean very little

They cannot be linked to the Democrat party as it has been the last 10 years. But also not to the Republicans,

They can historically be linked to the Democratic Party - as the link you provided bears out .

They can not be linked to the Republicans , although progressives and liberals , fond of their semantic two step shuffle shoe word games, when all else fails, continuously try to do so.

The Klan is not historically "linked" to any political party. Except in the tiny minds of demagogues bent on using it as a political football to put points on an imaginary scoreboard to try to divide the populace of the present by using fables of the past. The fact that the KKK had goals in common with Democrats in one time and place and Republicans in another time and place is irrelevant to anything but a correlation fallacy.

 

[JQPublic1]

They can historically be linked to the Democratic Party - as the link you provided bears out .

They can not be linked to the Republicans , although progressives and liberals , fond of their semantic two step shuffle shoe word games, when all else fails, continuously try to do so.

The 21st Century KKK can absolutely be linked to the Republicans. But, they are not the only hate group that can be so linked. Consider the following:

Hate groups like God Hates F@gs are the norm and not the exception. Other norms within the Republican party are:
American Border Patrol/American Patrol
Ideology:
Anti-Immigrant
American Family Association
Ideology:
Anti-Gay
American Third Position
Ideology:
White Nationalist
Aryan Nations
Ideology:
Neo-Nazi
Blood & Honour
Ideology:
Racist Skinhead
Brotherhood of Klans
Ideology:
Ku Klux Klan

Note that last one. Ain't it a beaut?

 

[IchKampfe]

After skimming over the document for a little, I have determined that the only time it really uses the term "progressive" was in the title and two other times in the texts (which, I might add, never described the Bolshevik Party, communism, or socialism as progressive. Thank you Ctrl + F.)

This is a common misconception in conservative circles that I have seen. Often conservatives conflate progressive and socialist/communist, as if they are a part of a large monolithic conspiracy to spread world communism together somehow. I will admit some of their criticisms historically have merit, progressives generally were "light" in regards to communism, but to conflate the two political ideologies as the same is completely wrong and shows ignorance and/or inability to overcome bias in order to recognize basic facts.

Progressives (in the extreme basics) are a political group that aim to reform the current government to better aid the citizenry, and does not have an inherent anti-capitalist tendency within it. Socialists/communists seek to abolish private property in order to end the capitalists' exploitation of the working class and establish workers' ownership of the means of production, sometimes through revolutionary violence if it is deemed necessary, or through reforms but with the end goal of socialist democracy (this is strongly dependent on the tendency in question.) One can see there are clear differences between the two ideologies.

Now, about you calling Hitler a progressive, is just dead wrong. You see, if you took some time out of your day to read about the ideology of National Socialism you would see clear contradictions to all of the other "progressives" you mentioned and throughout history. Fascism is a unique nationalist ideology that emphasizes the state's role in the preservation and advancement of the organic unity that is the nation (typically defined as all members of the nation of the past, present, and future.) Fascism, being nationalistic, is inherently opposed to communism for its cosmopolitan and anti-nationalist stances (and its active opposition to nationalist organizations such as Freikorps, S.A, Falangists in Spain, etc.) In its attitude as well, communism and fascism conflict plenty. Fascism emphasizes authority, and the existing order of society as something to be upheld, only this order of society extends itself to all aspects of the national existence; in the social lives of the citizenry, economic health, and political unity of the nation (note to libtards: this does not make all conservatives fascist.) Fascists are typically reactionary, typically seeking to restore some part of the older principles of society.

This brings us into socialism/communism. In contradiction to fascism, socialism/communism is typically anti-nationalist (read: Workers of the world, unite) and very much against standing social orders such as religion, morality, family life, etc. (note: they seek the destruction of the culture of the bourgeoisie, its morals and ways of life are included.) Communist tendencies vary widely on opinions regarding the state, you would not have an anarcho-communist saying the state should play an active role in the revolution like a Marxist-Leninist (or Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) would say, but typically they desire a classless, stateless society as an end goal but this end goal society has never been accomplished. This contradicts fascism immensely. The fascist sees the state as an extension of the nation's will, while the communist sees the state as an extension of the bourgeoisie's oppression over the working class.

Onto progressives, progressives may seek the same goals as Marxists do in some cases (e.g., workers' rights, increase of minimum wage, right to unionize, counter culture, etc.) but this does not make them communists whatsoever. Their methods are less radical, usually seeing reform as the ultimate route to improving social ills and oppression. The progressive also has some hope in contemporary democracies. This contradicts communists, as they do not have faith in the system whatsoever as they see the state as an agent of class oppression and thus capitalist democracies will ultimately serve the bourgeoisie.