America On Verge Of Communist Takeover, Says Former Castro Revolutionary

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
The door is always open my friend. If I am so ignorant it should not be hard for you to put me in my place.
...

We actually did, including me, you are just too busy drinking beer to have noticed it...

Thanks for droping by.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

BTW, socialism is both an economic and political theory/ideology... Capitalism is just an economic theory/ideology...

True...but that still does not mean socialism is a form of government!

We actually did, including me, you are just too busy drinking beer to have noticed it...

That would be an ad hominum attack!

Damn...now your a hypocrite too! Man, just stop while your still ahead!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You make these communist threads, people try to explain the difference to you, you don't listen and never fully comprehend what they are saying. It's really easy to realize that not all collectivism is communism, you don't seem to understand that.

reply to post by xuenchen
Remember when Maxine Waters accidentally let the word "socialize" the oil industry slip out in the congressional hearings? She knew what a fauz pas she had just spit out.

GM - fascist takeover by the government, letting the private car dealerships and parts dealerships go under.

Obamacare - the ruling class exempted itself at the get-go. The government will take your money and tell you and the docter what, and how much "care" and "medicines" you will recieve. The Godless communist care not what your religious feelings may be.

Do you really think you're going to be sitting next to Angelina Jolie in the docter's office, waiting for your appointment? There will be 2 sets of healthcare. One for the fabulously wealthy and another one for the rest of us.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

I think it's fair to say Socialism doesn't have to be a part of Government. Although where Socialism exists as part of a traditional Republic escapes me at the moment. The text book reads that one doesn't necessarily need the other, but Socialism seems to be the odds on exclusive form for Communist rulers...so, it's easy to see why folks associate the two.

The exceptions really are those Scandinavian nations and God Bless 'em, but what works there would be endless nightmare here. It's just sheer scale and size, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree. You have a grasp on the truth of the matter.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I agree brother. Marxism is not cool either....

You won't get any argument out of me.

Hey Xuenchen, he really can't see it can he?..

You really are a comedian sheepslayer, you can't even read, or comprehend what is being posted in front of you...

In case you missed it, here is part of what Xuenchen excerpted...

Political Marxism

Since Marx's death in 1883, various groups around the world have appealed to Marxism as the theoretical basis for their politics and policies,
...
who argued that the transition to socialism could occur within existing bourgeois parliamentarian frameworks, and communists, who argued that the transition to a socialist society required a revolution and the dissolution of the capitalist state.
...

Excerpted from link given by Xuenchen.

Sheepslayer247, you and a couple other members need to get together and take some reading comprehension classes. I am really not trying to be mean.

reply to post by SG-17

If this is true (and I severely doubt it) I would have to say ABOUT DAMN TIME.

Name a single communist country whose average Joe is better off than the average Joe in America….I’ll wait.

Why do you espouse a system that fails every time its tried??

Originally posted by RealSpoke

You make these communist threads, people try to explain the difference to you, you don't listen and never fully comprehend what they are saying. It's really easy to realize that not all collectivism is communism, you don't seem to understand that.

wow... In case you haven't noticed more members responding to this thread have agreed with what I have written than the two, or three members who agreed with you...

reply to post by RealSpoke

You make these communist threads, people try to explain the difference to you, you don't listen and never fully comprehend what they are saying. It's really easy to realize that not all collectivism is communism, you don't seem to understand that.

You don’t seem to realize that communism doesn’t work. Why advocate for a system that creates more government control and less freedom?

Name a country where communism has truly made life better?? Do a comparison of conditions and back it up; be specific in your examples too.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Appeal to popularity, that's pretty low on a site about getting at the truth.

As for your previous post just because Marx used socialism to label the intermediate stage from capitalism to communism doesn't mean he used the word correctly. It has since become one of many meanings that you just refuse to acknowledge.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I can't read? Did you miss this in his post?

who argued that the transition to socialism could occur within existing bourgeois parliamentarian frameworks, and communists, who argued that the transition to a socialist society required a revolution and the dissolution of the capitalist state.

