It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:51 AM
reply to post by americandingbat

Individualism is NOT Democratic...that alone shows you don't understand these concepts.

In a Democracy the individual does not matter, but the mayority matters...or in other words the collective matters in a Democracy...

Even Thomas Jefferson himself said it... He was concerned by a tyranny of the mayority, although it is true that sometimes he praised Democracy, and at other times he was against it, the following he did say.

Of note, the flopping on his part concerning democracy could also be beause Thomas Jefferson OWNED slaves himself...

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

For the people in the UK, and for other Europeans Winston Churcill himself said..

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

Of course Socialism/Communism are worse, but through "Democracy" a Socialist/Communist form of government can be implemented...

The problem now-a-days, and I intent no insult towards anyone, is that most people do not do proper research, or pick up a book about history, and of course, MOST of the proponents of Socialism/Communism have NEVER experienced it.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:07 AM
I am really not a communist.

But your "ideology" is an ideology.

See this thread

In fact could you really define how function communist country, and moreove could you define how works your country ?

There is merely NO DIFFERENCE.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE : The freedom of the market doesn't mean more freedom, and what happen to the market those days.

All "liberal" country : doesn't do what they apparently say to define themselfs !

All country will prefer supporting their own industry. OK ?

You see this is totally different anyway, and one more time : people, working, and middle class have EXACTLY the same power in those country : NO POWER AT ALL.

You should read chomsky.

You know there was an alternative : that is maybe under your "dream". Some sort of "anarchism".

BUt anarchism have been destroyed by communist, and by capitalist. They have been killed litteraly, mass murdered in many country. From the beginning anarchist criticize the karl marx , with its autoritarism in its vision. Yes people are more than a robot for the capital : is it different in a liberal country : i don't think so !

You see there are alternatives so open your mind.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by psychederic]

[edit on 3-12-2009 by psychederic]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:21 AM
How, in this day and age, can people still be so terrified and apalled at the word 'Communist'? Like Capitalism is going so well for the US.

Drop the 'us and them' crap. It's 2009, not 1959.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:26 AM

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
How, in this day and age, can people still be so terrified and apalled at the word 'Communist'? Like Capitalism is going so well for the US.

Drop the 'us and them' crap. It's 2009, not 1959.

...Because people like myself were born in a Communist country and experienced Communism, and people like yourself never did...that's why....

Drop the "Communism is dead" is still 2009, almost 2010 and COMUNISM STILL EXISTS.......

[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:27 AM
I believe the only real 'wealth' is love and fraternity.
So many get on their high horses to show their anger at the idea of wealth 'paper money' distribution. If you dig deeper you will understand that what is important to you (your hard earned paper) is not yours but the government's. In fact if you feel like destroying paper money you could end up in jail.
People fail to realise that they are already slaves of a big scam. Your govt can take back your hard earned cash or alter its value anytime they want.

So like Jesus said: give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar (coins). Let them do what they wish with their fake wealth, instead best to look inside for the true gifts of human fraternity.

And back on topic I rather have a good communist system than a failed corporate capitalistic one, like the ones currently in place.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by TheOracle]

[edit on 3-12-2009 by TheOracle]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:49 AM

Originally posted by TheOracle
And back on topic I rather have a good communist system than a failed corporate capitalistic one, like the ones currently in place.

There is no such thing as a "good Communist system", sorry to say. You can see that in Russia today as the Russian government raided and took over all evidence of Stalin's attrocities just so they could keep on claiming, and indoctrinating young people like yourself, into believing "Stalin murdered the MILLIONS of Russians for a good cause"...

BTW, your "current capitalistic government" has the SAME people who were in CHARGE when Russia was go figure...

[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:59 AM
This is only one person's opinion of course, but to me authoritarian rule under the guise of providing for the common good seems to be the nature of the beast known as power, regardless of what political or social ideology the person at the helm of that beast claims to adhere to.

