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.

 

"Progressive" is just a friendly name for COMMUNIST!

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


I wonder if there will be a civil war or the system will collapse and the Progressives will just say they are implementing more and more entitlements to "help". Then before we know it we are 90% communist and most people still won't realize it.




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 



Environmental protection in Russia traces its roots to seventeenth-century hunting preserves and Peter the Great's efforts to protect some of the country's forests and rivers. But environmentalism, in the sense of an intellectual or popular movement in support of conservation or environmental protection, began during the second half of the nineteenth century and scored some important victories during the late tsarist and early soviet periods. The movement lost most of its momentum during the Stalin years but revived during the 1960s and 1970s, peaking during the era of perestroika. After a decline during the early 1990s, environmentalism showed a resurgence later in the decade.


If this is an attempt to link Communism to environmentalism, it shows an epic failure to understand Russian history:

A) Peter the Great lived from 1682 to 1725; dying over a hundred years prior to Marx's writing of the Communist Manifesto.
B) The tsarists were not Communist. They were ousted by the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, a fact that some should note when attempting to connect the US pseudo-political office of czar to Communism
C) The above quote points out that environmentalism declined under Stalinism, but that point is moot because he wasn't even a Communist anyways. I just mention it because people for some reason think that he was the archetypal follower of Marx.
D) The Perestroika was a series of economic and political reforms by Gorbachev that transitioned the Soviet Union into a market economy, thus bringing the USSR that much closer to it's end.
E) The quote states that environmentalism has seen a recent resurgence in Russia (contrary to anything else I've read). How does this connect environmentalism to Communism? The reunification of Berlin (end of the Soviet Union) occurred in 1990, and the country has been capitalist ever sense.

If you want any proof linking environmentalism to "communism" (that should read 'left-wing authoritarian government forms'), check out Maurice Strong. Oops, I let the cat out of the bag. I should have kept my vile progressive mouth shut.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Yes, it is true that the founding fathers intended our government to promote individualism, personal liberty and small government as John Locke suggested in the movement of classical liberalism that could today be called right libertarianism. However political philosophy has evolved quite a bit since the individualists such as Locke. What if America was started under the philosophy of Hobbes? Would you still be defending the status quo?

As political philosophy evolves, so should a progressive state and although many would disagree with me, we are a state that thrives on progress, not on fear of change and rampant defense of the status quo, and yes Marx and Hegel happened to be two philosophers who have had significant positive influences on modern states. We freed the slaves. We gave blacks and women suffrage. Minorities now have (almost) equal rights. Those are all progressive ideals, not conservative ones and you would be hard pressed to find any rational individual who disagrees with the aforementioned accomplishments.

Although individual rights and liberties are clearly a vital value in political philosophy, society itself would be impossible without some degree of collectivism. What we need is neither rampant individualism, nor rabid collectivism, but a rational collective of individuals, that prizes freedom while working for the good of the whole. The highway systems, FDA, CDC, Postal Service, fire and police departments and sewage systems are all examples of collectivism truly working for the good of the whole.

You should watch Neithercorp's film Sons of Darkness, Sons of Light: Collectivism.







[edit on 3-12-2009 by The Transhumanist]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 


Hey thanks for letting the cat out of the bag. You are my new favortie Progressive.
Gave you a star as your help is much appreciated.

Found this link. I don't know about the source but it points back to a bunch of associated press stuff so take it for what you want.



In 1994 Maurice Strong, chairman of the newly formed Earth Council and socialist Mikhail Gorbachev, also a member, created the new Earth Charter Initiative, the initial step replacing the World Charter for Nature. The Earth Council was established to continue the totalitarian implementation of Agenda 21.



Source





[edit on 3-12-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by The Transhumanist
 


Welll I must say I at least respect you and Polynomial C for being honest about being for communism. Why can't Obama just admit that he is for Communism so people can decide what they want without being decieved?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Maurice Strong once said this:


We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.


Take it how you will; Mr. Strong claims to be a "socialism in principle, a capitalist in methodology". I think he's a bit senile, personally. If you want some real fun, he's a member of the 1001 Club



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 


Well there is a difference between conservation and environmentalism. That is why I said modern day environmentalism, because it is nothing like conservationism.

