Democracy is the road to socialism

[AmazonTania]

It takes a far left fucktard to forget that tyranny by the majority is tyranny nevertheless.

Majority rule doesn't equal tyranny.

Only a Nazi would argue such a thing.

Majorities decided that Blacks couldn't marry whites or attend the same schools or decide that your property can be taken for a 'public use.'

Nothing tyrannical about that...

 

[Hyrcanus]

Majorities decided that Blacks couldn't marry whites or attend the same schools or decide that your property can be taken for a 'public use.'

Nothing tyrannical about that...

So you think the USA should be a malevolent dictatorship?

 

[AmazonTania]

Majorities decided that Blacks couldn't marry whites or attend the same schools or decide that your property can be taken for a 'public use.'

Nothing tyrannical about that...

So you think the USA should be a malevolent dictatorship?

No, just pointing out the flaws of Democracy. If you believe something isn't right simply because most people can agree on something, then you believe that majorities shouldn't decide everything. Minority rights should always be protected even when the majority of people disagree with those decisions. Society should work so everyone has a great deal of autonomy. We we cared about autonomy, then we cared about whether or not people have as much control over their lives as possible.

I keep using Hong Kong as an example, because it's a great example. It doesn't have the same amount of freedoms America has. It doesn't even have Democracy. But they've structured a government with a strict policy of non-internationalism, which gives citizens a great deal of autonomy.

 

[Votto]

A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC WHERE THE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS IS UNALIENABLE AND RESPECTED.

Oh, so you want a fully Libertarian state?

where abortion rights, the right to use drugs, the right to commit suicide, gay marriage, and open borders are respect?

interesting.

Only a collectivist thinks he has all the answers. That's why I don't pretend to have all the answers and why freedom is such a precious commodity.

 

[Agit8r]

I've never heard anything to suggest that Marx was in favor of democracy at all

Karl Marx - Wikiquote

That's because you rely on wikiquotes as a credible source of information. If you've read the Communist Manifesto, which was co-authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, you would have read pages upon pages about how Democracy was very essential to communist society.

The 'democracy is the path to communism' meme seems to have been started by a right-winger:

"Just as a figure like Bismarck once rightfully described liberalism as the pacesetter of Social Democracy, Democracy and the Center are today the pacesetters of Bolshevism"
-- Adolf Hitler; from proclamation to Nazi Party (January 1, 1932)

You are right about one thing: Most powerful dictators throughout history has gained power through some form of democracy. Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Napoleon. Which is interesting why progressives are so eager to preserve American 'Democracy.'

Of those, only Caesar was elected. And in a disputed election at that

 

[bripat9643]

If the people voting for legislators that make our laws is the road to Socialism, what form of govt. would you prefer?

Dictatorship? Monarchy?

I don't want government running my life.

 

[bripat9643]

I've never heard anything to suggest that Marx was in favor of democracy at all

Karl Marx - Wikiquote

That's because you rely on wikiquotes as a credible source of information. If you've read the Communist Manifesto, which was co-authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, you would have read pages upon pages about how Democracy was very essential to communist society.

The 'democracy is the path to communism' meme seems to have been started by a right-winger:

"Just as a figure like Bismarck once rightfully described liberalism as the pacesetter of Social Democracy, Democracy and the Center are today the pacesetters of Bolshevism"
-- Adolf Hitler; from proclamation to Nazi Party (January 1, 1932)

You are right about one thing: Most powerful dictators throughout history has gained power through some form of democracy. Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Napoleon. Which is interesting why progressives are so eager to preserve American 'Democracy.'

Of those, only Caesar was elected. And in a disputed election at that

Hitler wasn't elected, but he attained office through the legal means in a democracy. His party had the most votes.

No one in England every voted directly for the office of Prime Minister. They are apponted by their parties, just like Hitler.

 

[AmazonTania]

I've never heard anything to suggest that Marx was in favor of democracy at all

Karl Marx - Wikiquote

That's because you rely on wikiquotes as a credible source of information. If you've read the Communist Manifesto, which was co-authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, you would have read pages upon pages about how Democracy was very essential to communist society.

