Communists = Democrats

[Atreus21]

If this is in fact the statement from the communist party, they're even stupider than I thought they were.

Just reading the bit about the $12 minimum wage is ridiculous.

 

[piasabird]

Waits for Feds to take over Microsoft.

 

[Muse]

"Do you think it's a fair statement to say that Democrats today are actually communists?"


No. It's ridiculous.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: RY62
It seems to me that the Communist party has almost completely taken control of the Democrat party. From what I can see, there is no difference between the views of the Communist party and todays Democrats. Do you think it's a fair statement to say that Democrats today are actually communists? If not, what exactly differentiates todays democrats from the Communist party, other than the name?

Oh give me a break. The democrats are a lot less liberal than they used to be decades ago.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Oh give me a break. The democrats are a lot less liberal than they used to be decades ago.

No doubt, if you look back decades, the party is a lot less liberal. I'm talking about recent history. The liberal agenda, in recent history, hasn't worked out too good for the party. After getting trounced by Reagan, the DLC was created and worked to move the party rightwards to the ideological center. By doing so, the party was able to hold supporters on the left, as well as moderates and even some conservatives. In the 1990s the Democratics were able to gain ground, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy.

With the strong anti-Republican and anti-Bush sentiment in the country today, it seems the party is going to sieze the advantage and try to shift further to the left. I see this as a short term gain at best and more likely a long term mistake.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I think that all political ideologies can have very positive beliefs/aspects on paper. It is the reality of putting those beliefs into practical applications by unpredictable human beings that cause them to fail miserably or be corrupted by greed or power aspirations.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
If this is in fact the statement from the communist party, they're even stupider than I thought they were.

Just reading the bit about the $12 minimum wage is ridiculous.

And yet you probably don't look at the fact that 50 years ago, a blue collar one-income wage earner could support a family, and say that's ridiculous. It's worth looking at for adults, IMO.

 

[Cellulose]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21
If this is in fact the statement from the communist party, they're even stupider than I thought they were.

Just reading the bit about the $12 minimum wage is ridiculous.

And yet you probably don't look at the fact that 50 years ago, a blue collar one-income wage earner could support a family, and say that's ridiculous. It's worth looking at for adults, IMO.

40 years ago the minimum wage was the equivilant of just under 10$ - not that farfetched.

 

[Lemon law]

Isn't in time to end this stupid thread?

If the definition of both Communism and Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, democrats do not remotely equal Communists or Socialists.

Perhaps a fellow named Lincoln Seffins pegged it right many years ago when asked about original sin.

And he pointed out that Christian thinking blamed Eve for eating the devil's apple. And instead Lincoln Steffins pointed out that perhaps the sin is the temptation of apple itself. Republicans seems to glory in the apple eaters who gets away with eating the apple, and democrats still love people but put in place the very regulations to make sure no one gets away with stealing the damn apple to the determent of the larger society. See the parable of Alberto Gonzales if you do not believe me. IT IS INDEED WHAT JESUS WOULD SAY.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RY62

Topic Title: Democrats = Communists
Topic Summary: Is OP a wingnut?

Fixed it for ya.

Thanks for the fix Harvey. It's always a pleasure to have you contribute your immeasurable wisdom.

As other posters have pointed out, I think the correct fix would be Communists = Democrats with the key being Socialism. All Communists are for socialism, seeing it as a transition stage to communism. All socialists aren?t for communism; some see Communists as too radical.

I don't know how much influence the Communist party has on American politics but, at least for the time being, their interests seem to be best served by staying lockstep with the left of the Democrat party. I think most Americans are pretty comfortable with the label of socialist but it'll be a while before we see a viable candidate running under the banner of the Communist party. They'll be content to exert their influence and achieve their goals through the Democratic party. In my opinion there never has been a true Communist government and I doubt it's even possible. It seems to me that the seven deadly sins would prevent any form of Communist utopia.

Originally posted by: Zebo
All parties have some communistic leanings as well as free market ones. Both in pure form have proven miserable failures.

On both points I agree. Because of these points, it probably really is best that political environment continues to periodically swing back and forth, from left to right. Too far to the left, too far to the right, and even sitting still in the middle all seem destined to fail. We just need to be careful and not rock the boat too far in a knee jerk reaction to what is seen as a bad administration.