That really wasn't an attempt to link the USSR to the Green movement just a starting point to go from there. When it comes to history you always need to read multiple sources to get to the truth of the matter.

I'll have to check out that book you mentioned.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


I think that both some level of environmentalism and conservationism is a good thing, but it becomes bad when it is used as a means or an excuse to gain near dictatorial control or to redistribute wealth or to form the collective.

It is just like religion. A little bit is good for many, but it can be used to manipulate people into falling into war or being robbed etc...

Environmetalism to the extreme reminds me a lot of what happens when evil people hijack religions for their own gain. People always want to blame the religions for the wars, but the religions were just a tool to gather the masses used by someone with a nefarious agenda.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Hastobemoretolife, my mistake. I thought you were posting that to directly connect environmentalism to communism.

I do believe that environmentalism and conservation are a good thing, and perhaps global warming is real. However, from day one I have not accepted that humans are completely at fault. The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling; look at the beginning and end of the ice ages! We do a little bit better though to clean up our garbage, and I see no reason to begin to advance past fossil fuels. That is, if Big Oil lets us...

Anyways, I also wanted to clear up any misconceptions that all of us of the socialist-leaning left are Stalinist loonies just waiting to herd Americans into gulags. Simply not true; that stands contrary to what we believe.

That said, I can't accept that Obama is a socialist. He wouldn't be whoring the American public out to Wall Street if he truly was.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Someone336]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


I dig your reply...Its nice to see it broken down logically instead of emotionally.

The op seems to be emotionally involved into his opinion (not that that is a bad thing). Maybe there is a balance somewhere between this collectivism and individualism? If you wish to live in a society made of humans then certain rules for the "collective" good must be layed out and enforced or hopefully adhered to voluntarily...but of course that shouldnt mean everyone has to play if they dont wish to take part...

Even if one wished to label progressives as communist I think it is more important to point out why this is a bad thing if you are doing it in an accusatory tone...



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I agree with both of you that we need to take care of our environment, after all it is what allows us to survive. But I don't think we need to go to extremes to protect it, just clean up after ourselves and make sure forest can flourish and animals can flourish and things will be okay.

As far as Obama not being a Socialist, I agree, he is a communist. It's late now, but I'll have to find the bill that was just introduced in the house that allows the government to go into a business open up it's books and make them sell off assets and even close them down and breach contracts. It also just happens that the Audit the Fed Bill was attached on as an amendment to that bill.

As I said it's late tonight, but I'll find it tomorrow. Obama is going in steps to keep stringing people along. Till one day you wake up and nothing is like what it was.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I believe you misunderstood me. I didn't state that all progressives including myself are communists. Surely some are although I am not. I fall more into the social libertarian sector personally. It is important to note that many progressives who are communists are not authoritarian and prefer a libertarian or anarchist offshoot of communism like myself.

That being said, I don't think Obama is anywhere close to a communist. He in no way supports a meritocracy, the abolition of private property, or the empowerment of the working class. In fact, communism involves workers owning the means of production. In fact, if anything he supports the opposite. He is just another in a long line of imperialist corporatist leaders that have come and gone since Kennedy and future presidents are likely to follow suit. He is obviously for Cap and Trade which is another policy that favors big business and allows them to essentially pollute as much as they want if they trade for additional carbon credits. He is obviously for a public option, the diminished form of nationalization of healthcare. A far cry from what a communist leader would attempt. A communist leader would invest much more political capital in healthcare co-ops. He took over GM which was arguably necessary to save the company which is essentially state ownership of the means of production, not worker ownership which would be the communist thing to do.

What other specific policies has he enacted that seem "communist" or even remotely progressive for that matter? The progressives like myself who fell off the probama train well before it left the station see through his progressive image and see that he is no more than another Bush in a progressive's clothing.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by The Transhumanist]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
ITT: We repeat the NWO slogan that was rammed up my GRANDPARENTS' backsides

Better dead than red

What a joke.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 

Remember the old joke?
The communists are hiding in the bushes.
It's a clear choice. Capitalism or Socialism
We will make the correct choice.
Obama has us on the wrong track now.
Check Rasmussen. Right track/Wrong track.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce


Environmetalism to the extreme reminds me a lot of what happens when evil people hijack religions for their own gain. People always want to blame the religions for the wars, but the religions were just a tool to gather the masses used by someone with a nefarious agenda.


