CDZ Commies and Marxists

[Elvis Obama]

Similarly if a politician says:
"Society needs to help the weak and the old and the sick. Nobody should be left behind" - we pretty much know where he, or she, stands.

Okay, let me ask you something straight up... Do you believe that conservative right-wingers actually don't want to help the weak, old and sick and want to leave people behind?

I can assure you, this is a sign you may have become brainwashed. Somewhere, at some point, someone has convinced you that the Conservative right is something it is not... never has been, never will be.

It is that we have a different approach to solving the problems. We believe our way works best. You can certainly disagree and we can have a debate about our ideas versus your ideas... but to try and claim that you have the exclusive on helping people and we're only concerned with ourselves, is quite the insult.

There is theory and there is practice. Do you believe that those politicians who have aligned themselves with what are regarded as right of center positions effectively represent the principles they swore to espouse? Getting rid of big government, for example? I don't mean to suggest that politicians who align themselves with the left are any better at being truly effective representatives. The opposite, in fact. They are all creatures of the same swamp. I never understand why people are so quick to descend into a "my side is good and your side is bad" debate, when in fact the real problem is that professional politicians and their evil guilds, the political parties, are screwing the American public in a truly bi-partisan fashion.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Why is this still a big thing in America ?

The terms are rarely used in the UK where the Communist Party and its various sub sets could all meet in a phone box.

There are no communist MPs or local Councillors and to all intents and purposes the whole thing died when the wall came down.

And yet I see someone like Mr Sanders described as a "Commie" when he is clearly a moderate socialist.

Is this some sort of hangover from the Macarthy era or have you guys discovered something that has eluded the rest of us ?

I am not really interested in dry definitions of communism or what Karl said to Groucho before the First World War.

In my political lexicon there are only three countries in the world that have a form of communism and in all three it is on the way out.

North Korea - bizarre personality cult that will die out when people get sick of being starved by a lunatic.

Cuba - Starbucks and Macdonalds will bring that experiment to an end peacefully.

China - State control will crumble when people decide that economic success isnt enough.

So is it a real thing or just a reaction to any form of state intervention ?

A fascinating subject. Did you ever see The Demi-Paradise? It's a WWII propaganda film starring Laurence Olivier, in which the virtues of the Russian alliance were touted. Pretty good movie, actually. Directed by David Lean. English WWII propaganda films were much better than their American counterparts. This film is a pretty good example of just how different American and English attitudes and experiences were as regards the uneasy alliance with the Russians.

The earliest interaction I can remember between the USSR and England was the decision to blow up Sykes-Picot, a pretty strong, upraised middle-finger to the West, and a decision which is still reverberating to this day. The pre-WWII attitude towards the Communists was more than a bit dismissive. After WWII, the gloves came off, for all Western countries, despite the war being fought by proxy in Korea, Vietnam, etc.. China becoming Communist, the addition of nuclear weapons into the mix, ratcheted up the paranoia in the US to a fever pitch. My impression has always been that our attitude towards what we regarded as an enemy was matched in Europe. That the threat was assessed in basically the same way by all.

Here's where we run into a bit of trouble. The line between reality and paranoia. Marx was a philosopher, and what socialism meant within his rather brutal master plan for dealing with the oncoming peril of industrialization is completely different from what it has come to mean. Now it's an ever less effective weapon to hit a political opponent over the head with. In order to make that weapon effective people have to buy into this notion that social safety net programs are socialistic and are therefore the thin wedge with which Communism is going to to be forced on our unsuspecting selves. Be afraid, be very afraid.

It's about FDR. He started our social safety net nuttery and he's a saint. The patron saint of the Democratic party, as Ronnie Raygun is the patron saint of the GOP. FDR is a commie, according to his detractors. They fight for history, 24/7, by attacking every FDR position and achievement. Both parties fight to revise the historical consensus on anything which puts their side in a bad light and the other side in a good light. Commie, though, that's a bit of a dead horse, politically speaking. But amongst the hoi polloi there are still many Pavlovian loyalists who bark on mention of the words Commie, red, socialist, pinko. Since it became part of boiler-plate conservatism this kind of absurd conflation of social safety net programs and the non-existent threat of "commie indoctrination" will be with us for some time.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I havent seen that one. There were several pro Russian films that came out of Hollywood at the time as well.