Sadly, at least for the time being and throughout history up until this point, human beings have sought, obtained, and employed power while viewing it solely through their own lens. Some say that collectivism eliminates the individual aspect because it focuses solely upon the "greater good." Other say that individualism can result in an "every man for himself" self-interest.

Personally, I wish we had a system that provided for the pragmatic common good to the extent that it is necessary, while still allowing for enough individualism that people aren't just drones in the collective, their own happiness or pursuits be damned. Some compromise between the two, in other words. It seems, at least to me personally, that some people have sufficient personal wealth for instance. Considering that, it seems to me that putting a limit on personal wealth beyond which surplus wealth is contributed to "common good," would allow some sort of hybrid between capitalism and socialism while still allowing everyone to decide what they do with their wealth below that limit (which could be quite high, allowing their personal wealth to still be quite substantial.) In time, perhaps everyone would even out with one another and everyone's quality of life would improve.

I'm not an economist, politician, or sociologist, though, so maybe I'm just plain wrong.

I don't think that individualism and contributing to a "common good" have to be mutually exclusive, though. What does seem mutually exclusive in my opinion is unchecked individual power over others by any individual or group, and personal freedom.

Note: I did not vote for the Republican or Democrat candidate, so I'm not seeking to defend or attack either party or its leaders. I'm just commenting on the broader topic of the discussion.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:28 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

BTW, your "current capitalistic government" has the SAME people who were in CHARGE when Russia was go figure... "


If you think in term or capitalist / or communist faked system : you really missed something !

Stop thinking in term of IDEOLOGY. Because you don't understand ideology, and its concequences : that's the ideology way of thinking : and that really crazy !

What is history ? baron

Democracy is permitted as long as the control exercised by big capital escapes the discussions and changes desired by the people, ie as long as it is not democracy
Noam Chomsky - Profit before man

In some respects, the mediocrity of debate and choice in elections rather evokes the Communist states party to that authentic democracy
Noam Chomsky - Profit before man.

Condemnation from the United States to international terrorism by the international court in The Hague and the Security Council (where the resolution was the subject of a U.S. veto).
Noam Chomsky - Profit before man.

As defined by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), human capital includes "all the knowledge, skills, competencies and personal characteristics that facilitate the creation of well-being, social and economic. "Human capital is an intangible that can 1) increase or support 2) productivity, 3) innovation and 4) employability"
Investment in human capital, OECD, 1998; The Well-Being of Nations, the role of human and social capital, OECD, 2001.

Criticisms of capitalism

Capitalism is the subject of much controversy. These controversies can be:

* on the accumulation of capital itself,
* property capital,
* the behavior of owners of capital,
* on the capital / labor
* on the relationship between capital and working time
* on high productivity, will return on the human resources considered 100% as a machine.
* the fact of replacing humans with machines in the same "service", customer relations
* report on the distribution of profits and labor compensation
* report on the growth and earnings growth of labor compensation
* on offshoring
* Globalization
* ecology
* on the 'progress',' full ahead against all reason, any decline, and any decision specifically political rights of states and their peoples.
* on the prevailing hypocrisy on the term "unemployment" following points presedent (to compare and understand what it induces).
* on the human, social, ecological and economic system whose logic operation is capital growth.
* on proverty, suicide, drugs, violence : that create such a system.
US report : statistics

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:38 AM
The major financial crisis which hit global markets following the subprime crisis (February 2007) has also contributed to a renewed critical importance of capitalism and the "ultra-liberalism". Alan Greenspan himself president for 18 years the U.S. central bank and proclaimed libertarian who defended the superiority of self-regulation markets on state regulation, admitted Thursday, October 23 against the Board of Control Action government that had been "partially wrong" to have more confidence in the government market to regulate the financial system. He also expressed his dismay:

"I found a flaw [in my ideology]. I do not know how it is significant or lasting, but this plunged me into utter confusion. "[4]

