PDA

View Full Version : tPF Why America needs to vote out political extremism: A lesson from the UK



Refugee
10-16-2015, 08:37 AM
Why America needs to vote out political extremism: A lesson from the UK
An illustrated guide to socialism

13076



What socialism looks like in reality
In 1979, after five years of hardline socialism, the UK lay in ruins. The Labour party (Democrats) had been infiltrated and taken over by an assortment of Marxist, Maoist and Socialist Workers Revolutionary Party members. The Labour party anthem was, ‘We’ll keep the Red Flag Flying Here.’ Unemployment stood at record highs and inflation at the years’ end was soaring at 17.24%. The Freedom of Information Act years later suggests that there were plans of an army coup to stop the UK heading into full communism, had Thatcher not been elected. During this period, the UK was labelled as ‘Little Moscow’ and ‘The sick man of Europe.’ The dead went unburied as the grave diggers were on strike; the electricity was rationed; bread queues formed and people took to the streets waving red flags. Are you listening America? The Kremlin has gone, no more pretence, the elite are having their revolution.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225637/How-Kremlin-hijacked-Labour-Diary-Kremlin-insider-reveals-hold-Soviets-Labour-politicians.html
‘But more worrying, perhaps, is the fact that the document shows in stark detail how the political ideology of so many of those who govern us today was shaped by the unspeakable communist creed of the Soviet Union. The unpalatable truth is that many ministers in Government today rose through the ranks of a British socialist movement that was heavily influenced - and even controlled - by the Kremlin in Moscow.’

Back to the future
The UK in the 1970s. Civil unrest, garbage collectors on strike and bread queues.


13072


Recently, Ed Milliband, a socialist, lost the Labour party election and resigned. ‘’And that is exactly what we will get if Ed wins the election. An austere, self-conscious, self-righteous and, ultimately, hypocritical society of socially engineered equals. A Britain . . . bland, functional, humourless, cold and about as much fun to live in as a Communist era housing block in Minsk.’’ The UK still remembers those days. Milliband was immediately replced by Jeremy Corbyn, a Marxist. These people do not go away.They lie in wait of a dumbed down, despondent and apathetic society to re-surface.

Arguably, the U.S. 35 years later finds itself going down the same political road
America elects its first Marxist President, productivity growth stagnant since 2009, Soup kitchen queues


13073


Despite the propaganda that society is progressing, it is in fact regressing, due very much to the emphasis on producing an equality based society. This is occuring throughout the west and so is not a phenomenon applicable to any one country, but a purposely designed political objective. Its roots lie in progressivism, an ideology designed to reduce populations to servitude, run by an elite, using science and managed by experts. You can call it medieval or corporate servitude, depending on the era.

The effects
The middle class is collapsing, educational standards falling and government dependency increasing.


13074


‘Barack Obama has amazingly managed to increase his net worth by a whopping 438 percent over just eight years, since he first ran for office.’
Michelle at $11 million. Socialist Bill at an estimated $80 million.
Bernie Sanders living in poverty with a maximum $759,000 and practically homeless in a $100,000 condonimium.

People tend to view their worth based on others in their social group, occupation or neighbourhood . . . As aspirations fall, they are replaced with an equality sameness of survival. This can be seen by the introduction of the minimum wage, which replaces a desire for upwards social mobility with a ‘living’ survival wage. The irony of this is that the more you vote for socialism and government dependency, the poorer you become. No one ever achieved success on welfare, or progressed with government help. Before you are taken in by these people, look around you.

Look at Europe under a progressive EU, nearer home look at Cuba and Venezuela, or at the giants who abandoned government dependency, China and Russia.

‘While most of the world's attention has been focused on the breakup of the Soviet empire, a quieter, more far-flung revolution is under way: the decline and fall of the state-run economy. From Santiago to New Delhi, countries that once were Marxist or, like Sweden, were simply run as democratic welfare states, are jettisoning failed economic systems that relied heavily on central planning and government intervention and are turning toward some form of free-market capitalism.’


13075


America has just had less than a decade of the most radical left-wing politics in its history. The result is predictable social and economic devastation, reminisent of the UK 1970s. Another term of authoratarian/ government dependency will destroy you, as it nearly did the UK in the 1970s. This is America in only seven years of cultural Marxism.

Subdermal
10-16-2015, 08:47 AM
I agree with this; there's generally not much to say other than to poke fun in advance of those who will attempt to contest your claim of these lefties as Marxist/Socialist/Communist - but they'll be generally unable to draw any stark contrasting lines between the ideology of the contested and those that they would begrudgingly admit are M/S/C.

We have become among the most dumb people on the planet, and we can lay the blame at the feet of these same people.

Green Arrow
10-16-2015, 09:08 AM
Calling Obama (and really most of the Democratic party) Marxists, socialists, or communists, really illustrates how some people have no idea what any of those three things are.

But I realize I'm talking to brick walls.

Matty
10-16-2015, 09:14 AM
Calling Obama (and really most of the Democratic party) Marxists, socialists, or communists, really illustrates how some people have no idea what any of those three things are.

But I realize I'm talking to brick walls.
When choice is taken away from you by your government what would you call it?

Subdermal
10-16-2015, 09:22 AM
Calling Obama (and really most of the Democratic party) Marxists, socialists, or communists, really illustrates how some people have no idea what any of those three things are.

But I realize I'm talking to brick walls.

Since my family emigrated from Yugoslavia to escape Tito, I think I have a pretty good idea - and since every one of those surviving immigrants identifies the exact same traits in the leftists leaders we have now, I'll side with their definition of such brands of Totalitarianism.

I hear your complaint regularly. The problem is that every time I hear it, it is missing two things:

1) an actual definition that meaningfully contradicts the ideology of the targeted;

2) it never considers how a hard-line M/S/C would act in an environment transitioning from a constitutional republic to one of those M/S/C forms, where propaganda and impressions tempers the overt outburst of M/S/C policy.