 

[Boss]

There is theory and there is practice. Do you believe that those politicians who have aligned themselves with what are regarded as right of center positions effectively represent the principles they swore to espouse? Getting rid of big government, for example? I don't mean to suggest that politicians who align themselves with the left are any better at being truly effective representatives. The opposite, in fact. They are all creatures of the same swamp. I never understand why people are so quick to descend into a "my side is good and your side is bad" debate, when in fact the real problem is that professional politicians and their evil guilds, the political parties, are screwing the American public in a truly bi-partisan fashion.

This is not about what I believe politicians as a collective whole have done. I get bored quickly with the "all politicians are scum" argument because it's a diversion or scapegoat, attempting to avoid honest discourse on what the real problems are. How do you propose we fix the "all politicians are scum" problem, anarchy?

The problem is the integrity and character of people we're electing. We go vote based on how someone looks or sounds... we refuse to vote for a really good man, solely because he looks funny... sounds funny when he talks... he seems kind of square and un-hip... but look at this guy playing the sax on late night television... he's pretty cool... yeah, so what if he's exploiting female interns half his age to have adulterous relations on his wife... as long as he's getting his work done it's okay. Right? ...Character MATTERS!

So what you have to start doing is electing people of impeccable character who can't be bought or sold. People who are going to go up there and do the job they were elected to do and not become corrupted by the system. I am all for term limits but we shouldn't need them, we have term limits-- it's called elections. I have no problem with a "career politician" if they have spent their career avoiding the temptation of being bribed or bought off by lobbyists and special interests or corralled into some "good old boys club" where their votes serve the needs of the ruling class. If he/she is standing up for the people who elected them and doing the right thing, exemplifying honor and integrity in what they do and how they conduct themselves, playing by the rules and adhering to the principles they are sworn to uphold... the Constitution... then they ought to get to stay as long as they are able to do that.

The problem is, we have very few politicians who fit that mold because that's not the kind of people we're electing... that's not THEIR fault and it's not the SYSTEM'S fault... that is OUR fault.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I havent seen that one. There were several pro Russian films that came out of Hollywood at the time as well.

Yeah the difference is that The Demi Paradise was about fostering good relations between Russians and people on the home front. American films were about Russians in Russia or being spies in Europe. The only direct interaction Americans had with Russians were on the battlefield, and those interactions were often not very cordial. Also, the DP is a "A" picture, with Olivier and Lean. The American efforts were more "B" pics.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is this still a big thing in America ?

The terms are rarely used in the UK where the Communist Party and its various sub sets could all meet in a phone box.

There are no communist MPs or local Councillors and to all intents and purposes the whole thing died when the wall came down.

And yet I see someone like Mr Sanders described as a "Commie" when he is clearly a moderate socialist.

Is this some sort of hangover from the Macarthy era or have you guys discovered something that has eluded the rest of us ?

I am not really interested in dry definitions of communism or what Karl said to Groucho before the First World War.

In my political lexicon there are only three countries in the world that have a form of communism and in all three it is on the way out.

North Korea - bizarre personality cult that will die out when people get sick of being starved by a lunatic.

Cuba - Starbucks and Macdonalds will bring that experiment to an end peacefully.

China - State control will crumble when people decide that economic success isnt enough.

So is it a real thing or just a reaction to any form of state intervention ?

It’s a big thing among conservatives in America.

Much of it has to do with the ignorance of what communism and Marxism actually are among most conservatives, and for others on the right it’s partisan demagoguery.

 

[Boss]

Much of it has to do with the ignorance of what communism and Marxism actually are among most conservatives, and for others on the right it’s partisan demagoguery.

I'm not ignorant of anything and I think simply lobbing that allegation on CDZ is a violation of the rules. I am also not presenting "partisan demagoguery" and this too, is an insult. You need to refrain from such in this forum or leave. The OP chose to post this here for a reason, so get busy with it.

Communism dates back to Thomas More's, Utopia in 1516 ...or even further if you believe Marx, who claims "primitive communism" dates back to our "hunter-gatherer" roots. So the idea of a society/government being established on the ideas of Communism has been around a while.