The 'democracy is the path to communism' meme seems to have been started by a right-winger:

"Just as a figure like Bismarck once rightfully described liberalism as the pacesetter of Social Democracy, Democracy and the Center are today the pacesetters of Bolshevism"
-- Adolf Hitler; from proclamation to Nazi Party (January 1, 1932)

You are right about one thing: Most powerful dictators throughout history has gained power through some form of democracy. Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Napoleon. Which is interesting why progressives are so eager to preserve American 'Democracy.'

Of those, only Caesar was elected.

Caesar was the only dictator to gain power through an election. The others simply gained power through mob rule, as the Nazi Party gained enough electoral support to become the largest political party in the Riechstag. Nalopean gained political power through a coup of the French government.

The majority of people decided who they wanted as their leaders. Election or no, Democracy prevailed.

And in a disputed election at that

And what is your point?

 

[Agit8r]

That's because you rely on wikiquotes as a credible source of information. If you've read the Communist Manifesto, which was co-authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, you would have read pages upon pages about how Democracy was very essential to communist society.



You are right about one thing: Most powerful dictators throughout history has gained power through some form of democracy. Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Napoleon. Which is interesting why progressives are so eager to preserve American 'Democracy.'

Of those, only Caesar was elected. And in a disputed election at that

Hitler wasn't elected, but he attained office through the legal means in a democracy. His party had the most votes.

No one in England every voted directly for the office of Prime Minister. They are apponted by their parties, just like Hitler.

No his party was part of the coalition that had the most votes. He was appointed by a conservative, Paul von Hindenburg. The finance minister was a Liberal (libertarian) Hjalmar Schacht. The Nazis were but a faction within the Right.

 

[bripat9643]

Of those, only Caesar was elected. And in a disputed election at that

Hitler wasn't elected, but he attained office through the legal means in a democracy. His party had the most votes.

No one in England every voted directly for the office of Prime Minister. They are apponted by their parties, just like Hitler.

No his party was part of the coalition that had the most votes. He was appointed by a conservative, Paul von Hindenburg. The finance minister was a Liberal (libertarian) Hjalmar Schacht. The Nazis were but a faction within the Right.

The Nazis had the largest number of delegates in the Reichstag.

End of story.

All you're doing is quibbling about the mechanics of democracy. The Prime Minister of England has no more a legitimate claim to power than Hitler had.

 

[AmazonTania]

Of those, only Caesar was elected. And in a disputed election at that

Hitler wasn't elected, but he attained office through the legal means in a democracy. His party had the most votes.

No one in England every voted directly for the office of Prime Minister. They are apponted by their parties, just like Hitler.

No his party was part of the coalition that had the most votes. He was appointed by a conservative, Paul von Hindenburg. The finance minister was a Liberal (libertarian) Hjalmar Schacht. The Nazis were but a faction within the Right.

Can you name any policies or positions which aligned those two among libertarians/conservatives, or are you making things up?

 

[Agit8r]

Hitler wasn't elected, but he attained office through the legal means in a democracy. His party had the most votes.

No one in England every voted directly for the office of Prime Minister. They are apponted by their parties, just like Hitler.

No his party was part of the coalition that had the most votes. He was appointed by a conservative, Paul von Hindenburg. The finance minister was a Liberal (libertarian) Hjalmar Schacht. The Nazis were but a faction within the Right.

Can you name any policies or positions which aligned those two among libertarians/conservatives, or are you making things up?

sure: http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

 

[auditor0007]

These were the words of Karl Marx. He once said, "Democracy is the road to socialism".

The idea being that eventually the masses would rise up and strip the top 1 or 4% of everything they had by mob rule. This was the way to empower the average citizen.

However, collectivism does not empower the average citizen. Collectivism does the exact opposite. For you see, in order for collectivism to work, the individual must surrender certain rights for the good of the whole. That is why the Constitution is so repugnant to modern day liberals. They wish us to give up our right to a free market in order to redistribute the way they think is fair. They wish us to surrender our right to privacy that was thought to be covered under the 4rth Amendment, all in the name of our collective safety. In fact, they are willing to surrender our right to due process under the NDAA by allowing the government to detain us without due process covered in the Constitution, all in the name of our collective security. Their is not end to this collective push to diminish individual rights for the common good.