Which in fact is the real root of the problem, hijacking whatever cause by nefarious agents seems to be inevitable.
Many communists will make a case that it just has not had the 'right' leader ...well it won't. It will always be hijacked because the structure supports it.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
"Progressive" is just a friendly name for COMMUNIST!


Well, I don't know about that but I do know that:

Neo-Con Republican Capitalists are Fascists!

That has been proven!



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadoMan
 


I would edit that and say all presidents since Kennedy have fascists Obama included.. They have all cared about big business far more than the average worker.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
However, when you look at their agenda they are nothing more than Communists with a friendly name about Progress. If you research their history you find that they are based in the Marxist/Communist ideologies that have failed throughout the world.



yes they have failed because of the abuse from the people, just like ideologies like democracy and capitalism (read: fascism) will fail miserably

because of the abuse



[edit on 3-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by The Transhumanist
 


Why can't Obama just admit that he is for Communism so people can decide what they want without being decieved?


A) because he isn't

B) because people don't understand what Communism is and isn't, so labeling himself a Communist would be not only inaccurate but unhelpful

Perhaps the bigger issue is why are we so focused on labels, and dependent on single-word summations of political leaders? Do you think his policies would be any different if he called himself a Communist? Why not just look at what he does and does not promote, and what he does and does not practice?

Not all collectivism is communist. Not all individualism is democratic.

All these labels are flying around, poorly defined and poorly understood, yet we seem to feel that if we only knew what label to apply to people, the political landscape would become comprehensible.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Polynomial C
Well, yeah Stalinism uses Communism as a disguise .. the Stalinist leaders are just crazy greedy people that want control .. they are authoritarians disguise as communists..

I think they have hurt the Communist cause .. now people like you when they think of Communism they think of Stalin , but you shouldn't because Stalin was NOT a communist, he was a right-wing authoritarian..


Sorry but you are wrong.... Stalin, Lenin, Mao, castro,Chavez, etc ARE ALL COMUNISTS....

"Communists in disguise" is just the vage and illogical claims of modern Communists who don't want to accept the facts, and the truth..

Socialism/Communism seeks to oppress INDIVIDUALISM for the good of all"... Spirituality of all forms is oppressed under Socialism/Communism "for the good of the many" etc. Those are SOMe of the excuses of why INDIVIDUALISM is suppressed and seeks to be destroyed under a true Socialist/Communist nation..

Socialism/Communism seeks to make people ROBOTS, to suppress their feelings "for the good of all", and to allow dictatorial laws to rule over the individual "for the good of all"....

That is Socialism/Communism.

BTW, I showed not too long ago the fact that the promise of CHANGE has been used by Communists before, and Communists even took over countries by name of other organizations which are called "DEMOCRATIC"...

Democracy is dictatorship. It is when 51% of the people can control, and oppress the other 49% of the people.

This in great part is why so many "Communist in disguise" flock mainly to "Democratic Parties."

When you claim to be doing attrocious acts for the good of most people, you have the power to do anything, and everything, no matter how attrocious such an event can be.

BTW, even HItler was a SOCIALIST...but of course today's Socialists/Communists don't like to admit this, and they claim he was a "right winger" when Hitler implemented SOCIALIST laws, and programs, and in his speeches he always stated they were SOCIALISTS....

Socialism/Communism is the scourge of the world, and the cause for most of the suffering around the world, but their proponents like to claim that "Capitalism" is the cause....

More people have been murdered, and have been sent to prison under Socialism/Communism than ALL other governments together have put people in prison, or all world wars and other wars combined have killed people...

Over 110 Million people have been murdered by Socialist/Communist nations/dictatorships, and that's not counting soldiers dying in battles, and the millions imprisoned for not accepting Socialism/Communism....


But many of today's western people have been indoctrinated, and brainwhased to believe that "Socialism/Communism is the awnser", and when that didn't work too well names were changed to "Liberals, and Progressives".

I am not saying all Liberals are Communist, but all Communist are Liberals, as well as being Socialist, and the agenda of these political parties is for Socialism/Communism to reign.


Any person that would love to experience "Socialism/Communism" let me know... You put the money, and I set it up with my family in Cuba to take you in and to show you the truth, and the "beauty" of "Socialism/Communism"....


[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join