Are Bush & Neocons Communists?

[RedSkunk]

1. Basic Marxist theory states a progression towards communism. There are several steps here – the transformation to a global capitalist economy being one of the first. We're still in this stage, if you accept Marx and the natural progression of things.

2. The invasion of Iraq today is ostensibly chalked up to creating a global, liberal market economy. Hussein did not play by the rules of the game, so he was removed. Iraq can now play the game.

3. The expressed purpose of the Neocon agenda is a unilateral world: US hegemony. The benefits are said to be numerous. Including the idea that such a world is stable and reinforces liberal markets.

4. It would seem that the Neocons are then playing into the hands of Marxist theory. The economy of Iraq has all but been sold to foreign interests. Fortunes will be made and sent back to the home (shall we say colonial?) powers. If we accept the transformation to a communist economy that Marx predicted, then the invasion of Iraq is helping to create a worldwide communist future. The Iraqis will realize this plundering, and become part of the whole workers revolution jazz. Before, with Hussein in control, such a realization couldn't take place.

So my question becomes this.. Are George W. Bush and the Neocons that run him conscious of their communist tendencies, or are they simply unwitting pawns?

[Politics]

Let's throw him over a cliff with a broom and see.

lol ogm ur supozed 2 go 2 da ofishal bush topik

[RedSkunk]

It's not about Bush, it's about whether or not neoconservative ideology plays into the hands of communists.

[WalksWithGrizzlies]

At 11/26/06 03:16 PM, RedSkunk wrote: 1. Basic Marxist theory states a progression towards communism...So my question becomes this.. Are George W. Bush and the Neocons that run him conscious of their communist tendencies, or are they simply unwitting pawns?

You do realize that you contradicted yourself, what eleven times there. Go back and cross-reference your facts, because from where I'm standing its a poorly stitched together piece of nonsense.

[MoralLibertarian]

Forgive me for asking, but did Marx actually mention a global economy or is that your own conclusion? I don't remember Marx saying anything about a global capitalist economy. From what I remembered he believed his theory was applicable to individual nations, which I think further proves his folly. I think Marxist revisionists are right in the sense that if a true uprising of the proletariat were to happen, it would have to be a global economy first.

Now you're saying that anyone who pushes for global capitalism is just a pawn?

[cellardoor6]

At 11/26/06 03:16 PM, RedSkunk wrote: 1. Basic Marxist theory states a progression towards communism. There are several steps here – the transformation to a global capitalist economy being one of the first. We're still in this stage, if you accept Marx and the natural progression of things.

You're completely full of crap. Marxist theory denounces capitalism as the plague of human kind.

2. The invasion of Iraq today is ostensibly chalked up to creating a global, liberal market economy. Hussein did not play by the rules of the game, so he was removed. Iraq can now play the game.

Thats a wacky conspiracy theory with no base in reality.

3. The expressed purpose of the Neocon agenda is a unilateral world: US hegemony. The benefits are said to be numerous. Including the idea that such a world is stable and reinforces liberal markets.

The Neocon agenda is the complete and utter opposite of Communism. A unilateral world is what communists hate, they want a monolateral world under one central communist government-controlled economy, not a global free-market.

4. It would seem that the Neocons are then playing into the hands of Marxist theory. The economy of Iraq has all but been sold to foreign interests.

If they were communists then the economy of Iraq would have been put under communist isolation and shut off to foreign interests.

Fortunes will be made and sent back to the home (shall we say colonial?) powers. If we accept the transformation to a communist economy that Marx predicted, then the invasion of Iraq is helping to create a worldwide communist future.

You have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.

So my question becomes this.. Are George W. Bush and the Neocons that run him conscious of their communist tendencies, or are they simply unwitting pawns?

Neither. Anyone who comes to either of those conclusions is an uneducated, misguided, or brainwashed moron.

Seriously, you obviously don't know the difference between communist socialism and neocon capitalism in the slightest bit, they are the exact opposite. You are in desperate need of an education. Quit losing your mind in your own conspiracy theories and learn some facts. Stop allowing your over-active, and vivid imagination to control your perception of reality.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 11/27/06 10:45 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You're completely full of crap. Marxist theory denounces capitalism as the plague of human kind.

Not really. Marxist theory states that communism is basically the last step in human social evolution, and that capitalism is a necessary step on the road to it. I haven't taken a class on government in a while, but from what I recall, the woman who taught it (a revisionist-Marxist) believed that global capitalism was necessary before humans could progress past it.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/27/06 08:02 PM, WalksWithGrizzlies wrote: You do realize that you contradicted yourself, what eleven times there.

Could you please point out the contradiction.

At 11/27/06 10:36 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Forgive me for asking, but did Marx actually mention a global economy or is that your own conclusion?

I've read little Marx. I get my interpretations moreso from others who have much more free time on their hands. Ultimately he believed that what united people was class and not nationalities or false distinctions like that, eh? But whether this belief that liberal markets the world over must exist for the next step to be achieved is Marx or "Marx revisionists," I'll leave it up to others to decide. Either way, k?

Now you're saying that anyone who pushes for global capitalism is just a pawn?

I'm asking whether or not they are in this instance, yes.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 11/28/06 11:24 AM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/27/06 10:36 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Now you're saying that anyone who pushes for global capitalism is just a pawn?

I'm asking whether or not they are in this instance, yes.