What we need to start doing is asking ourselves, what are our rights under any given collectivist policy? What is my right to health care? Well it all depends what is offered. Medicare turns down more people for medical treatment than private insurance. What is my right to social security? There are no promises as to how much we will get or if it will even be there when we retire. All of these "rights" are merely the whims of those in power at any particular time.

And finally, the irony here is that collectivism is actually at odds with democracy. Democracy implies that our votes count. However, the more centralized government becomes, the less input I have into that said system. In fact, if we wanted a true representative democracy, then we would push for more power to our local governments. Unfortunately, we are stuck with a system that empowers Congressmen and women in the other 49 states to have power over me that I cannot even vote for or against. That is why Congress now only has about a 9% approval rating. People elect their one representative because they are good at taking federal funds for their own state, but hat the other 49 states that take their federal money for the other states. Thus they keep electing their guy while detesting the others. It was never meant to be this way and was not set up this way by the Founding Fathers. State rights have been gutted and we are left with a representative body with only a 9% approval rating. That is our modern day democracy.

To sum up, collectivism only works as an oligarchy or dictatorship. The goal is not only to diminish your own personal freedom and rights, all in the name of the collective good, it is also a movement that seeks to diminish the power of your vote in that system by centralizing power rule by elitists that could really care less about your meaningless vote.

Yea, that's a bunch of crap coming from a bunch of pessimists. Here is the view from the optimists. In a democracy, when the rich get too rich and the middle class gets gutted, then voters turn more liberal toward social policies meant to help the middle class. When the middle class does really well, then it tends to become more fiscally conservative in order to protect it's own assets. The only problem is that this moves slowly. Right now we are in a period where the rich have become too rich and the middle class is getting battered. It really isn't so much about how rich the rich get as it is how the middle class is doing. Right now, not so good, so we are going to see a turn politically to a more socialist agenda. Once the middle class is doing well again, then that will change and we will move in a more conservative direction. It's not all gloom and doom and our world is coming to an end because we are going to become Cuba. You guys crack me up at times. We're just going through a time of adjustment. The wealthy got too wealthy by pissing on the middle class and the poor. Now the tables are going to be turned for a while. The rich will still stay rich though. It's not like anyone wants them destroyed. Get a grip cons.

 

[AmazonTania]

No his party was part of the coalition that had the most votes. He was appointed by a conservative, Paul von Hindenburg. The finance minister was a Liberal (libertarian) Hjalmar Schacht. The Nazis were but a faction within the Right.

Can you name any policies or positions which aligned those two among libertarians/conservatives, or are you making things up?

sure: http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

Blatantly googling things doesn't help if you aren't going to read anything you provide as a source. Especially if you are going to look up an essay instead of a primary source.

There really isn't anything outlined in this essay about those two in terms of their policies.

 

[Londoner]

They wish us to give up our right to a free market in order to redistribute the way they think is fair. They wish us to surrender our right to privacy that was thought to be covered under the 4rth Amendment, all in the name of our collective safety. In fact, they are willing to surrender our right to due process under the NDAA by allowing the government to detain us without due process covered in the Constitution, all in the name of our collective security. Their is not end to this collective push to diminish individual rights for the common good.

There is no free market in this country. Corporations have spent trillions to draft their own legislation, write their own regulations, and lockdown markets that were once competitive. You were around during the 80s, the era of mega-mergers where companies bought each other rather than competing. You also understand patent protection, right? This is where the government is an active player in the market, helping corporations to put a monopoly fence around areas where once there was competition. Or, what about big government FDIC insurance? While this protects consumers, it also lowers the risk of the large financials when they fund new ventures. It basically means the government will bail out the private sector. Much of the technology that fueled the 1980s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War and NASA budgets. Corporation receive subsidies and technology from government. They lobby Washington for the purpose of harnessing the centralized power of Washington. [Do you understand lobbying? Additionally, do you know why corporations fund elections? Do you understand the partnership between government and the private sector? Psst: these two groups have merged. They are one. Psst: you've been lied to]

Collapsing Keynes into Marx, or liberalism into socialism makes you sound uneducated. Marx did not believe in markets or private property, but Keynes most certainly did.

