An American Communist: Hillary Clinton & The Democrats

by

Call them liberals, progressives or Democrats, it is all the same thing. I once penned a piece, listed under my “featured posts” in the sidebar, called “Liberal Communist Manifesto“, where I showed my readers the comparisons, if fact, some of the exact wording from the Communist Manifesto stated today by our “progressive, liberal democrats”.

The NYT has a piece today showing us the exact time in Hillary Clinton’s life where she made the transition from being a conservative to a communist. (Via memeorandum)

Before I continue, go read the Communist Manifesto, in its entirety, make the comparisons yourself to what you read from the document, written in 1848, to what the Democrats/liberals/progressives have to say today.

Specifically when they refer to “common good“, “taking from the rich to give to the poor“, and what they call “progressive or graduated taxation“, definitely keep those terms in mind when reading the Communist Manifesto. (You will learn where the “progressives” of today GOT those talking points, and how they are simply the Communists of yesterday, using another name)

Now the definition of Communism, defined from the dictionary, I am using Dictionary.com, but most all dictionaries use the same definition is:

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Now that we have shown you just three simple examples of how the Democratic party, call them liberals or progressives if you prefer, the “label” doesn’t matter as much as the philosophy does, how the democratic party is trying to bring Communism into America.

It is said in the Principles of Communism that all the measures to ensure communism cannot be brought about at once and it must be introduced into a country gradually, as we can see the progressive liberal democrats trying to do today.

It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

Please keep that definition in mind also as you read this post.

Our country has fought against Communism for decades and the history of Russia should have taught us what Communism can and will do to a country.

One of the first measures of War Communism was the nationalisation of land. Banks and shipping were also nationalised and foreign trade was declared a state monopoly. This was the response when Lenin realised that the Bolsheviks were simply unprepared to take over the whole economic system of Russia. Lenin stressed the importance of the workers showing discipline and a will to work hard if the revolution was to survive. There were those in the Bolshevik hierarchy who wanted factory managers removed and the workers to take over the factories for themselves but on behalf of the people. It was felt that the workers would work better if they believed they were working for a cause as opposed to a system that made some rich but many poor. The civil war had made many in the Bolsheviks even more class antagonistic, as there were many of the old guard who were fighting to destroy the Bolsheviks.

On June 28th, 1918, a decree was passed that ended all forms of private capitalism. Many large factories were taken over by the state and on November 29th, 1920, any factory/industry that employed over 10 workers was nationalised.

War Communism also took control of the distribution of food. The Food Commissariat was set up to carry out this task. All co-operatives were fused together under this Commissariat.

War Communism had six principles:

1) Production should be run by the state. Private ownership should be kept to the minimum. Private houses were to be confiscated by the state.

2) State control was to be granted over the labour of every citizen. Once a military army had served its purpose, it would become a labour army.

3) The state should produce everything in its own undertakings. The state tried to control the activities of millions of peasants.

4) Extreme centralisation was introduced. The economic life of the area controlled by the Bolsheviks was put into the hands of just a few organisations. The most important one was the Supreme Economic Council. This had the right to confiscate and requisition. The speciality of the SEC was the management of industry. Over 40 head departments (known as glavki) were set up to accomplish this. One glavki could be responsible for thousands of factories. This frequently resulted in chronic inefficiency. The Commissariat of Transport controlled the railways. The Commissariat of Agriculture controlled what the peasants did.

5) The state attempted to become the soul distributor as well as the sole producer. The Commissariats took what they needed to meet demands. The people were divided into four categories – manual workers in harmful trades, workers who performed hard physical labour, workers in light tasks/housewives and professional people. Food was distributed on a 4:3:2:1 ratio. Though the manual class was the favoured class, it still received little food. Many in the professional class simply starved. It is believed that about 0% of all food consumed came from an illegal source. On July 20th 1918, the Bolsheviks decided that all surplus food had to be surrendered to the state. This led to an increase in the supply of grain to the state. From 1917 to 1928, about ¾ million ton was collected by the state. In 1920 to 1921, this had risen to about 6 million tons. However, the policy of having to hand over surplus food caused huge resentment in the countryside, especially as Lenin had promised “all land to the people” pre-November 1917. While the peasants had the land, they had not been made aware that they would have to hand over any extra food they produced from their land. Even the extra could not meet demand. In 1933, 25 million tons of grain was collected and this only just met demand.

