Announcement

**Kidlicious** · July 13, 2003, 16:53

It also has the characteristics of progressivism. Why would you call it communism?

**Kidlicious** · July 13, 2003, 16:56

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That is something completely different from advocating that the govt should maintain a certain wage floor.

I'm not saying that our minimum wage is the same as his. Marx wished the labor unions (or industrial armies, if you wish) to push for a wage floor, so that all of its members would earn what they needed.

Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. There is no real proof. The point is that he predicted that working conditions would not improve regardless of the actions of progressives. That makes him a communist.

**Kidlicious** · July 13, 2003, 17:01

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Do not some Communists agree with Progressives that the minimum wage should be raised? I can guarentee you that many Communists on this board would say that. I don't think there would be one that wouldn't howl if someone proposed taking it away!

When doing so they are showing the characteristics of progressives, and so they are progressive. When they advocate the overthrow of the capitalist system they are showing the characteristics of communists. So they are both progressives and communists. But if someone supports progressive policies that doesn't make them communist. They are only communist if the predict and support the overthrow of capitalism.

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 13, 2003, 17:08

And if they do so while arguing for higher minimum wages in the meantime? If they identify themselves as Communist and believe in the eventual overthrow of capitalism, aren't they Communists?

**Kidlicious** · July 13, 2003, 17:23

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And if they do so while arguing for higher minimum wages in the meantime? If they identify themselves as Communist and believe in the eventual overthrow of capitalism, aren't they Communists?

But their identity with being communist is because they are ideologically opposed to capitalism. It has nothing to do with their support for progressive policies. Their support for progressive policies makes them progressive. A communist has the option of being a progressive, but not all communists are progressives. You could call me a progressive, even though I don't consider myself one. I have voted for progressive politicians and progressive policies, but at other times I have chosen not to vote at all. You can't call a progressive a communist however. Well you could, but the purpose would only be to insult them, unless they truly were communist.

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 13, 2003, 17:26

So... let me get this straight... Communism (of which there are many subsets) can be defined narrowly and strictly, but Fascism (of which there is one subset, and is a subset itself) cannot?

You are just too easy to do this too, Kid.

**Kidlicious** · July 13, 2003, 17:31

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So... let me get this straight... Communism can be defined narrowly and strictly, but Fascism cannot?

You are just too easy to do this too, Kid.

That's because people don't define right wing people as autoritarian capitalists. They call them fascists. The reason is that there is no clear boundries between the two. Undemocratic capitalists simply call themselves capitalists. On the other hand you have a clear distinction between progressives and communists.

**Zylka** · July 13, 2003, 17:32

HAHAHAHAHA well done with the Teacher, Ves. They can suspend you for THAT, though? What grade are you in???

**mrmitchell** · July 13, 2003, 17:38

i'm back. did i miss any good insults?

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 13, 2003, 17:40

All right wing people are not defined Fascists. Only idiots would call Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Helms, Cheney as Fascists.

Fascism is a subset of Absolutism (though most Absolutism is right wing). As is Despotism (which has subsets of its own, including Military Juntas).

US Conservatives are a subset of Capitalist Democracy. Other Conservatives can be a subset of Monarchy or even Despotism, depending.

Fascism is different from most right wing ideologies due to the fact that it is very revolutionary.

Communism, OTOH, is a overarching description of the far left. Communism existed far before Marx was born (Thomas More, for example). Marxism is a subset of Communism, and I'd say Progressivism is subset of Communism as well (under Democratic Communism subset)... however there is also a group of Progressives that exist outside the Communist bubble and are a subset of American liberalism.

The reason for this is there have been a LOT of theorists who have been called 'Communist' (More, Marx, Engles, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Lenin, Stalin etc) who have vastly different point of view... however, there have been a relatively consistant group of Fascist theorists (Barres, Mussolini, Hitler) who don't like capitalism as much as you think they did.

**Odin** · July 13, 2003, 17:47

Exactly, Irman, Even though Hitler and Stalin hated each other's guts, thier political philosophies were quite simmilar. Mussolini was even more simmilar to Stalin. Stalinism and Fascism do not oppose each other, Anarcho-Comunism opposes Fascism and Stalinism opposes Libertarianism.

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 13, 2003, 17:51

Yeah, Stalin wasn't a Commie in my book. Just a plain Despot. While Leninism flows from Marxism (which is slightly different than Democratic Communism), Stalin took it away from that path.

**MrFun** · July 13, 2003, 17:54

**Odin** · July 13, 2003, 17:58

Originally posted by MrFun

NO SPAMMING!!!

**MrFun** · July 13, 2003, 17:59

Originally posted by Odin

NO SPAMMING!!!

Why not join the club . . . .

Announcement

Things which piss me off.... Teachers sprouting ignorance!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment