Communist Party of the USA endorses Obama in 2012

[Deborah K]

You guys do realize that socialism does not equal communism, right? There are many forms of socialism, for example communism that is on the far left and social democracy that is close to the center.

Socialism is basically communism but with less violence to sustain it. While some private property ownership is allowed, the concept is basically the same.

 

[Velho]

Socialism is basically communism but with less violence to sustain it. While some private property ownership is allowed, the concept is basically the same.

Most socialist countries have a mixed market economy, which can basically be summarized as welfare state capitalism. Communism on the other hand is a different story, it aims to completely abolish ownership of private property and wage labour. This is unthinkable for example in a social democratic society, which values democracy and low barriers to free trade but on the other hand provides social security nets for those that fail in their aspirations.

 

[erowe1]

That seems odd. They should at least see who the Republican nominee is before they assume Obama's more to their liking.

 

[pcosmar]

Good for them. They need to get more vocal about it.

Quite a few Republicans could use their support as well. (McCain comes to mind)

 

[Deborah K]

Most socialist countries have a mixed market economy, which can basically be summarized as welfare state capitalism. Communism on the other hand is a different story, it aims to completely abolish ownership of private property and wage labour. This is unthinkable for example in a social democratic society, which values democracy and low barriers to free trade but on the other hand provides social security nets for those that fail in their aspirations.

Would you agree that both derive from a collectivist ideology?

 

[Velho]

Would you agree that both derive from a collectivist ideology?

Of course, but this can be said of almost any ideology or form of society. It does not mean communism equals social democracy, because the economic models are very different, the idea of government is very different, and the idea of ownership is very different.

 

[Deborah K]

Of course, but this can be said of almost any ideology or form of society. It does not mean communism equals social democracy, because the economic models are very different, the idea of government is very different, and the idea of ownership is very different.

Agreed, as I mentioned before, one form of this ideology is more violent than the other. But both rely on individual sacrifice for the greater good.

 

[awake]

You guys do realize that socialism does not equal communism, right? There are many forms of socialism, for example communism that is on the far left and social democracy that is close to the center.

Yes, in the same degree that a few cancer cells do not make a tumor... We are only talking degrees, not the apple and oranges comparison as the defenders of socialism use most frequently. The old defense that communism is bad and that socialism is good is the near universal argument to explain away the atrocities, and who and what was responsible for them. Socialism, in any amount, is a stepping stone downward to the extinction called Communism; the universal slavery; the return to the beast world.

Socialism is a scale of degrees , you can have a little or a lot - name these states of decay as you wish. It always represents the loss of liberty guaranteed in the institution of private property and the natural right to it.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

PROTIP: The U.S.S.R did not collapse because of communism.

 

[Velho]

Yes, in the same degree that a few cancer cells do not make a tumor... We are only talking degrees, not the apple and oranges comparison as the defenders of socialism use most frequently. The old defense that communism is bad and that socialism is good is the near universal argument to explain away the atrocities and who and what was responsible for them - socialism in any amount is a stepping stone downward to the extinction called communism.

Socialism is a scale of degrees , you can have a little or a lot - name these states of decay as you wish.

Please explain the mechanism that leads all socialist systems to communism.

 

[pcosmar]

Please explain the mechanism that leads all socialistic systems to communism.

Fabian socialism has exactly the same goals as Marxism. The only difference is the means of achieving it. Fabians reject violent revolution in favor of slow infiltration and gradual changes. ( incremental)

There is NO end game difference.

 

[awake]

One crises leads to an intervention by the ignorant who have guns, which does not solve the initial crises and creates 4 more. The intervention cycle starts all over: now there are 5 crisis which spawn multiples more through ignorant interventions. Slowly over time you live in crises after crisis requiring more centralization and control, more interventions...etc. then the phrase "too big to fail" comes as a guiding principle... Example: Greece. Greece should default, like any other ponzi scheme, but they keep shoveling other peoples retirements over to the black hole (interventions). Who will pay these lenders for their foolishness when it is time for their crisis?

Look at the state of the economic situation we are in currently in; it a series of crises resulting from previous interventions, and will be followed by a series of interventions that eventually make full government control seem advantageous to get some form of stability and shelter from the storm. Business men have been historically prone to calling for greater 'state protections', but like the old saying goes, "when you trade your liberty for security..."

There are semi-socialist nations that seem to break this theory, but we are entering a stage of crisis that will tempt even them to make further steps to socialize more fully. A sustained world inflation is already having great effects on the "middle of the road' folks.