6) War Communism attempted to abolish money as a means of exchange. The Bolsheviks wanted to go over to a system of a natural economy in which all transactions were carried out in kind. Effectively, bartering would be introduced. By 1921, the value of the rouble had dropped massively and inflation had markedly increased. The government’s revenue raising ability was chronically poor, as it had abolished most taxes. The only tax allowed was the ‘Extraordinary Revolutionary Tax’, which was targeted at the rich and not the workers.

War Communism was a disaster. In all areas, the economic strength of Russia fell below the 1914 level. Peasant farmers only grew for themselves, as they knew that any extra would be taken by the state. Therefore, the industrial cities were starved of food despite the introduction of the 4:3:2:1 ratio. A bad harvest could be disastrous for the countryside – and even worse for cities. Malnutrition was common, as was disease. Those in the cities believed that their only hope was to move out to the countryside and grow food for themselves. Between 1916 and 1920, the cities of northern and central Russia lost 33% of their population to the countryside. Under War Communism, the number of those working in the factories and mines dropped by 50%.

In the cities, private trade was illegal, but more people were engaged in this than at any other time in Russia’s history. Large factories became paralysed through lack of fuel and skilled labour.

Small factories were in 1920 producing just 43% of their 1913 total. Large factories were producing 18% of their 1913 figure. Coal production was at 27% of its 1913 figure in 1920. With little food to nourish them, it could not be expected that the workers could work effectively. By 1920, the average worker had a productivity rate that was 44% less than the 1913 figure.

Even if anything of value could be produced, the ability to move it around Russia was limited. By the end of 1918, Russia’s rail system was in chaos.

In the countryside, most land was used for the growth of food. Crops such as flax and cotton simply were not grown. Between 1913 and 1920, there was an 87% drop in the number of acres given over to cotton production. Therefore, those factories producing cotton related products were starved of the most basic commodity they needed.

Read the rest and remember, this is just one example of what Communism does to a country.

I once read a quote from Hillary Clinton and it infuriated me because it proved what I had thought for a very long time, she wishes to bring communism to America and makes no bones about it.

At a San Francisco fundraiser in 2004- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the “common good.”

Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer’s campaign.

“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Link to the story here.

I said on that post linked above:

The common good be damned if that is how they are going interpret it. Since when is it acceptable to “punish” people that have worked hard to earn good money, for the common good? Since when is it unobjectionable to take from the rich by simple virtue of them BEING rich or well off? Since when has any Democrat ever, ever cared about the common good of the people, except when it benefits them politically? To top it off, she dared say that to people that were taking their hard earned money and donating to her…. the woman must have borrowed her husbands balls for that speech.

The term is “common good,” and it’s catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what “compassionate conservative” did for the Republicans.

“It’s a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives,” said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community — sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty.”

So, the basic concept here is that “materialism” is bad, people earning the wealth to enjoy some of the finer things in life is “bad“, they object to “greed”, but in their self righteous world, greed is defined as those that work their asses off to EARN MONEY, wow, wanting to earn more money is a BAD thing again…ok so I am bad!!!! “Shared sacrifice”, what the hell does that mean? Does that mean that if I am capable of earning a good living, because I am good at what I do for a living, the “Democratic Government” should be able to take more from me? How the hell do they justify THAT?????? For the Common Good be damned and so should the Democrats.

To be fair, the people that originally created that phrase many decades ago, did so with good intentions, but the way the phrase has been corrupted by the Democratic party is disgusting.

To use the catchphrase, “common good” to justify atrocities, is beyond comprehension. To think the American people will sit still for it, bend over and take it, is sheer stupidity.

The Democratic party and their definition of “Common good” can go to hell.

Pure and simple, Hillary Clinton is a communist.

I am a capitalist and damned proud of it, Capitalism is a good thing.

Capitalism as defined in the dictionary:

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Capitalists produce, manufacture, employ millions, provide healthcare to millions, they expand and hire more employees, the money those employees make gets spent and helps economic growth throughout our country.

There is one thing that Democrats/progressives/liberals do not account for.

What if the Capitalists of this world do not wish to be punished for producing, manufacturing, employing millions and providing healthcare for those millions and helping the economy?

What if they stood as one and said, “SCREW YOU”?

What if these capitalists got tired of being punished for their ability?