The economic system, and the freedom of the market ( which is half a fake) as nothing to do with the freedom for the people. 90 % will never , never buy auctions in wall street.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by psychederic]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:43 AM
Without Capitalism you wouldnt even have a computer and internet to type some of this idiotic tripe on.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Skyfloating]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:54 AM
reply to post by AceWombat04

Individualism and contributing towards a common good are not mutually exclusive. Self interest means that ones interest are in regards to the self. We are a species that are highly dependent upon each other in many ways. This is evidenced by the children we raise, by the family we care for and the neighbors and groups we are a part of. To act without regard for others is not at all in anyone's best interest. Selfishness has become a pejorative in today's lexicon but why? To have a chief concern for ones own interest is paramount to survival and to qualify such a concern with disregard for others only contradicts the first part of the definition, ignoring that others are just as paramount to survival as is our own efforts.

Take this site and the world wide web in which we use to enjoy this site. We did not create this site someone else did and we have relied upon their creation to discuss this issue, and we along with the creators of this site rely upon the world wide web to facilitate our efforts. Every step of the way it has been and is being accomplished by individuals not collectives, yet these individuals are working together towards what we all believe to be a common good. I did not join this site out of some obligation I felt to belong to a collective, I joined this site based upon my own self interests. Presumably so has everyone else, and while we can, at times, fall prey to mindless bickering or nasty opposition, we for the most part, work together to find a greater truth. We do this as individuals working together and sometimes working in opposition of each other, but always as individuals.

Your notions of limiting wealth must be based on a presumption that wealth itself has a limit. As if wealth were nothing more than a pie and there are only a limited amount of slices available for all. When wealth is looked at in this regard, then those who have a larger slice than us will appear to have taken that larger slice at our expense. However, wealth is not a pie with a limited amount of slices. Wealth is nothing more than perceived value. What intrinsic value does gold truly have? It is a precious metal and not easily found or mined and because of this the perceived value is greater than that of a simple rock easily found on any plot of land.

Let us, however, take that simple rock and then let's paint eyes, a nose and a smile on that rock and market it as a Pet Rock and suddenly, for some strange reason, that simple rock has taken on a higher value. There was a time when Pet Rocks were all the rage and commanded a pretty penny on the market, but why? Anybody could find themselves a rock and paint a face on it, why spend good money on one when you can do it yourself? No doubt some people did make their own Pet Rocks rather than spend good money on those being marketed, but most willingly paid money to purchase this simple and relatively useless product. The person who marketed this product accrued wealth by doing so and in no way did that person deprive others from wealth by doing so.

In economics there is a principle of supply and demand that can be very effective in understanding economies. However, there is another principle known as supply side economics that has been tragically labeled by the main stream media as "voodoo economics" or "Reganomics" for no good reason at all, other than those journalists don't understand economy either. A great example of supply side economics put in play would be when a few years back when the NFL demanded more money for their licensing fees from the television broadcasters. At that time, CBS had long had the monopoly on Sunday football but the accountants informed Larry Tisch, then president of CBS, that they were not generating enough in advertising revenue to justify paying more money for licensing fees. Tisch listened to his accountants and passed on the NFL's demands which left an opening for Rupert Murdoch to pay the licensing fees and air the games on FOX.

Dismayed at this act a journalist asked Murdoch in all earnestness that if CBS wasn't generating enough in advertising revenue to justify the cost what made Murdoch think he could generate the advertising revenue for his fledgling television station that most prognosticators had predicted could not survive the market. Murdoch admitted that he couldn't raise enough advertising revenue to pay for the NFL games but that was not the reason he made the decision. He explained that on Sunday evenings FOX was airing two programs he believed were very good shows and deserved a greater audience than they were getting. Those two shows were The Simpson's and The X-Files. It was Murdoch's strategy to use the NFL to attract new viewers to his station in hopes they would stay with the station after the games and watch The Simpson's and X-Files.