Also, we needed your intellectual opposition when Bush created the War on Terrorism, and used fear to create the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland security. We needed you before these things became powerful, fully formed fixtures with budgets and lobbyists. Where were you when Bush was spying illegally on Americans - prior to its passage through congress? We can't afford for you to be a cheerleader when your party shreds the Constitution. Where were you when Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, which is the largest, most expansive bureaucracy ever created? Where were you when Bush created the TIPS program, asking Americans to spy on eachother? This was pure Soviet Union. Where were you when Bush eroded the distinction between enemy-combatant and citizen, which makes it easier for the government to target anyone?

We needed your high minded criticisms before Obama inherited and then renewed these programs.

When Obama raised opposition to the Patriot Act during his campaign for president, Dick Chaney appeared on every talk show accusing Obama of being weak on terrorism. The neocons not only built a surveillance state that rivaled the old Soviet Union, they outsmarted and trapped a rookie Democratic president inside their policies - they wrapped themselves in the flag and said he was unAmerican, making it nearly impossible for him to roll-back their terrible policies. [We all know that Republicans win elections on national security, by inter-splicing footage of mushroom clouds, Osama and Obama so that Americans become convinced that Obama cannot protect them.] Yes, we face serious threats from terrorists. However, by turning 15 guys with box-cutters into a war for civilization, you are building the biggest, most centralized, most secretive, most unaccountable Washington of all. The Democrats wanted terrorism to be more of a police matter where we quietly target the guilty, but Bush wanted to turn hi-jacked planes into something that gave Washington the money and power to rebuild the political structure of whole continents in our image. This requires the biggest government of all. [If Republicans understood the law of unintended consequences, they'd realize that giving government more money and power usually makes things worse. Lord only knows how much blowback awaits us because of the Iraq War.]

Republicans say they don't trust government to run a laundromat, yet they gave it the money and power to rebuild whole Arab nations in our democratic image. The Bush administration claimed to be spreading freedom to the Arab world . while at the same time illegally tapping the phones of free citizen. And now, the Republican voter is finally worried? Wow.

 

[Agit8r]

Can you name any policies or positions which aligned those two among libertarians/conservatives, or are you making things up?

sure: http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

Blatantly googling things doesn't help if you aren't going to read anything you provide as a source. Especially if you are going to look up an essay instead of a primary source.

There really isn't anything outlined in this essay about those two in terms of their policies.

Sure there is. On page 10-11;

"With the end of detailed public budgets in 1935, Der Deutsche Volkswirt became the primary source for information about privatization in Germany. The paper’s editorial page was considered a mouthpiece for Hjalmar Schacht, appointed head of the Reichsbank by Adolf Hitler and then, in 1934, Minister of Economy. Der Deutsche Volkswirt provided detailed information on the Ministry’s position on reprivatization and its implementation"

if we aren't willing to give either men credit, then we must come to the conclusion that privatization is simply the calling card of fascism, past and present.

“The State must have a police, a judiciary, an army, and a foreign policy. All other things, and I do not exclude secondary education, must go back to the private activity of individuals. If one wants to save the State, the Collectivist State must be abolished"
-- Benito Mussolini
http://www.ub.edu/graap/bel_Italy_fascist.pdf

 

[bripat9643]

Yea, that's a bunch of crap coming from a bunch of pessimists. Here is the view from the optimists. In a democracy, when the rich get too rich and the middle class gets gutted, then voters turn more liberal toward social policies meant to help the middle class. When the middle class does really well, then it tends to become more fiscally conservative in order to protect it's own assets. The only problem is that this moves slowly. Right now we are in a period where the rich have become too rich and the middle class is getting battered. It really isn't so much about how rich the rich get as it is how the middle class is doing. Right now, not so good, so we are going to see a turn politically to a more socialist agenda. Once the middle class is doing well again, then that will change and we will move in a more conservative direction. It's not all gloom and doom and our world is coming to an end because we are going to become Cuba. You guys crack me up at times. We're just going through a time of adjustment. The wealthy got too wealthy by pissing on the middle class and the poor. Now the tables are going to be turned for a while. The rich will still stay rich though. It's not like anyone wants them destroyed. Get a grip cons.