Do that, and I'll listen intently. Ignore it, and I'll continue to rebut the weak attempt to call a spade a spade.

Refugee
10-16-2015, 09:23 AM
Calling Obama (and really most of the Democratic party) Marxists, socialists, or communists, really illustrates how some people have no idea what any of those three things are.

But I realize I'm talking to brick walls.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/communists-in-congress-just-count-em/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/

No problem. If you’re ever in China pop along to one of my lectures for some education.
Seven years later and you still don't realise you voted in a Marxist :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Green Arrow
10-16-2015, 09:27 AM
When choice is taken away from you by your government what would you call it?

Tyranny.

Green Arrow
10-16-2015, 09:28 AM
Since my family emigrated from Yugoslavia to escape Tito, I think I have a pretty good idea - and since every one of those surviving immigrants identifies the exact same traits in the leftists leaders we have now, I'll side with their definition of such brands of Totalitarianism.

I hear your complaint regularly. The problem is that every time I hear it, it is missing two things:

1) an actual definition that meaningfully contradicts the ideology of the targeted;

2) it never considers how a hard-line M/S/C would act in an environment transitioning from a constitutional republic to one of those M/S/C forms, where propaganda and impressions tempers the overt outburst of M/S/C policy.

Do that, and I'll listen intently. Ignore it, and I'll continue to rebut the weak attempt to call a spade a spade.

Done. When I get home from work tonight, I will look for a past thread of mine doing just that. If I can't find it, I'll rewrite it.

Green Arrow
10-16-2015, 09:30 AM
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/communists-in-congress-just-count-em/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/

No problem. If you’re ever in China pop along to one of my lectures for some education.
Seven years later and you still don't realise you voted in a Marxist :smiley_ROFLMAO:

I didn't vote in a Marxist. Matter of fact, nobody did. Presidents in the United States aren't elected by popular vote, they are elected by a small body of unelected "electors."

But even if we did have a popular vote, no Marxist has ever been elected president of the United States.

Refugee
10-16-2015, 10:01 AM
I didn't vote in a Marxist. Matter of fact, nobody did. Presidents in the United States aren't elected by popular vote, they are elected by a small body of unelected "electors."

But even if we did have a popular vote, no Marxist has ever been elected president of the United States.
Look at the two links I provided above. You’re a rarity, I’ll give you that, you must be one of the few people left on the planet who still doesn’t realise what he is. Gullibility factor, didn’t he spell it out for you enough? Debate the op with you if you like, or the links.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 10:08 AM
People seem to love throwing around terms and wild accusations with clearly no understanding of what they are saying.

Truth Detector
10-16-2015, 10:09 AM
Calling Obama (and really most of the Democratic party) Marxists, socialists, or communists, really illustrates how some people have no idea what any of those three things are.

But I realize I'm talking to brick walls.

Claiming Obama isn't, really illustrates how some people have no idea what any of those three things are.

But I realize I'm talking to brick walls.

The emperor telling Congress he will act without them:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26NDs3KU5f0

7 policies Obama Says He'll Pursue Without Congress (State of the Dictatorship)

Matty
10-16-2015, 10:13 AM
People seem to love throwing around terms and wild accusations with clearly no understanding of what they are saying.


You mean such as rwnj, extremists, and nutters? That's all in reference to Republicans of course.


Hell, I've even heard the word treasonous bandied about when referring to Republicans.

Matty
10-16-2015, 10:18 AM
Tyranny.



Then we have been tyrannized. Now who practices tyranny? Marxists, communists and socialists. They all tell you what you are going to do and punish you if you don't. Correct?

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 10:24 AM
Lol...

Subdermal
10-16-2015, 10:27 AM
Lol...

Stop being useless, and stick your nose out to explain exactly what I challenged you and other leftists to do in my earlier post. So far, you have done nothing whatever to support any ridiculous stance you've taken.

Mac-7
10-16-2015, 10:31 AM
Calling Obama (and really most of the Democratic party) Marxists, socialists, or communists, really illustrates how some people have no idea what any of those three things are.

But I realize I'm talking to brick walls.

Modern democrats are closer to fascists than communists

Liberals tried owning the means of production - the factories - in communist countries like the Soviet Union and in Western European countries and the libs were complete failures at it

Fascists still worship central government but understand that the semi private economy is better at producing goods and services than government

But naturally modern democrats like obumer it Hillary will never admit they are really just neo fascists

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 10:47 AM
Stop being useless, and stick your nose out to explain exactly what I challenged you and other leftists to do in my earlier post. So far, you have done nothing whatever to support any ridiculous stance you've taken.

Sorry, my natural response to this sort of idiocy is to simply mock it.

In my mind, anyone who claims Obama is a socialist or communist etc... doesn't even know what those words mean. You might as well call him a Mormon or a Buddhist.

Truth Detector
10-16-2015, 10:52 AM
Modern democrats are closer to fascists than communists

Liberals tried owning the means of production - the factories - in communist countries like the Soviet Union and in Western European countries and the libs were complete failures at it

Fascists still worship central government but understand that the semi private economy is better at producing goods and services than government

But naturally modern democrats like obumer it Hillary will never admit they are really just neo fascists

^Spot on.

Truth Detector
10-16-2015, 10:53 AM
People seem to love throwing around terms and wild accusations with clearly no understanding of what they are saying.

Correction: LIBERALS seem to love throwing around terms and wild accusations with clearly no understanding of what they are saying.

Truth Detector
10-16-2015, 10:55 AM
Sorry, my natural response to this sort of idiocy is to simply mock it.

In my mind, anyone who claims Obama is a socialist or communist etc... doesn't even know what those words mean. You might as well call him a Mormon or a Buddhist.