In that case, are the Marxists who advocate alleviating economic inequality not really Marxists? Capitalists have a good reason to believe that capitalism is the last and best stage of human development (economic growth, increased prosperity for most if not all). I think that it would make much more sense for Marxists (the few that are left) to silently advocate neoliberal policies so they can strike at the right time.

[RedSkunk]

Yes, that probably would make sense, but my question remains..

[Flashfire]

Perhaps reading about the trotskyist origins of some Neocon thinkers would answer your questions.

[AapoJoki]

I haven't read any Marx myself (though I should), but I've heard that he predicted the communist revolution to take place at the peak of global capitalization. I'm not sure if this is something he planned, or wanted to happen, but it was his estimation anyway. So, I don't think people like Bush are part of his "plan".

Reportedly he also has said that the powers to take down capitalism would rise from within the capitalist system itself. I've also heard views that, eventually, he was a pessimist, that he believed that the ideal communist system would not last for ever, but develop into a feudal system again and finally back to capitalism, though in his opinion, the communist system was the best, fairest and most stable stage.

Perhaps it's just best to consider the man to be a politician and philosophist, not some kind of oracle :/

[RedSkunk]

At 11/28/06 01:45 PM, Flashfire wrote: Perhaps reading about the trotskyist origins of some Neocon thinkers would answer your questions.

Further reading suggestions?

[Flashfire]

As always Wikipedia has a wealth of information. See the suggested reading and external links also.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/28/06 04:15 PM, Flashfire wrote: As always Wikipedia has a wealth of information. See the suggested reading and external links also.

The connections made on wikipedia are tenuous at best. "Some neocons are influenced by some people who used to be Trotskyists?

But that's interesting, it's the same thread as what this topic is asking. Funny.

[Demosthenez]

Wonderful topic. And fuck wikipedia, I had to read books to understand the shit I do now so screw that :P

At 11/26/06 03:16 PM, RedSkunk wrote: So my question becomes this.. Are George W. Bush and the Neocons that run him conscious of their communist tendencies, or are they simply unwitting pawns?

Neo-con thinkers have descended from the Trotskyist thinkers that were DEMOCRATS back in the 50's or whatever it was. And I know I have said it alot and I will say it again, Wolfowitz is still a card carrying Democrat.

And Jeane Kirkpatrick, one of the leading intellectuals under the Reagan administration and UN Ambassador for 4 years, was a DEMOCRAT until some time in the 80's and studied under a MARXIST. This is a woman who many of the thinkers like Wolfowitz DIRECTLY descend from or mirror in their intelelctual upbringing as neo-cons.

The revolutionary attitude may not exactly fit the title of "Marxists" but their tactics share MUCH with Marxist theory. And this is an attitude that did not seep into the Republican party until Reagan, much of the reason why I cringe everytime I hear a talking head call for the return to "Reagan style Republicanism." No thanks, his policies caused a DEEP recession and meddled around in other countries in ways we havent seen other Presidents do, ever.

[Kev-o]

Marxists and neo-cons are waaaaaaaaaaaay different.

1. Marxism calls for abolishing capitalism
2. Marxism is anti-military
3. Marxism is left wing, conservatives are right wing.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/28/06 07:41 PM, Kev-o wrote: Marxists and neo-cons are waaaaaaaaaaaay different.

I must say, Demosthenez's post was much more intelligent than yours.

The connections are interesting.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 11/28/06 06:42 PM, Demosthenez wrote: The revolutionary attitude may not exactly fit the title of "Marxists" but their tactics share MUCH with Marxist theory. And this is an attitude that did not seep into the Republican party until Reagan, much of the reason why I cringe everytime I hear a talking head call for the return to "Reagan style Republicanism." No thanks, his policies caused a DEEP recession and meddled around in other countries in ways we havent seen other Presidents do, ever.

His policies didn't create a deep recession. It was Volcker, appointed by Jimmy Carter, who raised interest rates during the 80s to combat the stagflation problem our nation was experiencing. His policies weren't unwarranted in the slightest. I would also argue that Reagan's foreign policy was not unprecedented. He, like many other presidents before him, provided funds and munitions to rebels in countries with authoritarian governments.

[RedSkunk]

Rooster, come on. Defend that asshole some place else man. =P

[Kenzu]

At 11/28/06 10:26 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Rooster, come on. Defend that asshole some place else man. =P

Communism is based on sharing wealth in order to eradicate poverty.
Republican want liberal markets, which is another word for:
"Huge gap between rich and poor", promotion of the poverty and promotion of the money in the hands of few.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 11/28/06 10:26 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Rooster, come on. Defend that asshole some place else man. =P

I was about to tell Demo that he was smarter than Kev-o until he started dissing my main squeeze.

[Kev-o]

At 11/29/06 08:56 AM, Kenzu wrote:

Communism is based on sharing wealth in order to eradicate poverty.

Republican want liberal markets, which is another word for:
"Huge gap between rich and poor", promotion of the poverty and promotion of the money in the hands of few.

Something I should have said.

[Culpeo]

bush? communist? well, i dont think its very commie like that he gave all his rich, wealthy buddies in big buisness those nice juicy tax breaks.

[qygibo]

I don't think that Bush and his neo-con buddies are turning communist. As far as I'm aware there's been no huge expansion of the government, and that's really what communism needs--a large government in order to make sure that the system is working as it should.

[Cole]

At 11/28/06 03:36 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

:that he believed that the ideal communist system would not last for ever

Actually, he said that the dictatorship would crumble because the leaders would give up power for the greater good and a new system would arise (our current half-Socialist half-Capitalist world).

Like a dictator would give up power? Yeah right!