If you want to gage the Democrats relation to Communism/Marxism its wise to understand the neo-Marxists like Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt school. They were at the root of political correctness and things like diversity, "multiculturalism", fringe group politics, institutional destabilzation etc. Once you know how all these things trace back to neo Marxists you can see how corrupt Democrats are. Neo Marxists don't focus on "classical" economic Marxism.

After WW 1 the Marxists were surprised capitalist societies did not stagger as they had expected. Anthomio Gramsci theorized it was because of "cultural hegemony" - meaning traditional cultural values can overcome economic concerns. War and economic collapse should have caused people to revolt against the existing order but cultural values held them in place.

Orthodox Marxism taught that there were groups who were privileged and groups that were oppressed economically. Gramsci shifted that paradigm to other groups using cultural dynamics instead of raw economic/class ones. He saw things like churches, schools, families etc as vehicles that maintained a "cultural hegemony" over peoples and he proposed a gradual "counter hegemony" to erode the established hegemony from within. His idea was to turn marginalized groups against the order in established capitalist society and culture and transmogrify institutions.

He wrote: "The marginalized groups of history include not only the economically oppressed, but also women, racial minorities and many 'criminals.' What Marx called "the people," Gramsci called an "ensemble" of subordinate groups and classes. These groups - "the people" -- lack unity and, often, even consciousness of their own "oppression". To reverse power from the privileged to the "marginalized," was Gramsci's goal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

This is how the criminal, the homosexual, the alien and other groups have been used as a wedge to disrupt institutions and confuse people about "rights". When you look at Obama you'll see a lot of his ideology is neo Marxist to the core (and so is liberation theology - also Marxist shtick in religious cloak).

Gramsci said the West would have to be de-Christianized by means of a "long march through the culture." A new proletariat must be created and in his "Prison Notebooks," he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities. It would be the Frankfurt School ( Marxist think-tank founded in Weimar Germany founded by Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno and included sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists.) and its converts that would synthesize the ideas of Gramsci, Freud and others to come up with the bullying and degrading form of "diversity" issues used as a psychological battering ram to sow confusion and erosion. They also added homosexuality, sex education etc.

It's never been an accident that most of the labels used to defame people come from the same political groups (xenophobe, homophobe, racist, ethnocentrist, chauvinist etc). Once you understand where all this garbage comes from you can see the game thats been played.

Of course the neo Marxist influence is also at work in the environmental groups who are using environmental concerns to achieve political ends (as a founder of Greenpeace said - and he also European Marxists moved into green movement and compromised environmental focus).

The Democrats are very much neo Marxist in spirit and practice. Of course a lot of them won't even know that because many of them have been indoctrinated quite far down from the original instigators (youth, persona failures, resentments etc fueled their susceptibility). People may feel sincere about environment causes etc but they dont know a lot of their fears, concerns and options emerge from the swamp of Neo Marxist influence and their useful idiots in media and academe. They join in the clamour not realising they are being used to undermine their own interests and true virtues. Look into Gramsci, Frankfurt School, Alinsky (admired Gramsci and Obama/Clinton were influenced by Alinsky) etc. and you'll see just what Obama and the Democrats represent, and what is behind their mask of false virute and concern.

 

[Vic]

Butterbean, I can't figure out if you're trying to say that Marxism is bad, that hatred and oppression of other human beings is good and natural (and doesn't have to be taught), or were just trying to figure out how many digs on Obama and the Democrats you could get in while pretending to look smart.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Vic
Butterbean, I can't figure out if you're trying to say that Marxism is bad, that hatred and oppression of other human beings is good and natural (and doesn't have to be taught), or were just trying to figure out how many digs on Obama and the Democrats you could get in while pretending to look smart.

I think he's just throwing a lot of crap together and bullshitting the whole thing. Butterbean is a moran.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21
If this is in fact the statement from the communist party, they're even stupider than I thought they were.

Just reading the bit about the $12 minimum wage is ridiculous.

And yet you probably don't look at the fact that 50 years ago, a blue collar one-income wage earner could support a family, and say that's ridiculous. It's worth looking at for adults, IMO.

The problem is you cant create wealth by simply naming a price. I am not against a min wage, I just think it is such a petty issue in todays world it isnt even worth arguiing over. It hits less than 2% of the workforce and of that 2%, 60% are tip earners or in highschool. But as a failsafe against abuse agains the lowest ring of our society it isnt a bad thing. But I dont think it should be a hammer to nail down a national income either.

But the fundamental issue is still there. If 12 bucks, why not 50 bucks an hour or 100,000? If it were as simple as fixing prices it would have been done and successful long ago.