It certainly was around in 1776 when our nation was founded, and those smart men who deliberated over what sort of country to establish here, certainly had the opportunity to consider Communism. This idea in opposition to ownership of private property continued to pop up... some Puritans in England known as the "Diggers" confronted Oliver Cromwell over the issue. But this can be traced back to the Spartacus slave revolts... the idea in opposition to private property owners.

It wasn't until late in the 18th century the ideas of Communist Utopia were honed into a proper political movement. From Rousseau in France through a series of philosophers like Hegel and Strauss, culminating in the philosophies of Karl Marx, who laid out the framework for how to bring about Communism through Marxist Socialism.

Of course, things have never quite worked out for these genius philosophers because the one thing they consistently fail to factor in is the human spirit. That's why their brilliant plans only work on paper. When practiced, they result in millions of deaths, tyrant dictators who want to control the world, fanatical religious cults, pestilence and starvation followed by genocide and horrid atrocity on humanity. I mean...THAT IS the history.

SO.... being that is the track record for this genius ideology... the only way to present it with any sort of chance for public acceptance is to disguise it as something that it's not. Let's call it "Democratic Socialism" and that makes it alright. Accuse people of being "ignorant" and not understanding how THIS incarnation is totally different than Marxism. It's what MUST be done in order to carry out the agenda.

And the ultimate agenda, the stated objective itself, is to convert us into a Communist Utopia. You can run from this truth all you like, however, there are people who know much more than you think out here.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Co-operation will beat competition 9 times out of 10. People with less than a million in the bank are being conned if they think that socialism cant hep them.

 

[Boss]

Co-operation will beat competition 9 times out of 10. People with less than a million in the bank are being conned if they think that socialism cant hep them.

It's not cooperation versus competition. It's tyranny versus freedom.

Free market capitalism, free enterprise and constitutional republicanism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Nothing else even comes remotely close. We can contrast this with the various incarnations of Marxist Socialism/Communism, and we see a long history of pain, suffering, death, oppression and atrocity. The total is currently well over 150 million deaths. This is why Marxists hate to identify as Marxist.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Co-operation will beat competition 9 times out of 10. People with less than a million in the bank are being conned if they think that socialism cant hep them.

It's not cooperation versus competition. It's tyranny versus freedom.

Free market capitalism, free enterprise and constitutional republicanism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Nothing else even comes remotely close. We can contrast this with the various incarnations of Marxist Socialism/Communism, and we see a long history of pain, suffering, death, oppression and atrocity. The total is currently well over 150 million deaths. This is why Marxists hate to identify as Marxist.

The number of billionaires created is not a sign of a successful society. For every winner there has to be a loser. How society deals with them is a mark of how successful it is.

 

[numan]

A fascinating subject. Did you ever see The Demi-Paradise? It's a WWII propaganda film starring Laurence Olivier, in which the virtues of the Russian alliance were touted. Pretty good movie, actually. Directed by David Lean. English WWII propaganda films were much better than their American counterparts. This film is a pretty good example of just how different American and English attitudes and experiences were as regards the uneasy alliance with the Russians.

Yes, an interesting film. Not dramatically interesting -- it's pretty boiler plate and a compendium of clichés. There is an amusing slip of the tongue by Olivier that was not re-done -- the whole movie was clearly made in a hurry.
What must be understood is that it was obviously a movie made to be shown both in Britain and in Russia -- so the clichés had to be acceptable in both countries -- and in many ways are quite different from what modern ideological Neanderthals would expect (I particularly like the old-fashioned grandmother -- she managed to be quite, quite a Russian stereotype, very amusing.

One thing was quite brilliant. Toward the end the Russian hero, Olivier, makes a speech about English humour -- the best expressed view of it that I have ever come across, quite delightful and quite true.
.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Co-operation will beat competition 9 times out of 10. People with less than a million in the bank are being conned if they think that socialism cant hep them.

It's not cooperation versus competition. It's tyranny versus freedom.

Free market capitalism, free enterprise and constitutional republicanism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Nothing else even comes remotely close. We can contrast this with the various incarnations of Marxist Socialism/Communism, and we see a long history of pain, suffering, death, oppression and atrocity. The total is currently well over 150 million deaths. This is why Marxists hate to identify as Marxist.

Marx was completely correct about the relationship of the owners of the means of production to society in general. The makes vs. the takers. Proles and bourgeoisie. People like to make this stuff so mysterious and complicated. It's quite simple, really. It's greed. Unrestrained greed. I drink up your milkshake!! Greed is useful, if controlled. If left to it's own devices it will evolve exactly as Marx predicted. Unfortunately for the bearded one, he gravely miscalculated the amount of new wealth which would be generated by industrialization. It took quite a while for the insanely acquisitive to catch up to the new scale of wealth. Now they have. They have bought the government, so that there are no constraints on their greed, and they have drunk up enough of America's milkshake to destabilize society. If that process continues, unrestrained, it will bring about the revolution that Marx predicted.

 

[Boss]

Co-operation will beat competition 9 times out of 10. People with less than a million in the bank are being conned if they think that socialism cant hep them.

It's not cooperation versus competition. It's tyranny versus freedom.

Free market capitalism, free enterprise and constitutional republicanism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Nothing else even comes remotely close. We can contrast this with the various incarnations of Marxist Socialism/Communism, and we see a long history of pain, suffering, death, oppression and atrocity. The total is currently well over 150 million deaths. This is why Marxists hate to identify as Marxist.

The number of billionaires created is not a sign of a successful society. For every winner there has to be a loser. How society deals with them is a mark of how successful it is.

Really? Prosperity of the people isn't a sign of a successful society?

No, there doesn't have to be a loser for every winner... that's assuming we live in a vacuum where our talents and skills are worthless. In free market capitalism, both parties benefit from voluntary transaction. There are two winners and no loser.

 

[Boss]

Marx was completely correct about the relationship of the owners of the means of production to society in general. The makes vs. the takers. Proles and bourgeoisie. People like to make this stuff so mysterious and complicated. It's quite simple, really. It's greed. Unrestrained greed. I drink up your milkshake!! Greed is useful, if controlled. If left to it's own devices it will evolve exactly as Marx predicted. Unfortunately for the bearded one, he gravely miscalculated the amount of new wealth which would be generated by industrialization. It took quite a while for the insanely acquisitive to catch up to the new scale of wealth. Now they have. They have bought the government, so that there are no constraints on their greed, and they have drunk up enough of America's milkshake to destabilize society. If that process continues, unrestrained, it will bring about the revolution that Marx predicted.

Well... no... Marx wasn't correct. And the revolution he predicted has already been done several times. Each time, it resulted in catastrophic failure. What he gravely miscalculated was the human spirit and mankind's yearning to be free. What he didn't anticipate was what some brave and courageous men across the ocean would create in the form of a self-governing free society built on free enterprise and free market capitalism.

There is no such thing as a greedy free market capitalist. If there ever were one, he was quickly dispatched by a less-greedy free market capitalist who took all his business. It's one of the really great things about free market capitalism. It's based on mutual voluntary transaction.

 

[numan]

[
There is no such thing as a greedy free market capitalist. If there ever were one, he was quickly dispatched by a less-greedy free market capitalist who took all his business. It's one of the really great things about free market capitalism. It's based on mutual voluntary transaction.

What a pie-in-the-sky Fairy Tale !!

Some people just can't comprehend that there are monopolies, oligopolies, crony capitalism, collusion, conspiracy, price-fixing, advertising brainwashing, planned obsolescence, pyramid schemes, hucksters, and narcissistic sociopaths like Don Trump !!

And yes, the Don was a double entendre ! ....
.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Marx was completely correct about the relationship of the owners of the means of production to society in general. The makes vs. the takers. Proles and bourgeoisie. People like to make this stuff so mysterious and complicated. It's quite simple, really. It's greed. Unrestrained greed. I drink up your milkshake!! Greed is useful, if controlled. If left to it's own devices it will evolve exactly as Marx predicted. Unfortunately for the bearded one, he gravely miscalculated the amount of new wealth which would be generated by industrialization. It took quite a while for the insanely acquisitive to catch up to the new scale of wealth. Now they have. They have bought the government, so that there are no constraints on their greed, and they have drunk up enough of America's milkshake to destabilize society. If that process continues, unrestrained, it will bring about the revolution that Marx predicted.