 

[Velho]

Fabian socialism has exactly the same goals as Marxism. The only difference is the means of achieving it. Fabians reject violent revolution in favor of slow infiltration and gradual changes. ( incremental)

There is NO end game difference.

So there you have one branch of socialism, which doesn't seem to be very influential I might add, at least when it comes to displacing the free market aspect. What does this have to do with the mechanism behind all models leading to communism? You still seem to be unable to comprehend that the term "socialism" includes a diverse political spectrum.

 

[Echoes]

Every nation in the world is socialist, it's just a matter of degree. We in America dont own property, the Govt does, we just pay (forced) rent.

 

[Velho]

One crises leads to an intervention by the ignorant who have guns, which does not solve the initial crises and creates 4 more. The intervention cycle starts all over, and the the original crisis spawn multiples more. Slowly over time you live in crises after crisis requiring more centralization and control, more interventions...etc. then the term Too Big to Fail comes as a guiding principle...

Look at the state of the economic situation we are in currently in; it a series of crises resulting from previous interventions, and will be followed by a series of interventions that eventually make full government control seem advantageous to get some form of stability and shelter from the storm. Business men have been historically prone to calling for greater 'state protections', but like the old saying goes, "when you trade your liberty for security..."

There are semi-socialist nations that seem to break this theory, but we are entering a stage of crisis that will tempt even them to make further steps to socialize more fully. A sustained world inflation is already having great effects on the "middle of the road' folks.

Eh, that was extremely vague and didn't explain much at all. In a democracy you have the ability to vote, and if the people vote "socialists" into power then they will more likely than not go forward with those plans, crisis or not. If however the power of money has overcome the rule of law and democracy, then you must seriously start thinking about revolution, because living in a kleptocracy means it doesn't matter who you vote for, you are living in a totalitarian system only faithful to money.

 

[awake]

Socialists don't come wearing shirts that say so, the voter usually sees a well groomed candidate with talking points that are worded to make it all sound Homey. Obamacare.

Let me give you a clear example: The Great Depression was caused by repeated central banking interventions. These series of interventions and crises spawned the New Deal, which was a huge leap toward socialism. If one looks at theses events correctly you can see what a severe economic crisis will potentially launch in to - we still live with the worst of the old New Deal, what would a 'New New Deal' do to what remains of the mixed economy.

Most people use their democratic vote to vote themselves the property of others with out the guilt of having to do the dirty work themselves. The politicians role is to appease and absolve this behavior in exchange for these 'votes'. He seeks to cement his ability to do the same thing on a much grander scale and bring home the "pork".

 

[Velho]

Let me give you a clear example: The depression caused by central banking interventions spawned the new deal which was a huge leap toward socialism. If one looks at thses events correctly you can see what a severe economic crisies will potentially lead to.

Most people use their democratic vote to vote themselves the property of others with out guilt of having to do the dirty work themselves.

That still does not tell me how it's all gonna end up in communism, since you can't draw straight lines like that in complex social and economic issues

Can you tell me which deal that was so I can read what it's all about.

In the end, as Ron Paul has talked about, it's about what people think the role of government should be. If the majority of the population wants to move toward a more social democratic system then there's no stopping them. Blah somehow this got into a socialism-in-America kind of discussion while I began talking about socialism as a whole.

 

[Deborah K]

Please explain the mechanism that leads all socialist systems to communism.

The mechanism is the collectivist ideology. Even in a Republic like ours, you can see how collectivism can permeate it and gradually change it. If you haven't seen this series of clips on individualism vs. collectivism, please watch? Clip two speaks directly to what I propose.

 

[pcosmar]

So there you have one branch of socialism, which doesn't seem to be very influential I might add, at least when it comes to displacing the free market aspect. What does this have to do with the mechanism behind all models leading to communism? You still seem to be unable to comprehend that the term "socialism" includes a diverse political spectrum.

Not very influential?
The friggin' President is a Fabian Socalist. Tony Blair is a Fabian. The socialist Coup of 1913 was heavily influenced by Fabians.
The CFR was created by Fabian socialists.

How do you figure that they have little influence.

 

[Velho]

Not very influential?
The friggin' President is a Fabian Socalist. Tony Blair is a Fabian. The socialist Coup of 1913 was heavily influenced by Fabians.
The CFR was created by Fabian socialists.

How do you figure that they have little influence.

Please read the rest of the sentence.