I would argue anyone claiming he is not is clueless of what Socialism and Marxism is.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:00 AM
Have to agree with Green Arrow, being sloppy in terminology weakens the meanings of words and loses their historical associations. Marxism has specific meaning, socialism and communism a variety of meanings. While our current government of Dems and Reps resembles to a degree, adopts to an extent, something of all three, it is not any of them for one component of all three is ownership of the means of production by the workers, when what we have is better called social democracy where the means of production is being socialized and managed by a democratic government. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom explains what the next steps will be.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:01 AM
I would argue anyone claiming he is not is clueless of what Socialism and Marxism is.

Then define them instead of merely poisoning the well of discussion here.

Truth Detector
10-16-2015, 11:02 AM
Have to agree with Green Arrow, being sloppy in terminology weakens the meanings of words and loses their historical associations. Marxism has specific meaning, socialism and communism a variety of meanings. While our current government of Dems and Reps resembles to a degree, adopts to an extent, something of all three, it is not any of them for one component of all three is ownership of the means of production by the workers, when what we have is better called social democracy where the means of production is being socialized and managed by a democratic government. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom explains what the next steps will be.


Then define them instead of merely poisoning the well of discussion here.

No one cares what you think. Run along.

Matty
10-16-2015, 11:04 AM
Have to agree with @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), being sloppy in terminology weakens the meanings of words and loses their historical associations. Marxism has specific meaning, socialism and communism a variety of meanings. While our current government of Dems and Reps resembles to a degree, adopts to an extent, something of all three, it is not any of them for one component of all three is ownership of the means of production by the workers, when what we have is better called social democracy where the means of production is being socialized and managed by a democratic government. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom explains what the next steps will be.


They have taken over over the health care system, by their rhetoric you know they want an end to capitalism, the goal is to take and to redistribute wealth,so even though they are not there yet it means they are working toward Marxism.

Truth Detector
10-16-2015, 11:08 AM
They have taken over over the health care system, by their rhetoric you know they want an end to capitalism, the goal is to take and to redistribute wealth,so even though they are not there yet it means they are working toward Marxism.

It is worse; they wanted a Government controlled system and masked it with Obama Care in order to get it passed. With time now on their side, their agenda is all but transparent with many claiming that ObamaCare's failures merely indicate that a Government single payer system is the only equitable solution.

Dimwits in the political "center" like to pretend that this isn't Marxist in nature. It's hard to tell the difference these days when idiots like Warren and Sanders declare war on Corporate Amerika and Conservatives.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:10 AM
No one cares what you think. Run along.

So are you saying you cannot define the terms?

And that you do not wish to engage in discussion?

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:11 AM
I would argue anyone claiming he is not is clueless of what Socialism and Marxism is.

You could argue that. You'd be wrong, but you could argue it.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:12 AM
No one cares what you think. Run along.

You really liked being in the hole, didn't you?

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:14 AM
They have taken over over the health care system, by their rhetoric you know they want an end to capitalism, the goal is to take and to redistribute wealth,so even though they are not there yet it means they are working toward Marxism.

They? The workers? Hardly. It's the government nationalizing or socializing those things. And, no, they, social democrats, or to use Sander's term, democratic socialists, do not want to do away with capitalism, they want to manage it to their own ends. This change took place in the 90s when the socialists, and I use the term loosely, conceded the economic calculation problem could not be solved by central planning, that the pricing mechanism of the market was needed. One could also argue they were late to the game inasmuch as most everyone else had already followed Keynes down that road.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:16 AM
It is worse; they wanted a Government controlled system and masked it with Obama Care in order to get it passed. With time now on their side, their agenda is all but transparent with many claiming that ObamaCare's failures merely indicate that a Government single payer system is the only equitable solution.

Dimwits in the political "center" like to pretend that this isn't Marxist in nature. It's hard to tell the difference these days when idiots like Warren and Sanders declare war on Corporate Amerika and Conservatives.



"Marxist in nature" - tell us, what do you mean by that? Be specific.

Matty
10-16-2015, 11:19 AM
They? The workers? Hardly. It's the government nationalizing or socializing those things. And, no, they, social democrats, or to use Sander's term, democratic socialists, do not want to do away with capitalism, they want to manage it to their own ends. This change took place in the 90s when the socialists, and I use the term loosely, conceded the economic calculation problem could not be solved by central planning, that the pricing mechanism of the market was needed. One could also argue they were late to the game inasmuch as most everyone else had already followed Keynes down that road.


They, the Democrats took the health care industry, dictating that everyone would buy health insurance, and usin the gov. IRS to police us. And, yes, they do want to end capitalism. Oh, and this war on police? The end game is to Federalize all police.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:20 AM
They, the Democrats took the health care industry, dictating that everyone would buy health insurance, and usin the gov. IRS to police us. And, yes, they do want to end capitalism.

None of that is accurate. They didn't "take" the healthcare industry and there is no evidence that they want to end capitalism.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:21 AM
"Marxist in nature" - tell us, what do you mean by that? Be specific.

It's a gut feeling he has that can't be backed up with facts or a logical argument. We just have to trust him.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:25 AM
They, the Democrats took the health care industry, dictating that everyone would buy health insurance, and usin the gov. IRS to police us. And, yes, they do want to end capitalism. Oh, and this war on police? The end game is to Federalize all police.

Note what you're saying, they, and I'll use the government, since it's not just Dems, dictate. The government doesn't own health insurance, the government mandated we must purchase it from insurance companies. That's not ending capitalism, it's promoting a crony, corrupt version of it, where the government forces the people to consume corporate products. It's not declaring war on corporations, it's declaring war on the people in the name of its crony collaborators.

The end game of Marxism, socialism, communism is control of the means of production in the hands of the people, not the state.