Well... no... Marx wasn't correct. And the revolution he predicted has already been done several times. Each time, it resulted in catastrophic failure. What he gravely miscalculated was the human spirit and mankind's yearning to be free. What he didn't anticipate was what some brave and courageous men across the ocean would create in the form of a self-governing free society built on free enterprise and free market capitalism.

There is no such thing as a greedy free market capitalist. If there ever were one, he was quickly dispatched by a less-greedy free market capitalist who took all his business. It's one of the really great things about free market capitalism. It's based on mutual voluntary transaction.

There is no such thing as a greedy free market capitalist. If there ever were one, he was quickly dispatched by a less-greedy free market capitalist who took all his business. It's one of the really great things about free market capitalism. It's based on mutual voluntary transaction

Free market capitalism as cure-all. Free market capitalism as the be-all and end-all of human culture. Brought to you by the same crew who gave us trickle down economics. Human nature flipped on its head. No more greed. Astounding.

No, we do not need to revise the Seven Deadly Sins. We do not need to alter our folklore to reflect our new "post-free-market" natures. Greed is not dead. In fact it's healthier that ever. King Midas is still relevant. The English dragon of myth and Tolkien fame is still with us. Goldman Sachs still rulz. The free market system has value, but the over-valuation of it which so many people seem to indulge in these days is a bizarre form of pseudo-religion.

 

[Boss]

[
There is no such thing as a greedy free market capitalist. If there ever were one, he was quickly dispatched by a less-greedy free market capitalist who took all his business. It's one of the really great things about free market capitalism. It's based on mutual voluntary transaction.

What a pie-in-the-sky Fairy Tale !!

Some people just can't comprehend that there are monopolies, oligopolies, crony capitalism, collusion, conspiracy, price-fixing, advertising brainwashing, planned obsolescence, pyramid schemes, hucksters, and narcissistic sociopaths like Don Trump !!

And yes, the Don was a double entendre ! ....
.

None of what you listed is free market capitalism. Sorry.

Again.... Free market capitalism is mutual and voluntary transaction between two parties. I have something you want that is worth more to you than the money in your pocket-- the money in your pocket is worth more to me than the thing I have you want. We trade and we're both mutually satisfied.

Greed has no place in free market capitalism. Again... a greedy free market capitalist will quickly discover a less-greedy free market capitalist has taken his business. Now.... there ARE greedy corporatists who exploit the powers of government to give themselves an unfair advantage over the competition... that is NOT free market capitalism.

 

[Boss]

Free market capitalism as cure-all. Free market capitalism as the be-all and end-all of human culture.

Well... along with a free enterprise system and a constitutional republic, it forms the best and most prosperous system mankind has ever created. It's precisely how we came from a fledgling little upstart nation a couple hundred years ago to the #1 world superpower. In our wake are a series of failed attempts to make the 18th century Marxist idea work, generally resulting in catastrophic failure, genocide, atrocity and death.

 

[regent]

Free market capitalism as cure-all. Free market capitalism as the be-all and end-all of human culture.

Well... along with a free enterprise system and a constitutional republic, it forms the best and most prosperous system mankind has ever created. It's precisely how we came from a fledgling little upstart nation a couple hundred years ago to the #1 world superpower. In our wake are a series of failed attempts to make the 18th century Marxist idea work, generally resulting in catastrophic failure, genocide, atrocity and death.

When the Constitution went into effect so did a lot of rules and regulations concerning the economy go into effect.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Free market capitalism as cure-all. Free market capitalism as the be-all and end-all of human culture.

Well... along with a free enterprise system and a constitutional republic, it forms the best and most prosperous system mankind has ever created. It's precisely how we came from a fledgling little upstart nation a couple hundred years ago to the #1 world superpower. In our wake are a series of failed attempts to make the 18th century Marxist idea work, generally resulting in catastrophic failure, genocide, atrocity and death.

Absolutely true. I neither wish to understate nor overstate the accomplishments of the modern capitalist democracies. Nor do I wish to in any way hide the dangers that we face, or claim that we have achieved things that we have not. Many claims are made for free markets which are unprovable and illogical. Quasi-religious, as I said. A new religion in which billionaires are the new prophets (profits?). Saint Trump of the Church of the Enormous God, the Best, Really, ya Know?

Greed and corruption are bigger problems today than they have ever been. Free markets do nothing to protect human beings from their own lowest impulses.