Allen West says many congressional Democrats are Communists

[opinterph]

This type of talk is only tolerated when you have old, white people as your constituents …

The irony is fully lost on them, because these senior citizens are loving socialism in medicare and social security.

Speaking of irony~ Other than being predominately white, Mr. West's district doesn't seem to match your characterization.

Florida's 22nd congressional district

Ethnicity

82.3% White
10.7% Hispanic
3.8% Black
1.7% Asian
0.1% Native American
0.2% other

Demographics

Male: 48.8%
Female: 51.2%
Median age: 43.0
18 years and over: 81.1%
65 years and over: 20.8%
Employed: 58.1%
Median household income: $51,200
Families below poverty level: 4.6%
Bachelor's degree or higher: 34.1%

Election results from presidential races

2008: President: Barack Obama 52 - John McCain 48%
2004: President: John Kerry 52 - George W. Bush 48%
2000: President: Al Gore 52 - George W. Bush 48%

[GiancarloC]

Isn't Mr. West a bit vulnerable politically?

[Lostlover]

Speaking of irony~ Other than being predominately white, Mr. West's district doesn't seem to match your characterization.

Florida's 22nd congressional district

Ethnicity

82.3% White
10.7% Hispanic
3.8% Black
1.7% Asian
0.1% Native American
0.2% other

Demographics

Male: 48.8%
Female: 51.2%
Median age: 43.0
18 years and over: 81.1%
65 years and over: 20.8%
Employed: 58.1%
Median household income: $51,200
Families below poverty level: 4.6%
Bachelor's degree or higher: 34.1%

Election results from presidential races

2008: President: Barack Obama 52 - John McCain 48%
2004: President: John Kerry 52 - George W. Bush 48%
2000: President: Al Gore 52 - George W. Bush 48%

It seems to match my description. 1 in 5 is a senior citizen and it is 80-something percent white.

And that meager $51,000 income is telling. I'd imagine that low number comes from people living on others' tax money (read: socialism).

Imagine tax revenue in this country if 40% + of the people didn't pay taxes: 20% under 18-years-old and 20% over 65-years-old. That's pretty much a deadbeat area where West represents.

[opinterph]

It seems to match my description. 1 in 5 is a senior citizen and it is 80-something percent white.

And that meager $51,000 income is telling. I'd imagine that low number comes from people living on others' tax money (read: socialism).

The median age is only 6 years higher than the US as a whole and the median income is pretty much spot on for the US as a whole.

[Lostlover]

The median age is only 6 years higher than the US as a whole and the median income is pretty much spot on for the US as a whole.

1 in 5 are senior citizens: a drain on this country because they're going to get out far more than they put in for late-life benefits.

I would love to tell you about a product that a prominent conservative lobbyist group is going to roll out for senior citizens, but I can't since I signed a non-disclosure agreement when I interned for this group/think tank. Basically, it's going to propose a product where seniors get roughly three times their promised social security payment from the government through poorly worded rules when it comes to Social Security and Medicare.

West's constituents are really going to squeeze every penny out of this government for their socialist programs. So, how the hell is he anti-socialism then?

Another good read. Red States Are Welfare States.

[Kulindahr]

I regularly hear this claim that seniors will get back far more than they out in, and I also regularly read analyses that say seniors would be getting far more if they'd just had the same money out into a market-return tracking account.

I presume the first claim is made based on mere dollar numbers with no attention to interest; I know the second is based on standard continually-accruing interest and standard investment methods.

[GiancarloC]

It looks as if West is very politically vulnerable... so I don't know why he's saying stupid things right now.

New election maps could hurt Allen West, other GOP incumbents | Florida politics blog: The Buzz | Tampa Bay Times

Florida had some new redistricting rules that could just damage their chances in Florida rather badly. West could be in serious trouble. In the past Mr West's district went narrowly one way or the other (in the general elections)... now it is becoming more democrat. Sounds like this whole talk is from a desperate man seeking to get attention.

This is the same fool that said Obama and others should get out of the country... don't know why we are paying him any notice.

[Just_Believe18]

The whole McCarthyism charge is a well worn talking point. I have found no record of McCarthy accusing any Senator or Congressman of being a Communist. The object in McCarthyism, is to accuse people who have no means of disproving your accusation. Sanders is an admitted Socialist. I have a degree of respect for him because he's at least honest. The others have records. They say and do things we can objectively examine. They willingly joined the CPC, who had Sanders as it's first convener and chairman.
Congressional Progressive Caucus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now what kind of an ideological based group is Bernie Sanders, the Socialist, likely to be given leadership? The answer is obvious. You are correct, Socialism isn't Communism. It's a step on the road to totalitarianism left or right. A road we don't want to be going down.

