It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Communism was Conservative? Where does it end?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

No




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Actually it's common sense.

If the end game was simply equality, then there'd be no further issue. There are laws in place to punish anyone who doesn't work with equality.

Ergo; they are angry over something other than equality.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

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.


Allow me to break it down further then: the difference between progress and change, as you portray it, is in the eye of the beholder. Progressive, and progressive ideas are not by default positive, simply because they have the word progress in them.

And progress, by definition, is also movement toward a place or destination, be it physically or in time or space. Your definition is not the only one, and portraying the word "progress" as being only positive is fallacious.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

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.



So people are outraged because there are those that don't think the same as them.

That is getting closer to the truth than you realize.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
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.


Which is why communism never works... people are selfish and lazy. You will never get everyone to contribute equally for the greater good. This is why every time it devolves into various degrees of totalitarianism. You have to crush the individual's desire for freedom and self-determination for the greater good of the system.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Is there a reason you equate communism and progressivism?

They're not the same thing, demonstrably.

That false assumption kind of blows any logic in your OP out of the water.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it not rather common for "Progressives" to be appealed towards Marxist ideas (Marxism)?

Is Communism not Marxism?



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it not rather common for "Progressives" to be appealed towards Marxist ideas (Marxism)?

Is Communism not Marxism?


No. Progressives are not communists.

Marxism is one type of communism.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I didn't say all progressives are, I asked if it's a commonality though.

Considering the USSA has been a socialist state for something like 80+ years, and yet 'leftists' are often complaining it needs to be more leftist, while often sporting marxist/communist insignia, while often being harshly critical of capitalism (to the point of total utter disdain), um yeah.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Well, you'd have to be more specific about what you mean when you say "progressives."

It's a catch-all term. I'm sure there are progressive Communists. There are also progressive capitalists, Republicans, Democrats, neo-Nazis, etc.

Teddy Roosevelt was even considered a "progressive" in his time.

The United States is a mixed economy and has been since the beginning. This is one of our strengths.

Now you're tossing in more generic terms like "leftist" conflating that with Marxists and Communists, etc.

Many leftists are not critical of capitalism. Some are.

You seem like you're interested in making a series of general observations here, but making specific statements from those.

Seems a bit ... loose in the logic to me.
edit on 12-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It seems to me that you are confusing or mixing ideologies without understanding the distinct differences.

Progressives seek to move forward on issues such as equality, equal rights and application of the law, and other issues that affect society, like healthcare, housing and such.

Communism goes well beyond that. The system would control many aspects of life, such as the means of production (food, supplies, etc), that progressives do not nessecarily agree with or push for.

As far as Communism/conservatism, Mao Zedong once said that communism does not/would not work unless the system was in a constant state of revolution. The power structure had to continually be overthrown and replaced or the people would find themselves living under a stagnant, tyrannical leadership that would abuse every bit of power, at the detriment to the people.

I think the case could be made that the stagnant, tyrannical leadership he spoke of would be the very definition of "conservatism". Those in power would want to ensure nothing changed so they could protect their positions and power.

Therefore, we always have to be in a constant state of "revolution".
edit on 12-10-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-10-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
IN terms of getting a bit more specific on the word "progressives" at least in regard to the United States ... perhaps we should look at those who officially call themselves Progressive in politics, eh?

Congressional Progressive Congress



The four, core principles of the Progressive Promise:
1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all;
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties;
3. Promoting global peace and security; and
4. Advancing environmental protection and energy independence



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Well said.

I've tried to point out before the only meaningful political spectrum is "authoritarianrevolutionary" ...

... but you know how that goes.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Allow me to break down what I was trying to say.

Progressives, as Kali stated, are epitomised by my Avatar.
They want betterment for everyone.

Hillary Clinton wants to change things. Not to progress, necessarily.
Although she calls herself "progressive"... is she though?

Am I making sense now?



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Shamrock6

Allow me to break down what I was trying to say.

Progressives, as Kali stated, are epitomised by my Avatar.
They want betterment for everyone.

Hillary Clinton wants to change things. Not to progress, necessarily.
Although she calls herself "progressive"... is she though?

Am I making sense now?


Chiming in. Hillary CLinton, at best, is center right in American politics.

That's yet another of the 10,000 reason I find all this political theatre so ABSURD.




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Without a doubt mate.

She is a Neocon to the fullest, in my own opinion.

Of course, our political universe in Britain is much different to yours in the States.

From what I've seen there isn't truly a left wing party in America.
That anyone takes notice of anyways.

Bernie could have been the shining light, I suppose.
But even he gets a mixed reception now from his supporters.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Gryphon66

Without a doubt mate.

She is a Neocon to the fullest, in my own opinion.

Of course, our political universe in Britain is much different to yours in the States.

From what I've seen there isn't truly a left wing party in America.
That anyone takes notice of anyways.

Bernie could have been the shining light, I suppose.
But even he gets a mixed reception now from his supporters.


Yeah. Bernie's democratic socialism was pretty much kicked in the ... stomach.

Not an unexpected side effect of the intentions of the real power in American politics, that doesn't wear a Red or Blue hat.

I confess though. I'm currently completely confused by UK Politics. It's like the Brexit vote has hit all sides like a tornado.
edit on 12-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

A friend described the political spectrum as a horseshoe rather than a line. As you get more extreme the more alike the opposites are. Communism is one extreme and I believe Fascism was the other.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



I've tried to point out before the only meaningful political spectrum is "authoritarianrevolutionary"


Exactly. Conservatism would be on the authoritarian side of that spectrum because they seek to keep things as they are and do not invite the changes necessary to grow and evolve as necessary.

"Revolution" is necessary for evolution.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66



I've tried to point out before the only meaningful political spectrum is "authoritarianrevolutionary"


Exactly. Conservatism would be on the authoritarian side of that spectrum because they seek to keep things as they are and do not invite the changes necessary to grow and evolve as necessary.

"Revolution" is necessary for evolution.


... and if you're against the government ... you're against all government, even the new "revolutionary council."

Because a true leftist knows "new boss, same as da old boss."




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join