Matty
10-16-2015, 11:25 AM
None of that is accurate. They didn't "take" the healthcare industry and there is no evidence that they want to end capitalism.


It is all accurate.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:25 AM
It is all accurate.

It's really not. Show me some evidence.

You've pulled this opinion out of thin air.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:27 AM
If I was a conservative on this site, I'd distance myself from this latest batch of hysteria mongers. They make actual conservatives look bad. If I was a suspicious guy I would say they are liberals pretending to be conservative stereotypes.

Truth Detector
10-16-2015, 11:28 AM
None of that is accurate. They didn't "take" the healthcare industry and there is no evidence that they want to end capitalism.

Post translation:

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/lalalala.gif

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:29 AM
See, shit like this garbage above.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:29 AM
If I was a conservative on this site, I'd distance myself from this latest batch of hysteria mongers. They make actual conservatives look bad. If I was a suspicious guy I would say they are liberals pretending to be conservative stereotypes.

Are you saying some are liberal plants?

Matty
10-16-2015, 11:30 AM
It's really not. Show me some evidence.

You've pulled this opinion out of thin air.



Who are your Senators and Congressmen?

Truth Detector
10-16-2015, 11:30 AM
If I was a conservative on this site, I'd distance myself from this latest batch of hysteria mongers. They make actual conservatives look bad. If I was a suspicious guy I would say they are liberals pretending to be conservative stereotypes.

But you're not a Conservative. You're a hyper partisan leftist hack who pretends that their opinions trump everyone else's.

No one cares what you would do.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:31 AM
But you're not a Conservative. You're a hyper partisan leftist hack who pretends that their opinions trump everyone else's.

No one cares what you would do.

Stick to discussion of topic and not other members.

Matty
10-16-2015, 11:33 AM
Stick to discussion of topic and not other members.


But sir, Common personalized it.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:36 AM
Are you saying some are liberal plants?

Unfortunately, no.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:36 AM
But you're not a Conservative. You're a hyper partisan leftist hack who pretends that their opinions trump everyone else's.

No one cares what you would do.


OK.

Matty
10-16-2015, 11:37 AM
Back on topic. They took over the health care industry.

A. Every person has to buy it, others must purchase it for those who cannot.

B. You have no choice,

C. All insurance must sell plans authorized by the Gov.


D. The IRS polices the compliance of the subjects.


E. Republicans had no part in this government takeover of healthcare.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:39 AM
Back on topic. They took over the health care industry.

A. Every person has to buy it, others must purchase it for those who cannot.

B. You have no choice,

C. All insurance must sell plans authorized by the Gov.


D. The IRS polices the compliance of the subjects.


E. Republicans had no part in this government takeover of healthcare.

That's not a takeover of healthcare. It's simply mandating that people have insurance. Healthcare is still run by private and corporations.

Matty
10-16-2015, 11:41 AM
That's not a takeover of healthcare. It's simply mandating that people have insurance. Healthcare is still run by private and corporations.



Who are your congressmen and Senators again? It is a takeover. Healthcare is not run privately, what they sell is mandated by the government.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 11:44 AM
Who are your congressmen and Senators again? It is a takeover. Healthcare is not run privately, what they sell is mandated by the government.

Of course it's run privately. The government doesn't run hospitals or doctors.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:45 AM
Back on topic. They took over the health care industry.

A. Every person has to buy it, others must purchase it for those who cannot.

B. You have no choice,

C. All insurance must sell plans authorized by the Gov.


D. The IRS polices the compliance of the subjects.


E. Republicans had no part in this government takeover of healthcare.


Right, people must purchase health insurance, but not from the government, from health insurance corporations who are making out like bandits.

RomneyCare? And ObamaCare loosely resembles a plan put out by Reps through the Heritage House (iirc) -- it wasn't as heavy handed incentivizing people to purchase healthcare insurance. Reps talk against it but do nothing.

I think we're both against that, just see the problem a bit differently.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:46 AM
That's not a takeover of healthcare. It's simply mandating that people have insurance. Healthcare is still run by private and corporations.

Right, it's stinking crony capitalism.

Matty
10-16-2015, 11:46 AM
What about the democrats who want criminal prosecution against any person or corporation who denies global warming? How would you classify them?

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:50 AM
Who are your congressmen and Senators again? It is a takeover. Healthcare is not run privately, what they sell is mandated by the government.

Compare to protections for agriculture like the sugar industry. US consumers pay very high prices as a result and sugar corporation make out like bandits. It's the same thing. Many more examples but the bottom line is government controls it only in the sense of redistribution of wealth, to private corporations who still own the means of production.

(To clarify, I am only against the government engaging in crony capitalism, the means of production should remain private.)

Matty
10-16-2015, 11:50 AM
Right, people must purchase health insurance, but not from the government, from health insurance corporations who are making out like bandits.

RomneyCare? And ObamaCare loosely resembles a plan put out by Reps through the Heritage House (iirc) -- it wasn't as heavy handed incentivizing people to purchase healthcare insurance. Reps talk against it but do nothing.

I think we're both against that, just see the problem a bit differently.


The health insurance companies are fronts for gov. Takeover. They must sell what the gov. Dictates we buy. On top of that if they don't make the profits they think they should the gov. Has guaranteed them subsidies. Now that's a takeover.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:50 AM
What about the democrats who want criminal prosecution against any person or corporation who denies global warming? How would you classify them?

Unscientific. --I think they were scientists, half a dozen. But political, not scientific.

Matty
10-16-2015, 11:52 AM
Compare to protections for agriculture like the sugar industry. US consumers pay very high prices as a result and sugar corporation make out like bandits. It's the same thing. Many more examples but the bottom line is government controls it only in the sense of redistribution of wealth, to private corporations who still own the means of production.