Let's break down your clarification of your original statement here. See above in bold:

First, you just said that McCarthyism doesn't apply to Wests' statements because the terminology doesn't apply to members of Congress. Yet, the definition you provided (and here is a more formalized version) states: McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. Yet in your evidence, you claim Sanders is a socialist. A socialist is not a communist. That is not your evidence. Hence, when you and Rep. West make the statement that over 70 members of Congress are communists, that's McCarthyism. You're calling someone a communist without proper regard to evidence. At best, you can claim some of them would avow themselves to be socialists, but they aren't communists.

So later in your post, you contradicted yourself when you agreed with me that socialism is not communism. Yet you just said it was with your accusation that because Sanders is a socialist, that it's "proof enough" for you that the "scumbag" is a communist. Do you see what's wrong here? Also, socialism itself is not totalitarianism (and I have no idea what you meant by left or right.) There are many elements of socialism that is public policy in democratic and republic governments all around the world. Education, public universities, health care, national parks, the post office, law enforcement, firefighting are all socialist organizations within civilized society.

[GiancarloC]

The very fact that he said that socialism is a step towards totalitarianism is outrageous enough. Socialism is not a step towards authoritarianism. And indeed, West said that 70 members of Congress are communist, which they aren't. I'm probably closer to a Socialist then any of them. And I'll tell that none of them, not even Sanders, come close to being a communist.

[opinterph]

Socialism is not a step towards authoritarianism.

Are you certain that Socialism is not regarded as a step towards [authoritarian] Communism?

The Marxist conception of socialism is that of a specific historical phase that will displace capitalism and precede communism. [Wiki]

[GiancarloC]

Are you certain that Socialism is not regarded as a step towards [authoritarian] Communism?

I'm very certain about that actually. There are different kinds of socialism for that matter. But it's not authoritarianism.

[Kulindahr]

The very fact that he said that socialism is a step towards totalitarianism is outrageous enough. Socialism is not a step towards authoritarianism. And indeed, West said that 70 members of Congress are communist, which they aren't. I'm probably closer to a Socialist then any of them. And I'll tell that none of them, not even Sanders, come close to being a communist.

The "it's a step toward X" argument is always faulty, because it assumes that anything to the left or right of a certain position is "progressing" toward the end of the spectrum. Calling socialism a step toward communism is only valid if people are willing to agree that what passes for Republican(ism) these days is a step towards fascism. The argument reduces the entire political spectrum to its poles. Yet that itself is fallacious, because the political spectrum is not -- however much simple-minded media types wish it were -- linear.

Socialism is not "a step toward" communism, 'republicanism' is not "a step toward" fascism, capitalism is not "a step toward" corporatism, libertarianism is not "a step toward" anarchy -- any more than the accusations were true from European nobility that the thirteen colonies doing away with monarchy was "a step toward" lawlessness. Certainly, historical examples can be dredged up to argue any of those views, but historical examples can also be dredged up to counter them.

And no system is "a step toward" authoritarianism, because all systems which involve government partake of authoritarianism by their nature. Socialism, republicanism, feudalism even are what they are -- spots on the political spectrum with more-or-less well-defined parameters, which various people believe are good or helpful or proper for society. Others may use them as stepping-stones to some elsewhere on the spectrum, but that is descriptive of those users, not of the systems they are using. Certainly many communists in the West supported socialist parties as a way to move their societies closer to communism, but they were never socialists; they were users. And the socialists found often enough that the communists were merely fellow travelers, never comrades, when the socialists were content with a certain aspect of society but the communists wanted to "keep going".


So for those Republicans here who want to argue that voting Democrat is voting communist, beware, because you've just validated those who say that voting Republican is voting fascist, or corporatist, or plutocratic. And by the record, the last two accusations have far more substance and evidence than your charge does.

[Kulindahr]

Are you certain that Socialism is not regarded as a step towards [authoritarian] Communism?

"Regarded" is the key word here, because it opens the field wide.

Yes, socialism is regarded as a step toward communism, but so also is homosexuality regarded as a step toward bestiality and pedophilia, and 'Obamacare' is regarded as a step toward the government requiring us to buy Chevy trucks and eat broccoli. See, the problem with "regarded" is that it leaves open the question of who is doing the regarding.

The question in each case is what the adherents of the particular position regard their position to be. Almost invariably, the discovery is that they regard their position as the goal, the place to be, the desired end, not as a stepping-stone to something else. So to ask whether socialism is a step towards anything else at all, the proper "regard" to seek is that of avowed socialists. The answer on that one is abundant: socialism is on the center of their target, the end of the trip and not just a waypoint, the condition they desire and not just preparation for going somewhere else.