Murdoch's gambit worked and people did stay and watch those shows and they both went on to great success and the FOX channel also became very successful. Under the strict rules of supply and demand it could be argued that there was, quite simply, no demand for a FOX channel nor any demand for The Simpson's nor The X-Files. Under those rules Murdoch had more supply than there was a demand for. Under the rules of supply side economics, Murdoch found a way to make demand for his product and the effort did not hurt the other broadcasters nor did it take any wealth away from them, it simply created wealth for Murdoch and those affiliated with him.

It is this sort of ingenuity that marks the upward surge of humanity. Before the invention of light bulbs there was no demand for them. There was, however a need for efficient and safe lighting and the light bulb satisfied that demand. It, in the end, marked the demise of the gas lamp as the preferred choice of lighting, but it was not because Edison stole the gas lamp manufacturer's pie, it is because he created a better pie. Those gas lamp manufacturers who understood the light bulb was the future and placed their investments in it, also profited from this newer and better pie, while those gas lamp manufacturer's who failed to recognize this new trend, lost their profits.

This is one of the basic premises of capitalism, that through competition the common good will be satisfied by individual self interest.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:56 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Then what ? You think industrial revolution is a good think ? hoho , it is your opinion.

And you know what ? Most important invention have been based or support , by the state ! Most important industry have support by the state. Don't you think it is important to notice ?

But then afterward the investment of the "state", the society, the people goes to the corporate capitalism, that really the best thing to do.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by psychederic]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:01 AM
If "russia" would had in 1920 as much oil as USA in its territory : the thing would have changed a lot !

BUt the sheep would have always follow the stronger. It is psychological.

Let see the The spirit of the founders of the modern undemocratic "democracy"

[edit on 3-12-2009 by psychederic]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:25 AM

Originally posted by HotSauce
"Progressives" are nothing but filthy, lying Communists that picked a nice marketing name for their hidden goal to turn the world into one big Communist state.

Just think you probably wouldn't vote for someone who told you upfront they were a Communist, but if they lie to you and tell you they are for "Progress" then it doesn't seem so bad to vote for them.

As we all know Liberals like to make up super positive names for their most insane agendas. For example, they made murdering your baby all about the mothers choice instead of about the fact that her choice ends in the babies death.

They created welfare and entititlements and said they were to help the poor, but really there were intended to teach people learned helplessness and government dependence.

They created a scheme to redistribute your hard earned money to third world countries and told you they were saving you from killing yourself by warming up the planet.

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.

So when you see that the "Progressive" Obama Administration is full of Marxists you should realise that this is not an accident or negligence. This was intentional, because this is what the current administration believes is best for the USA. They think you would be better off in the collective. They think you would be happier if you were Communist. They seem to forget that Communism has failed over and over.

Here are just a few quotes and articles to help you on your search for the truth behind their idea of Progress. Just google "are progressives communists" and you will find many more.

All of these thinkers contributed to what would become the ethical foundation of the Progressive Movement: a contempt and loathing of "individualism" -- and its political expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution:

* Croly: "The Promise of American Life is to be fulfilled ... by a large measure of individual subordination and self-denial."

* Sociologist Lester Ward: "The individual has reigned long enough."

* Antitrust leader Henry Demarest Lloyd: Individualism is "one of the historic mistakes of humanity."

* The Outlook editor Lyman Abbott: "[I]ndividualism is the characteristic of simple barbarism, not of republican civilization."

* Baptist minister Walter Rauschenbusch: "[I]ndividualism means tyranny."


Communist Front was originally the term used by the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)[citation needed], and then later by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) to label Comintern (Communist Interational) organizations found to be under the effective control of the CPUSA, with special emphasis on those groups most active during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The term also refers to organizations not originally Communist-controlled which after a time became so, such as the American Student Union.