(To clarify, I am only against the government engaging in crony capitalism, the means of production should remain private.)



The only difference is that the government isn't forcing you to buy sugar.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:52 AM
The health insurance companies are fronts for gov. Takeover. They must sell what the gov. Dictates we buy. On top of that if they don't make the profits they think they should the gov. Has guaranteed them subsidies. Now that's a takeover.

No, they are not fronts for the government. They rent seek government favors, they use wealth to purchase government power in order to increase their wealth.

Chris
10-16-2015, 11:54 AM
The only difference is that the government isn't forcing you to buy sugar.

No, but it forces me to purchase US sugar if I do.

But I agree, with health insurance, the government has gone one step further.


But, getting back to the OP, this is not Marxism, socialism or communism. I'd call it state capitalism.

Matty
10-16-2015, 12:03 PM
Unscientific. --I think they were scientists, half a dozen. But political, not scientific.



I would call that communism. Imprisoning those who disagree with viewpoints. Tyranny against corporations.

Chris
10-16-2015, 12:09 PM
I would call that communism. Imprisoning those who disagree with viewpoints. Tyranny against corporations.

We seem to be against the same things, just call it different names. But how is it tyranny against corporations? I mean, insurance companies, like sugar corporations, are making out like bandits. And they didn't even have to hold the gun in the hold up.

Matty
10-16-2015, 12:11 PM
We seem to be against the same things, just call it different names. But how is it tyranny against corporations? I mean, insurance companies, like sugar corporations, are making out like bandits. And they didn't even have to hold the gun in the hold up.


Let me find the suggested law they are proposing. Be back.



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/28/new-low-in-science-criminalizing-climate-change-skeptics.html




The demand by Senator Whitehouse and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science.
The role of these 20 scientists is particularly troubling. The consequence of this persecution, intended or not, is to make pariahs of scientists who are doing exactly what we expect of researchers: to critically evaluate evidence and publish that work in the scientific literature.
Minority perspectives have an important and respected role to play in advancing science, as a mean for testing ideas and pushing the knowledge frontier forward. While President Obama bows to no one in attacking climate ‘deniers’ (https://www.barackobama.com/stand-with-science/#/), he recently made an important statement (http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correctness)in a town hall meeting at the University in Iowa on the importance of challenging received knowledge in a university setting:

nic34
10-16-2015, 12:19 PM
Why America needs to vote out political extremism: A lesson from the UK
An illustrated guide to socialism

13076



What socialism looks like in reality
In 1979, after five years of hardline socialism, the UK lay in ruins. The Labour party (Democrats) had been infiltrated and taken over by an assortment of Marxist, Maoist and Socialist Workers Revolutionary Party members. The Labour party anthem was, ‘We’ll keep the Red Flag Flying Here.’ Unemployment stood at record highs and inflation at the years’ end was soaring at 17.24%. The Freedom of Information Act years later suggests that there were plans of an army coup to stop the UK heading into full communism, had Thatcher not been elected. During this period, the UK was labelled as ‘Little Moscow’ and ‘The sick man of Europe.’ The dead went unburied as the grave diggers were on strike; the electricity was rationed; bread queues formed and people took to the streets waving red flags. Are you listening America? The Kremlin has gone, no more pretence, the elite are having their revolution.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225637/How-Kremlin-hijacked-Labour-Diary-Kremlin-insider-reveals-hold-Soviets-Labour-politicians.html
‘But more worrying, perhaps, is the fact that the document shows in stark detail how the political ideology of so many of those who govern us today was shaped by the unspeakable communist creed of the Soviet Union. The unpalatable truth is that many ministers in Government today rose through the ranks of a British socialist movement that was heavily influenced - and even controlled - by the Kremlin in Moscow.’

Back to the future
The UK in the 1970s. Civil unrest, garbage collectors on strike and bread queues.


13072


Recently, Ed Milliband, a socialist, lost the Labour party election and resigned. ‘’And that is exactly what we will get if Ed wins the election. An austere, self-conscious, self-righteous and, ultimately, hypocritical society of socially engineered equals. A Britain . . . bland, functional, humourless, cold and about as much fun to live in as a Communist era housing block in Minsk.’’ The UK still remembers those days. Milliband was immediately replced by Jeremy Corbyn, a Marxist. These people do not go away.They lie in wait of a dumbed down, despondent and apathetic society to re-surface.

Arguably, the U.S. 35 years later finds itself going down the same political road
America elects its first Marxist President, productivity growth stagnant since 2009, Soup kitchen queues


13073


Despite the propaganda that society is progressing, it is in fact regressing, due very much to the emphasis on producing an equality based society. This is occuring throughout the west and so is not a phenomenon applicable to any one country, but a purposely designed political objective. Its roots lie in progressivism, an ideology designed to reduce populations to servitude, run by an elite, using science and managed by experts. You can call it medieval or corporate servitude, depending on the era.

The effects
The middle class is collapsing, educational standards falling and government dependency increasing.


13074


‘Barack Obama has amazingly managed to increase his net worth by a whopping 438 percent over just eight years, since he first ran for office.’
Michelle at $11 million. Socialist Bill at an estimated $80 million.
Bernie Sanders living in poverty with a maximum $759,000 and practically homeless in a $100,000 condonimium.

People tend to view their worth based on others in their social group, occupation or neighbourhood . . . As aspirations fall, they are replaced with an equality sameness of survival. This can be seen by the introduction of the minimum wage, which replaces a desire for upwards social mobility with a ‘living’ survival wage. The irony of this is that the more you vote for socialism and government dependency, the poorer you become. No one ever achieved success on welfare, or progressed with government help. Before you are taken in by these people, look around you.

Look at Europe under a progressive EU, nearer home look at Cuba and Venezuela, or at the giants who abandoned government dependency, China and Russia.

‘While most of the world's attention has been focused on the breakup of the Soviet empire, a quieter, more far-flung revolution is under way: the decline and fall of the state-run economy. From Santiago to New Delhi, countries that once were Marxist or, like Sweden, were simply run as democratic welfare states, are jettisoning failed economic systems that relied heavily on central planning and government intervention and are turning toward some form of free-market capitalism.’


13075


America has just had less than a decade of the most radical left-wing politics in its history. The result is predictable social and economic devastation, reminisent of the UK 1970s. Another term of authoratarian/ government dependency will destroy you, as it nearly did the UK in the 1970s. This is America in only seven years of cultural Marxism.

You seem greedy and miserable, and spend more time crying about what allegedly is being taken from you than you do in being thankful that you have enough to share.

Chris
10-16-2015, 12:22 PM
Let me find the suggested law they are proposing. Be back.



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/28/new-low-in-science-criminalizing-climate-change-skeptics.html




The demand by Senator Whitehouse and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science.
The role of these 20 scientists is particularly troubling. The consequence of this persecution, intended or not, is to make pariahs of scientists who are doing exactly what we expect of researchers: to critically evaluate evidence and publish that work in the scientific literature.
Minority perspectives have an important and respected role to play in advancing science, as a mean for testing ideas and pushing the knowledge frontier forward. While President Obama bows to no one in attacking climate ‘deniers’ (https://www.barackobama.com/stand-with-science/#/), he recently made an important statement (http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correctness)in a town hall meeting at the University in Iowa on the importance of challenging received knowledge in a university setting:

I wouldn't call those 20 scientists. What they ask for will set science back centuries to it's authoritarian days.

Green Arrow
10-16-2015, 12:26 PM
Then we have been tyrannized. Now who practices tyranny? Marxists, communists and socialists. They all tell you what you are going to do and punish you if you don't. Correct?

So do conservatives, liberals, and parents.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 12:39 PM
I wouldn't call those 20 scientists. What they ask for will set science back centuries to it's authoritarian days.

That issue was 20 scientists who have witnessed corporations purposefully misleading the public just as the tobacco industry did. Tools like the RICO act were used against tobacco industry. They were simply asking that the same tool be used against people who are misleading the public.

They weren't saying "throw climate deniers in jail".

Matty
10-16-2015, 12:43 PM
That issue was 20 scientists who have witnessed corporations purposefully misleading the public just as the tobacco industry did. Tools like the RICO act were used against tobacco industry. They were simply asking that the same tool be used against people who are misleading the public.

They weren't saying "throw climate deniers in jail".



How did they " witness" it?

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 12:47 PM
How did they " witness" it?

By reading the garbage they spew out.

Read the letter in question here...

http://web.archive.org/web/20150920110942/http:/www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf

Chris
10-16-2015, 12:49 PM
That issue was 20 scientists who have witnessed corporations purposefully misleading the public just as the tobacco industry did. Tools like the RICO act were used against tobacco industry. They were simply asking that the same tool be used against people who are misleading the public.

They weren't saying "throw climate deniers in jail".


Politicising science will set it back centuries.

Matty
10-16-2015, 12:55 PM
By reading the garbage they spew out.

Read the letter in question here...

http://web.archive.org/web/20150920110942/http:/www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf


See the the big word IF? Now this is a witch hunt. In America we have first amendment rights. Even if it is in opposition to scientists.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 12:56 PM
Politicising science will set it back centuries.

That's not politicizing science. It's asking that science not be used and altered in order to protect corporate interests. Just as it was done by the tobacco industry.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 12:57 PM
See the the big word IF? Now this is a witch hunt. In America we have first amendment rights. Even if it is in opposition to scientists.

So you had no problem with tobacco companies lying about their "science" in order to diminish the harmful effects of tobacco?

Chris
10-16-2015, 01:01 PM
That's not politicizing science. It's asking that science not be used and altered in order to protect corporate interests. Just as it was done by the tobacco industry.

I define politicizing as using political means to obtain what you want.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 01:06 PM
I define politicizing as using political means to obtain what you want.

Sure, I guess. The way I see it, they want accountability, just as we did for the tobacco industry.

Matty
10-16-2015, 01:07 PM
So you had no problem with tobacco companies lying about their "science" in order to diminish the harmful effects of tobacco?



Did you read the big word IF at the bottom of your suggested article? Secondly do not put words in my mouth. If I approve of the tobacco companies I will say so.

Chris
10-16-2015, 01:11 PM
Sure, I guess. The way I see it, they want accountability, just as we did for the tobacco industry.

That happens in the scientific community through peer review and repeatability. Which these 20 are just as subject to. There's no certainty in science, it's tentative, incomplete and probabilistic.

They are trying to control political outcomes.

Common Sense
10-16-2015, 01:21 PM
That happens in the scientific community through peer review and repeatability. Which these 20 are just as subject to. There's no certainty in science, it's tentative, incomplete and probabilistic.

They are trying to control political outcomes.

They're really not. They take no issue with peer reviewed science. They take issue with purposefully misrepresented science in order to protect an industry. It's really no different than what happened with the tobacco industry. Do you have the same reservations for that case?

Chris
10-16-2015, 01:34 PM
They're really not. They take no issue with peer reviewed science. They take issue with purposefully misrepresented science in order to protect an industry. It's really no different than what happened with the tobacco industry. Do you have the same reservations for that case?

It would be interesting to see their proof when science isn't in the business of proving things. You're taking the position science establishes, somehow, absolute truth--it doesn't.

Should the likes of Al Gore be charged with RICO violations for his misrepresentations of climate change?

Refugee
10-16-2015, 05:47 PM
Have to agree with @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), being sloppy in terminology weakens the meanings of words and loses their historical associations. Marxism has specific meaning, socialism and communism a variety of meanings. While our current government of Dems and Reps resembles to a degree, adopts to an extent, something of all three, it is not any of them for one component of all three is ownership of the means of production by the workers, when what we have is better called social democracy where the means of production is being socialized and managed by a democratic government. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom explains what the next steps will be.

Hi Chris and good morning. I only get to see theback end of most threads because America is around 12 hours behind me.
The problem with Americans I think is the majority just haven’t got a clue. It’s where many of the one liners come from and why it was so easy for him to be voted in. Obama and the people he appointed to advise him are the viruses in your society and if you do a quick political scan on society, he pops up time and again. Look at the link I put up listing the people he surrounds himself with, here it is again. Look at these people and tell me he’s just a cuddly democrat.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/

Just a folly of youth? Read his history, look at his 'Czar' appointees
Barack Obama’s DREAMS FROM MY FATHER:A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE.
‘To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure.We were alienated.’

That is pure cultural Marxism- Marxist professors, resisting bourgeois society . . . Listen to the ‘spreading the wealth around’ and ‘you didn’t do this on your own’ collectivisation. Probably the only President in American history to have been endorsed by the American communist party (CPUSA).

Just as other ideologies adapt to suit era’s and circumstances, so too economic Marxism morphs into ‘culture’ and progressivism into ‘progression.’ It misleads, it confuses, it’s meant to. For instance, few asked Obama what he meant when he said ‘fundementally change America’, remembered what they knew about Marx and decided he couldn’t be a Marxist.

Europeans know exactly what he is, he didn’t dream all this up on his own, he’s using the same cultural Marxism as Europe is now doing to dumb down society, only he’s not using the old class war, he’s using culture. Mass immigration, gays against traditional values, blacks against whites, legalised drugs, government dependency . . .
This is why countries like China and Russia, the old communist giants, are running rings around American foreign policy. They already know what he is and what his reactions to events will be. The problem is, you’re using outdated economic definitions of class and economic Marxism to define him and he doesn’t fit them.
Historians are going to have a future field day with this; you dressed up a black, pot smoking, gay, Marxist, put him into into the presidents office and after 7 years, it still hasn’t dawned on many what he is?

Chris
10-16-2015, 05:55 PM
Refugee, I could go along with the label cultural Marxism, it does fit, but still doubt anyone spouting it recognizes it as such or is a Marxist.

Chris
10-16-2015, 06:16 PM
Back at computer.

I take this as general definition: "Cultural Marxism is an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities. Critics have seen cultural Marxism and its influence as an important cause of political correctness and as an important cause of a perceived decline of humanities, social sciences, culture, and civilization in the Western world." @http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

That's none other than the French tradition of liberalism since the Enlightenment (as opposed to the Scottish, see Hayek).

And it roots are grounded firmly in the individualism and egalitarianism of Christianity.

Anyway, to me, Marxism, socialism, communism are forms of economic order. Democratic socialism another that seeks to manage free market capitalism in order to implement its egalitarian aims.

The irony is in seeking egalitarianism the individual is lost to the collective. But it's not the collective of cultures outside the West, of even the West's past, for it offers no identity usually found in community, culture, place.

Green Arrow
10-16-2015, 06:19 PM
@Refugee (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1060), I could go along with the label cultural Marxism, it does fit, but still doubt anyone spouting it recognizes it as such or is a Marxist.

"Cultural Marxism" is an invented term, invented by conservatives who don't even know what Marxism is to begin with. It's not an actual ideology, it's just an umbrella of "bad" that they can blame for all of society's perceived ills.

Refugee
10-16-2015, 07:27 PM
Back at computer.

I take this as general definition: "Cultural Marxism is an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities. Critics have seen cultural Marxism and its influence as an important cause of political correctness and as an important cause of a perceived decline of humanities, social sciences, culture, and civilization in the Western world." @http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

That's none other than the French tradition of liberalism since the Enlightenment (as opposed to the Scottish, see Hayek).

And it roots are grounded firmly in the individualism and egalitarianism of Christianity.

Anyway, to me, Marxism, socialism, communism are forms of economic order. Democratic socialism another that seeks to manage free market capitalism in order to implement its egalitarian aims.

The irony is in seeking egalitarianism the individual is lost to the collective. But it's not the collective of cultures outside the West, of even the West's past, for it offers no identity usually found in community, culture, place.

Only in America Chris, it’s why it’s been so easy to introduce there, very few are aware of what it is. It’s been going on in Europe for twenty years, which is why the backlash there. Obama even warned you that he was going to ‘fundementally change America’ and counted on people not knowing how. Some even denies it exists . . . frightening lack of knowledge.

"Cultural Marxism is an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities. Critics have seen cultural Marxism and its influence as an important cause of political correctness and as an important cause of a perceived decline of humanities, social sciences, culture, and civilization in the Western world."
Yes, culture replaces the class struggle. Political correctness is a means introduced to stifle dissent.
Hayek, egalitarianism . . . you’re using old theory to explain ‘new’ concepts.
Here’s my attempt to explain it

http://www.academia.edu/14419238/The_Death_of_Western_Civilisation_Cultural_Marxism (http://www.academia.edu/14419238/The_Death_of_Western_Civilisation_Cultural_Marxism )

Chris
10-16-2015, 07:28 PM
"Cultural Marxism" is an invented term, invented by conservatives who don't even know what Marxism is to begin with. It's not an actual ideology, it's just an umbrella of "bad" that they can blame for all of society's perceived ills.

I don't know, I provided definition, and from same link:


The idea that a culture may be problematic is not new but cultural Marxism in its current form originates in the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School is a neo-Marxist school which originated around 1923 at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany.

The Frankfurt School developed critical theory in order to analyze and explain how culture creates inequalities. It has been extremely influential and today has branches in numerous fields such as critical race theory, critical whiteness studies, critical gender studies, critical criminology, critical legal studies, etc.

Freudian psychoanalysis was an important influence on critical theory. One example is the influential book The Authoritarian Personality where psychoanalytic ideas are used to pathologize Western love and pride of Christianity, the family, and the nation.

The tendency to pathologize opponents as being irrationally sick has continued with, for example, labels such as homophobia and Islamophobia.

Refugee
10-16-2015, 07:29 PM
"Cultural Marxism" is an invented term, invented by conservatives who don't even know what Marxism is to begin with. It's not an actual ideology, it's just an umbrella of "bad" that they can blame for all of society's perceived ills.

GA, no offence but you’re sounding completely dumb here. Go and look up The Frankfurt school, cultural Marxism, critical theory . . . Read up on people like Gramsci, Ordono, Horkheimer, find out where cultural Marxism originated from – to say it’s all a conservative plot is laughable. If you don’t even know what cultural Marxism is, how can you argue against it.
Have a read of this article I wroteand then debate against it.

http://www.academia.edu/14419238/The_Death_of_Western_Civilisation_Cultural_Marxism

Green Arrow
10-16-2015, 08:08 PM
I don't know, I provided definition, and from same link:

Your link explains that what the Frankfurt School created was critical theory - not "cultural Marxism."

Again: I'm sure conservative proponents of the existence of "cultural Marxism" have plenty of things they can point to and say, "A-ha! Cultural Marxism!" But it remains true that the concept itself is largely meaningless and is based on a total lack of understanding of Marxism.

"Cultural Marxism" wasn't invented by Marx or Marxists, it was coined by opponents of Marxism and as such should be rejected out of hand. If you want to criticize the things that are called "cultural Marxism," like the Frankfurt School's critical theory, go right ahead. Just don't make up bullshit terms like "cultural Marxism" to make it sound smarter.

Chris
10-16-2015, 08:50 PM
Your link explains that what the Frankfurt School created was critical theory - not "cultural Marxism."

Again: I'm sure conservative proponents of the existence of "cultural Marxism" have plenty of things they can point to and say, "A-ha! Cultural Marxism!" But it remains true that the concept itself is largely meaningless and is based on a total lack of understanding of Marxism.

"Cultural Marxism" wasn't invented by Marx or Marxists, it was coined by opponents of Marxism and as such should be rejected out of hand. If you want to criticize the things that are called "cultural Marxism," like the Frankfurt School's critical theory, go right ahead. Just don't make up bullshit terms like "cultural Marxism" to make it sound smarter.


And says cultural Marxism derives from that.

No one said it was created by Marx, no one said it has to do with marx, in fact the link says neoMarxist, i.e., the Frankfurt School.

Chris
10-16-2015, 08:58 PM
Kind of long but here's Buchanan, explaining pretty much what Refugee is talking about. At around the 1:55 mark he says, paraphrasing, while conservatism won the Cold War economically against communism (Marxism) they're losing is to cultural Marxism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VggFao85vTs

Green Arrow
10-16-2015, 09:09 PM
And says cultural Marxism derives from that.

No one said it was created by Marx, no one said it has to do with marx, in fact the link says neoMarxist, i.e., the Frankfurt School.

It bears Marx's name, it has to have something to do with him or the ideology that he spawned, otherwise it can't accurately be called "cultural Marxism​." Which is my point.

Chris
10-16-2015, 09:13 PM
It bears Marx's name, it has to have something to do with him or the ideology that he spawned, otherwise it can't accurately be called "cultural Marxism​." Which is my point.

Liberalism bears liberal's name but we need an adjective to distinguish the real thing, classical liberalism. Socialism has various meanings. Perhaps it should be called neoMarxist culturalist. We shouldn't get hung up on names but look at meanings.

Green Arrow
10-16-2015, 09:15 PM
Liberalism bears liberal's name but we need an adjective to distinguish the real thing, classical liberalism. Socialism has various meanings. Perhaps it should be called neoMarxist culturalist. We shouldn't get hung up on names but look at meanings.

Okay, sure. What meaning does it have, specifically? Every definition of "cultural Marxism" I've ever read or heard has been vague and meaningless.

Chris
10-16-2015, 09:19 PM
Okay, sure. What meaning does it have, specifically? Every definition of "cultural Marxism" I've ever read or heard has been vague and meaningless.

I gave the basic definition earlier.

Green Arrow
10-16-2015, 09:31 PM
I gave the basic definition earlier.

Right, and as I said, it's vague and meaningless. It never actually defines cultural Marxism, just blames cultural Marxism for a bunch of stuff.

Refugee
10-16-2015, 10:05 PM
OK, so you obviously didn’t read the link.

Gay rights, feminism, mass immigration, reverse discrimination . . . All these things stem from critical theory. Critical theory is the underlying idea which promotes cultural Marxism with it’s emphasis on destroying western values to be replaced by whatever emerges out of that destruction. It focuses on culture (group identity) as a means of transforming traditional values, instead of the previous class struggle. If you look at western society today, all this change didn’t suddenly come from ‘the people’, it was introduced as a dumbing down mechanism as a prelude to the introduction of progressivism and you can already see that in the control by the elite, corporations and bankers in current society.
Chris is getting the hang of it with his video link.

This is only 4 minutes long, basic and introduces the main points of cultural Marxism. My link simply provides the effects these main points have on society today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY82qNWMaaE

Subdermal
10-17-2015, 02:28 PM
Sorry, my natural response to this sort of idiocy is to simply mock it.

In my mind, anyone who claims Obama is a socialist or communist etc... doesn't even know what those words mean. You might as well call him a Mormon or a Buddhist.

None of that addresses the question.

Tell you what.

Explain to us what Obama policy absolutely contradicts Socialist doctrine.