Communism was Conservative? Where does it end?

A few weeks ago someone posted a fun satire about giving in to the progressives, give them everything they want, but then the progressives have to swear to become conservatives to protect it as-is. So this got me thinking...

So for some people, for many progressives the push towards Marxism / Communism is "progressive".

But then what happens when you finally get Communism (which to me is 'Total Socialism')?

Well, if we look our historical examples of Communist states, aside from arguments of "right wing" and "left wing" (terms which are rather odd if you ask me), talk about being the most 'conservative' power structures imaginable.

It seems we have a Progressive Paradox: what is the progressive to do once they finally get everything they want? Is there any end to this?

It seems to me we're already seeing it happen (here in the US). Gays get gay rights, more 'outraged' than ever. Liberals in general have for the most part had the real power for many decades, more 'outraged' than ever. Transgenders got their school restroom edict, more 'outraged' than ever. Blacks got their black president, more 'outraged' than ever. Women are full well set for the top (jobs / education / rights wise), more 'outraged' than ever.

So what happens when progressives finally get everything they want?

This isn't the Mud Pit, lets go easy on the mods and play nice!

Progress never stops.

Conservatism is stagnation.
Especially in the Space Age.


From the dawn of man to now, there he never been Conservatism, because life changes drastically in all areas from social, to science, to medicine/healthcare etc


I know you like research, check the comparison list.
www.diffen.com...

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Progress may never stop, but it's what one is progressing towards or into that is the question.

You need to stop looking at this in black and white absolutes.
A full 90 degree turn in either direction is a bad thing.
We need to aim for the middle of the road.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

But then what happens when you finally get Communism (which to me is 'Total Socialism')?

"Total Socialism"?

Like both 'sides' don't have major cities, through fares, rail, bridge and road transport, fire and police departments, public schools, public works, public transport, postal service, and every ad infinitum social welfare program under the sun.

Whats the difference again?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It's the toddler mentality (and I know...I have one): The tantrums you throw, the greater the chance of getting something that you want.

I'm not saying that things such as equal right or the like are tantrums, but there are many, many things that are tantrums that leave me with the same question: Where does it end?

I think that there are just people who have an insatiable appetite for things--they are addicted to stuff. Sometimes that seems to manifest into non-tangible things, such protections and laws and affirmative action and this, that, and the other thing.

I've tried to ask the logical question before to people like this--why can't just broad laws that guarantee equal protection to all people be sufficient? Why do we need, for example, a special list of groups of people that turn a crime into a "hate crime?" A crime is a crime, regardless of hateful motive. But, people feel a need to be placed in special categories, I guess, because with it becomes more "stuff" on their behalf.

It'll never end for many of these types of individuals, sadly, especially when a sort of power is involved. I think that many of our politicians are of this personality.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

In the same breath, though, progress isn't always positive, and can take many different paths, many of which are destructive, not helpful.

How is it that liberals were in full out rage when those things you listed happened?

Guess we just have to ignore the outrage from the other side for this argument?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Most of the broad laws we have do work and I agree about the hate crimes.

Why do the small gov types keep trying to pass laws going against those broad laws tho?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Hazardous1408

In the same breath, though, progress isn't always positive, and can take many different paths, many of which are destructive, not helpful.

Progress, by very definition, is a positive noun or adjective.

What you're alluding to, isn't progress.
It is change.

There is a major difference between progress & change.

I fancy myself to have a conservative interpretation of the greatest ruling doctrine in the history of earth, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Progressives, leftists and communists are insufficiently aware of history to properly grasp the reality of the Marxist ethos under whose rule they spend their life yearning to exist...

Marxism is ethos bereft of individual freedom and one of subjugation and entitlement...
The entitlement goes to those who rule and those who abuse the system...

Every example of communism in history has been an utter and complete disaster…

Those who seek this governing style are entirely ignorant of history or they are part of the ruling elite who would be made all powerful In their communist utopia...

For the unwashed masses, it is of paramount import that they cast nets up on those who would succeed and drag them down to their own pathetic existence free of ambition and without possibility of mobility to a station above their current existence...

In a capitalist economy, success is revered and owed to intellectual prowess and work ethic…
With communists, this is not the case...success is vilified and reviled...

-Chris

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Because without de facto enemies there'd be no need for all the control.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The anger continues because equality is not the goal.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Hazardous1408

In the same breath, though, progress isn't always positive, and can take many different paths, many of which are destructive, not helpful.

Progress, by very definition, is a positive noun or adjective.

What you're alluding to, isn't progress.
It is change.

There is a major difference between progress & change.

So then by default whatever progressives want is good, because they're progressives and have deemed it to be progress? And if you disagree with their idea of "progress" then you just want change, not progress?

Some pretty circular logic there.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

In simple terms its a MO of Jesuits and Skull and Bones .Antony Sutton in his work shows the inconcievable to actually be a part of the reality we live with .The (tptb) have the power and work constantly to manage conflict they create to move us where they want us to be . That is just a taste of what is and if you can exhaust your mind with his work and others that he mentions you will have a kind of coherent understanding to the questions you ask .

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

To really have this discussion I think you need to start with the etymology of the terms you are attempting to assign. American Progressives aren't Leftist in the sense that you seem to need them to be. They are further Left than Liberals but not by miles. They aren't for Communism or Socialism (there's a difference, start at the beginning). They are for a tax system that basically ensures the promise of trickle down and in fairness they have a point... See Hazardous' avatar, Equity is what Progressives want. A lot of people mistake equity for Communism when all it represents is true equal access. That is not the same as equal outcome which is the promise of Communism.

a reply to: Kali74

Do you have a dirty taste in your mouth after using the phrase "trickle down" now?

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Hazardous1408

In the same breath, though, progress isn't always positive, and can take many different paths, many of which are destructive, not helpful.

Progress, by very definition, is a positive noun or adjective.

What you're alluding to, isn't progress.
It is change.

There is a major difference between progress & change.

So then by default whatever progressives want is good, because they're progressives and have deemed it to be progress? And if you disagree with their idea of "progress" then you just want change, not progress?

Some pretty circular logic there.

Nope, that's not what I said... So you'll have to try again.

REAL communism is neither conservative or liberal. What we have seen in the last 100 years is NOT communism. Communism is about the health of the community with an emphasis on personal responsibility. That's why it's so difficult to do. People are selfish and many lazy.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Or because for every step of equality that is made there are people trying to reverse it.

That is what is conveniently ignored here. People are still 'outraged' because there are people who still don't want certain people to have the same rights as others.

But your usual strawman is great!