What if they drained their bank accounts, moved their money overseas where the vultures/Democrats could not touch it and just went to live on some island somewhere, where they could live quite comfortably on the billions or even millions they already have?

Millions of Americans would be out of a job and on welfare, millions of Americans would be on medicaid or other government programs where the rest of us would be paying for their insurance. Unemployment would jump to increasingly unacceptable and unmanageable rates.

The snowballing effect of such a “strike” , for lack of a better word, would take America from being one of the healthiest economic countries to one of the weakest, poorest countries in a matter of decades if not before.

What incentive would our millionaires and billionaires have to keep their businesses thriving should the Democrats/liberals/progressives force their communistic agenda upon us?

Name one.

We have fought communism for decades in other countries and it is time we looked at ourselves and started fighting against communism in our own country.

To be continued….

Cross Posted from Wake up America

11 Responses to “An American Communist: Hillary Clinton & The Democrats”

  1. Donald Douglas Says:

    I read this over at Wake up America. Great read!

  2. blacktygrrrr Says:

    Snooper,

    My bad. I am trying to promote myself, and as soon as I hit the send button, realized who wrote it. No wonder the quality was high!

    Stay well, and again, my bad.

    eric 🙂

  3. spree Says:

    Shucks, gonna make my head swell. Thanks.

  4. Miss Beth Says:

    Excellent article, Spree! It absolutely churns my stomach and yet, unfortunately, with all the moonbat mania out there, I think a lot of the public would willingly go along with this as sheep to a slaughter. We truly would have blood running in the streets fighting it. One question to ask–would Soros give up his fortune for this principle? I don’t think so–yet he’s one of the biggest promoters of it and the sheep keep following…

  5. spree Says:

    One of the major problems is the rich themselves. They figure, “oh well, we can afford to carry them”, not understanding that they have the RIGHT to be mad that the Dem politicians want to PUNISH them for being good, punish them for being productive, punish them for providing employment to the masses… they have the right to be mad and they should stand up and claim “Capitalists against Communism”.

    If a group of them came out and said we don’t deserve to be punished and we will not save your worthless hides… something might just get done.

  6. redhawk Says:

    What is the BIG news here?? Sha’s been a communist since she was in college and write her thesis on her former Chicago Communist MAVEN… Nothing new but kept under wraps until now… Time for the truth to come out.. Ah Yes Truth, a communist biggest enemy .. TRUTH shall make Lunatics Implode!!!

  7. spree Says:

    Yes it will and it never hurts to remind people and to keep that in the forefront of their thoughts.

  8. redhawk Says:

    TIME TO ROCK AND ROLL…

  9. jack Says:

    Wealthy people are not necessarily rich because of their skill: it’s a lot easier to make money if you have money (opportunities to invest, to start business, etc.). So someone born poor with a ton of skill will face a ton of challenges that the same person born rich would not face. So if we really believe people should earn according to their skill, rich people should give every person born poor a $100,000 check so everybody actually has a chance to “succeed” in capitalism. Let’s be real: Some rich people are fairly lazy. Some aren’t very bright. On the other hand, some poor folks work hard and never get anywhere, perhaps due to a lack of educational opportunities, lack of resources to gain job skills, lack of money to invest to make more money, racism and sexism, for example.

    More importantly, the rich do not deserve what they have: All wealth gained through capitalism is stolen from someone else if you trace it back far enough: people in the US originally made massive profits by stealing Native American land with military force, used police and national guard to stop workers from winning better wages and benefits throughout the late 1800s and 1900s, used military force to “open markets” to steal natural resources in Central America and many other places since the 1800s. Wealth stolen using violence. Then all that wealth circulates among a class of elites, more or less. That’s why some crazy communiststs believe “property is theft” — because most wealth is gained through some shady dealings that involve screwing somebody else. If you screw somebody to make your money, that doesn’t make you skillful, it makes you a lazy parasite.

  10. spree Says:

    You would make Marx proud. What makes you think that ANYONE that hasn’t earned it should get a dime of MY MONEY?

    Go out, work and earn it.

    No one takes from me and they won’t.

    Some are left money and if they inherit then their family has earned it as well as earned the right to leave it to their children.

    Communist have been fought for centuries and believe me here and now, I will fight til the death not to allow Amercia to live by communist principles.

    You don’t like having to earn your money.

    STARVE.

  11. for information click Says:

    for information click…

    I Have To Agree, You Said it well…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: