What ever happened to Communism?

[dawnonyou]

But the fragrance is the same. Vintage outhouse.

 

[Rightguide]

But the fragrance is the same. Vintage outhouse.

Yep, and no paper.

 

[Politruk]

It renamed its brand. It's called Progressivism now.

Progressivism (in its current usage as distinct from its early 20th Century usage) is another name for social democracy, and the actually existing social democracies are not Communist or even socialist states. They're just countries where things in general usually go a whole lot better than they go here.

 

[Intrigued42]

It renamed its brand. It's called Progressivism now.

We seem to be about as confused about these labels and we can be today. Going back about 50 years, or so, I seem to recall that the labels of capitalism, socialism and communism were economic constructs rather than political systems. After the stock market crash that led to the Great Depression—caused by the likes of our currently assembling incoming administration (rich robber barons)— communism was a huge no-no in our capitalist society. Communist industries and enterprises were to be run by the state, regulated by the state, controlled by the state: everything that flies in the face of capitalism where YOU TOO can be come rich and famous if you put your mind to it. Putin can't wait for Trump to take over. His oligarchs are locked and loaded. Sell high.

 

[UltraChad]

Progressivism (in its current usage as distinct from its early 20th Century usage) is another name for social democracy, and the actually existing social democracies are not Communist or even socialist states.

That is a lie...and they are very much fostering communist movements.

They're just countries where things in general usually go a whole lot better than they go here.

By collectivizing the means of production.

 

[Politruk]

That is a lie...and they are very much fostering communist movements.

The social democracies are not socialist states because the economies remain capitalist. The means of production are in private hands. Some of them do have Communist parties that are politically relevant, but beyond a presence in parliament they never seem to get anywhere.

By collectivizing the means of production.

But, they don't.

 

[Boat1]

Funny though, how people who support the communes of Israel (and local/states rights) recoil at the thought of a political system built on community responsibility.

I'm STRONGLY into community responsibility and live that way, but I FULLY DETEST forced association...

 

[Sunlover101]

It's gone down the toilet
Same way democracy is heading.

 

[Politruk]

It's gone down the toilet
Same way democracy is heading.

So what else is there?

 

[Bray123]

I'm STRONGLY into community responsibility and live that way, but I FULLY DETEST forced association...

So a billionaire who doesn't contribute but steals from charities is fine. Just don't force anyone to contribute to the society that they leech upon.

 

[Politruk]

I'm STRONGLY into community responsibility and live that way, but I FULLY DETEST forced association...

Every human being is born into some forced association.

 

[UltraChad]

The social democracies are not socialist states because the economies remain capitalist.

Capitalism requires private property and individual labor rights.

That's something social democracies don't allow.

They are socialist because they collectivize the means of production.

The means of production are in private hands.

Not at all.

If you can't control your means of production and you have to pay huge sums of rent to the government for the privilege of managing everything how they see fit? You don't own it, you're just a manager who got to come up with a name and logo for another state/federal tax collection point.

It's soft(er) socialism, but it's still socialism. No rights to your own property or labor.

 

[Boat1]

Every human being is born into some forced association.

Obviously... as if one lived in the land of milk and honey, placing a newborn on the ground, the child would die.
But with proper parenting, as the child grows, he/she should gain more freedom, independence, critical thinking skills and ability to make their own decisions... before reaching the age of 18.

 

[LLCox]

Communists found out there is WAY more money to be made ripping off people with capitalism.

 

[Rightguide]

Somebody go drag in the fainting couch for Politruk:

House passes legislation to help teach dangers of communism in US schools​

The bill gives high school educators access to materials from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation that help educate students about the dangers of communism and totalitarianism.

By Misty Severi
Published: December 6, 2024 9:28pm


The House of Representatives on Friday passed a bill with bipartisan support that seeks to help educate America's youth about the dangers of communism.

The bill, which was first introduced by Florida GOP Rep. Maria Salazar in 2021, passed in a 327-62 vote.

The bill gives high school educators access to materials from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation that help educate students about the dangers of communism and totalitarianism, which the House Education and the Workforce Committee touted as contrary to the U.S.'s "founding principles of freedom and democracy."

The legislation comes after a 2020 survey found that 28% of Generation Z have a favorable view of communism, and 18% believe it to be a fairer system than capitalism, according to the committee.

More here: https://justthenews.com/government/...pushes-back-communism-being-taught-us-schools

Looks like the 62 Democrat Communists in the House voted against it.

 

[UltraChad]

Obviously... as if one lived in the land of milk and honey, placing a newborn on the ground, the child would die.
But with proper parenting, as the child grows, he/she should gain more freedom, independence, critical thinking skills and ability to make their own decisions... before reaching the age of 18.

THat's far FAR alt-reich thinking.

Children should be indoctrinated into being worker slaves for the collective comrade.

 

[Politruk]

Capitalism requires private property and individual labor rights.

That's something social democracies don't allow.

They are socialist because they collectivize the means of production.



Not at all.

If you can't control your means of production and you have to pay huge sums of rent to the government for the privilege of managing everything how they see fit? You don't own it, you're just a manager who got to come up with a name and logo for another state/federal tax collection point.

It's soft(er) socialism, but it's still socialism. No rights to your own property or labor.

That's not how the economy works in those countries at all. High taxes do not make a capitalist economy socialist.

 

[UltraChad]

That's not how the economy works in those countries at all. High taxes do not make a capitalist economy socialist.

It is. Even in the USA, you have little private property, absolutely none of any value nor do you have a right to your own labor.

Taxes are only part of it. The totalitarian control over all social and commercial interactions is the other part.

 

[Politruk]

It is. Even in the USA, you have little private property, absolutely none of any value nor do you have a right to your own labor.

Taxes are only part of it. The totalitarian control over all social and commercial interactions is the other part.

Regulations do not make a capitalist economy socialist either.

 

[UltraChad]

Regulations do not make a capitalist economy socialist either.

Not inherently but they absolutely can and have been used to those ends.

Control of the means of production is effective ownership. You don't have to put "Department of XXXXXXXX" on the front door for it to be socialism. If you've got 8 alphabet agencies backed with effectively INFINITY regulations holding a gun to the manager ("owners" ) head to do things your way and collect your revenue first and foremost?? You're still socialist. Letting the managers (again "owners" ) name it and design the logo doesn't make it privately owned.

 

[Politruk]

If the social democracies are socialist, that only constitutes a very compelling argument for socialism.

 

[UltraChad]

If the social democracies are socialist, that only constitutes a very compelling argument for socialism.

For leftoids maybe. And if a nation is leftoid, let them be so.

If not, they should be free to be superior.

 

[Politruk]

For leftoids maybe. And if a nation is leftoid, let them be so.

If not, they should be free to be superior.

But the social democracies are superior.

 

[TomTeacher19]

Communism was never truly attempted. It was often given that name but it was a lie and it was really authoritarian or dictatorships. But communism in it's true form is a beautiful and wonderful thing. It benefits literally everyone and is fair and supportive and great. But it's fragile and vulnerable to even one selfish, greedy, egotistical player to mess it all up. Which always happens. The nature of it ideally is so good that it could be used to rally people behind it, but it never really gets there and then the result is evil and selfish and horrid and that is what the opponents of it always point to as a scare tactic. It was never coming to America.

 

[UltraChad]

But the social democracies are superior.

In being dick sucking socialist..... not much else.