That's exactly what a commie would say. A "pesimist" must be someone who opposes communism. We never move in a conservative direction. We always move closer to socialism

 

[bripat9643]

sure: http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

Blatantly googling things doesn't help if you aren't going to read anything you provide as a source. Especially if you are going to look up an essay instead of a primary source.

There really isn't anything outlined in this essay about those two in terms of their policies.

Sure there is. On page 10-11;

"With the end of detailed public budgets in 1935, Der Deutsche Volkswirt became the primary source for information about privatization in Germany. The paper’s editorial page was considered a mouthpiece for Hjalmar Schacht, appointed head of the Reichsbank by Adolf Hitler and then, in 1934, Minister of Economy. Der Deutsche Volkswirt provided detailed information on the Ministry’s position on reprivatization and its implementation"

if we aren't willing to give either men credit, then we must come to the conclusion that privatization is simply the calling card of fascism, past and present.

“The State must have a police, a judiciary, an army, and a foreign policy. All other things, and I do not exclude secondary education, must go back to the private activity of individuals. If one wants to save the State, the Collectivist State must be abolished"
-- Benito Mussolini
http://www.ub.edu/graap/bel_Italy_fascist.pdf

Of course, neither the Nazis or the Italian Fascists ever privatised anything.

 

[editec]

These were the words of Karl Marx. He once said, "Democracy is the road to socialism".

The idea being that eventually the masses would rise up and strip the top 1 or 4% of everything they had by mob rule. This was the way to empower the average citizen.

However, collectivism does not empower the average citizen. Collectivism does the exact opposite. For you see, in order for collectivism to work, the individual must surrender certain rights for the good of the whole.

Try thinking about the concept of government more deeply than you currently have, Votto

Every form of government forces the individual to surrender certain rights. Every government, lad...every government.

That is why the Constitution is so repugnant to modern day liberals. They wish us to give up our right to a free market in order to redistribute the way they think is fair.

There is NO mention of free market the US Constitution. There IS a right to own private peoperty

They wish us to surrender our right to privacy that was thought to be covered under the 4rth Amendment, all in the name of our collective safety.

Oh you poor pathetically blinded partisan. People claiming to be conservatives in Congress voted for the patriot Act.


I do think that you started this thread in with an interesting premise...the inherent flaw of democractic forms of government.

Sadly you failed to live up to your promise because you are foolish enough to think that liberalism and conservatism actually matter in this government.

Wake up lad. Your nation needs citizens NOT partisans.

 

[Agit8r]

Blatantly googling things doesn't help if you aren't going to read anything you provide as a source. Especially if you are going to look up an essay instead of a primary source.

There really isn't anything outlined in this essay about those two in terms of their policies.

Sure there is. On page 10-11;

"With the end of detailed public budgets in 1935, Der Deutsche Volkswirt became the primary source for information about privatization in Germany. The paper’s editorial page was considered a mouthpiece for Hjalmar Schacht, appointed head of the Reichsbank by Adolf Hitler and then, in 1934, Minister of Economy. Der Deutsche Volkswirt provided detailed information on the Ministry’s position on reprivatization and its implementation"

if we aren't willing to give either men credit, then we must come to the conclusion that privatization is simply the calling card of fascism, past and present.

“The State must have a police, a judiciary, an army, and a foreign policy. All other things, and I do not exclude secondary education, must go back to the private activity of individuals. If one wants to save the State, the Collectivist State must be abolished"
-- Benito Mussolini
http://www.ub.edu/graap/bel_Italy_fascist.pdf

Of course, neither the Nazis or the Italian Fascists ever privatised anything.

Well, they did. They just didn't do it inside the conservative bubble