In 1955, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee published a list of what it described as the 82 most active and typical sponsors of Communist fronts in the United States; some of those named had literally dozens of affiliations with groups that had either been cited as Communist fronts or had been labelled "subversive" by either the subcommittee or the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Perhaps the best-known - and, in the short run most successful - 'Communist Front' in the United States was the Progressive Party which nominated former Vice-President Henry A. Wallace for President in the 1948 election. The party was on the ballot in 45 states, though under various names. For instance, in California it was known as the Independent Progressive Party. In New York State, it was the American Labor Party, founded a number of years earlier, which repeatedly elected Vito Marcantonio and, in a by-election in the Bronx in February, 1948, Leo Isacson, to Congress. Isacson was defeated by a coalition candidate in November, 1948. Marcantonio was re-elected then, the only Progressive candidate to win office, but was defeated in 1950.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by HotSauce]

blah blah blah blah...blah blah blah....blah blah blah blah blah...blah. You want to stay safe and warm in your cave with your pet dinosaur,
be my guest.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:36 AM
Thank you for such an intelligent post! God I love it that this site has become so enlightening. Glad to know you've been able to create a tidy little world in your small mind. I would also suggest taking a pillow case and cutting a couple holes out for the eyes.
Perhaps ATS really means Advanced Tea bagging Society?

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:52 AM
The instant any post ever uses this phrase "As we all know" I tend to stop reading. Because it almost always means that what follows is going to be the worst kind of unsupported blather.
No difference here.
For instance, I might say: as we all know, Conservativies are really fascists. As we all know they support maintaining power and wealth among a tiny portion of the population, and support putting true power not in the hands of a group of elected representatives but in the hands of a small very powerful group of corporate elitists who in turn buy and sell influence amongst the elected representatives.

And as we all know, Conservatives favor using U.S. military power arbitrarily without provocation in order to ensure their hold on the world's energy supplies remains uninterrupted.

As we all know, these types of actions are all indicative of a fascist state.

I could say that, but we all know that it's just my own, politically charged, dogmatic belief and I don't really know enough about the philosophical underpinnings of fascism to really draw that conclusion.

Kinda like ol 'hot sauce' who doesn't really know anything about either the progressive or communist philosophy, or certainly not enough to draw any real conclusion.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by kenochs]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:13 AM
Comrade Obama's advisers are all from Wall Street. They are hyper-capitalists, not Communists. Oh sure we've seen a redistribution of wealth under Obama, but it's been the further redistribution of wealth from the workers to the corporations. I don't think that's exactly what Karl Marx had in mind. We haven't seen a worker's revolt on the factory floor, only on the trading floor. "Smash the unions. Long live the derivatives markets."

You are right to be angry, but the problem isn't communism. It's called fascism. Your private property would appear to be safe for the moment, unless you happen to live in the path of a new Walmart that's coming to town. Sometimes these Brooks-Brothers commies must seize the worker's assets and redistribute the wealth further up to the higher levels of the ownership class.
It is unfortunate that one must suffer for the greater good of the banksters.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:19 AM
reply to post by HotSauce

I disagree that communism has failed. In many places they merely have a permanently crappy lifestyle, but not so crappy they can't afford their basic needs. They are simply locked into their "proper" position as slaves for the "collective good".

[edit on 3-12-2009 by truthquest]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:34 AM
The lack of intelligence in this thread does not surprise me at all. You bandy around terms--communist, stalinist, liberal, whatever--w/out the most basic understanding of these terms.

Is this an American phenomena? It seems to be. You have been brain-washed well.

The truth is we live in an oligarchy, a wealth pyramid. By the very views you embrace and propogate, you weaken your class. You are your own worst enemy. And you're not helping anyone else either, except the rich who have brain-washed you.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:38 AM
Communism or the collective, only works on a very small scale. Parts of Catalonia and the Israeli Kibbutz - it does not operate on a successful large scale system. As Marx warned, the authoritarian proletariat dictatorship instead takes form - instead of the transition from socialism to communism.

However, the OP does not know the basic difference between communism, progressivism and liberalism. In other words, a political point grabbing troll.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in