WITHIN EXISTING FRAMEWORKS! Socialism does not stand on it's own! It even said that for socialism to come about, capitalism had to go. So that means socialism is an ecomomic theory...nothing more.

reply to post by seabag

I've read a few posts by another member who claims that Yugoslavia was better under Tito than under the new capitalism. He even asked electricuniverse to share his thoughts and EU quickly dismissed him.

reply to post by daskakik

Appeal to popularity, that's pretty low on a site about getting at the truth.

As for your previous post just because Marx used socialism to label the intermediate stage from capitalism to communism doesn't mean he used the word correctly. It has since become one of many meanings that you just refuse to acknowledge.

So we should all consider you a smarter person than Marx?

I think he knew damn well what he meant….the guy was no fool….misguided for sure, but no fool.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Remember when Maxine Waters accidentally let the word "socialize" the oil industry slip out in the congressional hearings? She knew what a fauz pas she had just spit out.

GM - fascist takeover by the government, letting the private car dealerships and parts dealerships go under.

Obamacare - the ruling class exempted itself at the get-go. The government will take your money and tell you and the docter what, and how much "care" and "medicines" you will recieve. The Godless communist care not what your religious feelings may be.

Do you really think you're going to be sitting next to Angelina Jolie in the docter's office, waiting for your appointment? There will be 2 sets of healthcare. One for the fabulously wealthy and another one for the rest of us.

Yep !! The U.S. politicians have been talking for sure !!

They slip in spite of themselves sometimes.

They can't stand it when the exposures show up

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Most of ATS could not tell the difference between communism, socialism, and fascism. They've never even read about it. It is evident when they call Obama a communist, when he is anything but. Everything he has done is fascist in nature.

Not all collectivism is communism. Get it?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I find that it is not the Concepts of different systems that cause people issues...it is the people who have decided to use a system for personal gain as the problem. Sure...many people can point out the ills of Large Corps. and Wall Street...these are some of the people...not all of them are abusing the system...but some have and have caused great harm.

No where is there an example of a Small Number of people using an ideology...such was the case in the Soviet Union...to fool people into believing they were working for the Greater Good...when in REALITY...they were working to line the pockets of a Small Percentage of Communist Party Members who had Datchas on the Black Sea and a Difference of their Quality of Living that would make Donald Trump BLUSH!

There is room to have a TINT BIT of SOCIALISM within a system as complex as the one used in the United States. It was called....and I say was because they put our Social Security Money into the General Fund when Ronald Reagan for a time was able to separate these funds and if they had been left to earn their own interest...we would not be having the issues with it we now do.

As far as Health Care and such...if we did not spend so much money on Lawyers and Consultants...we would be able to afford this without issue.

But there is NO WAY...the United States will EVER become Communist! Split Infinity

All I can say is this is not the 1950's, what is wrong with you?

What communists?

This is about as likely as the world is going to end in December.

Are all the private owners just going to give up their property to the workers?

No, communism can only happen through revolution, either direct action, or through a revolutionary political party.

We are headed to a totalitarian state, that has been obvious for decades, and is inevitable. A very slow process, most people don't notice. But the economy is and will remain capitalist. It is the capitalist influence in government that is the driving force behind more authority, and more control, as it has been for 250 years.

You don't need some Castro "revolutionary" to tell you what is going on, open your mind and seek for yourself.

It's a commie takeover Harry. It was laughed at in the 50's lol. Better keep an eye under your bed.

reply to post by seabag


Not a question of who is smarter but just a question of word choice. He knew that socialism was gaining popularity so he used it. Whatever the case the word has been slapped on so many things that it doesn't mean any one thing any more and it sure doesn't exclusively mean what Marx used it to describe.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

You make these communist threads, people try to explain the difference to you, you don't listen and never fully comprehend what they are saying. It's really easy to realize that not all collectivism is communism, you don't seem to understand that.

It certainly doesn't take a high powered telescope, or microscope depending upon your point of view, to see that collectivism is the reverse of individualism, and that in collectivism the individual is necessarily subjugated to the group. I don't care what name is placed upon the form when the underlying form is collectivism, as long as it is collectivism it remains highly suspect.