[Tengilethos]

You Democrats are all missing the point. No one claims that the you have achieved a full fledged socialist or communist state yet. But there is no question that all Democrat policies and agenda items are pulling us in that direction. You cannot rationally deny that fact until you can tell us where your want to take us. What kind of an economic and political system are you trying to create? Until Democrats tell us, we can only guess, and our is guess communism. Even if you don't intend communism, we may end up there because you never stopped to think where you were headed.

You have a point here, but still don't understand the big picture. There are obviously Democrats who want to pull the US more in the direction of socialism, but you can do that and still end up within the current capitalist system. Britain has a bigger welfare state than the US but nobody denies that they are still a capitalist country.

If some or even all Democrats want to move in the DIRECTION towards socialism, it doesn't mean they want to end with a socialist system. And honestly, could you cite examples what specific changes the Democrats want to make that would make the US a socialist country? Because I am having a hard time to imagine something like that happening anytime soon. As someone who grew up in East Germany, I have the feeling you have no idea what a socialist economic system actually looks like if you think the current Democratic platform is working to implement socialism in the US.

Regarding the "charge" that 70 Congress Members are socialist, Politifact gives this a "PANTS ON FIRE" (absolute untrue) rating. Read for yourself: PolitiFact Florida | Allen West says about 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party

[Tengilethos]

So, please tell us what is the fair share of the federal income tax which the top 1 percentage of income receivers should pay.? What percent for the top 50 percent? What percent for the lower 50 percent oncome group? Seriously, if Democrats announced a commitment to a percentage, it might be do-able. (Sorry, I will not be holding my breath for an newer.)

There was a top tax rate of 94% in 1944-1945 and the US was still a capitalist country. Of course there were many deductions, but any fixation on a specific tax rate is dumb. And note that some models of socialism don't even have taxes because of the way the economy is structured.

[rareboy]

Interesting how the thread is no longer about West's outrageous and false assertion that many congressional democrats are communists, but about how 'socialism' is the slippery slope to a totalitarian state where everyone will be working on a collective.

It is hilarious seeing people go running for their Marx and Engels to try to make a case about what is happening to the US.

Kuli nailed it above.

I'm no more likely to become a communist than I am a dog fucking child molester.

The only reason that the US will become communist is because China owns America's ass.

[opinterph]

Kuli nailed it

That’s no easy task on a slippery slope.

"Regarded" … opens the field wide.

[IMaGined]wide open field[/IMaGined]

The question in each case is what the adherents of the particular position regard their position to be.

Is it fair to suggest that true proponents of socialism may indeed be assembled within the ranks of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and that the organization may therefore be legitimately regarded as Socialist? And does the answer depend more on the positions to which individual members adhere, or the collective proclamations espoused by the organization as a whole?

[Progressives] simply believe in the power of the government to counteract the power of business and improve the lives of lower class Americans.

A true Socialist prefers the Free-Market Capitalist economic system to the Progressive economic system because of the inequality it provides.

Socialism, Communism, Progressivism, and Beck (by die Schweizer, Nolan Chart: Political Theory columnist)

[Benvolio]

The very fact that he said that socialism is a step towards totalitarianism is outrageous enough. Socialism is not a step towards authoritarianism. And indeed, West said that 70 members of Congress are communist, which they aren't. I'm probably closer to a Socialist then any of them. And I'll tell that none of them, not even Sanders, come close to being a communist.

Whether socialism is a step toward communism depends on whether you believe our liberal/socialists are ever capable of moderation and restraint. Will there come a time when they will say taxes on the rich are high enough? Not likely. Even on this thread there is talk of 94 percent. Will they ever say we have enough regulations on private business? Clearly not because they are incapable of admitting to themselves that their regulations are excessive or wrong. They cannot now admit that their laws requiring banks to make loans to the poor played a big part in the mortgage meltdown, or their mark-to-market rules, or the FDIC panic. They cannot admit to themseves that burdens on businesses have played a big part in driving businesses overseas and impairing the ability to compete with foreign competitors They always blame the lack of regulation. They will never be able to stop their drive to communism.

.

[GiancarloC]

Whether socialism is a step toward communism depends on whether you believe our liberal/socialists are ever capable of moderation and restraint.

Interesting. I could ask republicans and conservatives if they are ever capable of moderation and restraint. Based on what I've seen since 2001, my answer would be: NO. But back to your question, yes those on the left are capable of restraint and moderation. Those on the right have not been.

Will there come a time when they will say taxes on the rich are high enough? Not likely. Even on this thread there is talk of 94 percent.

They had a 94% tax rate on the rich in the 40s. And the tax rate was higher on the rich in the 60s and 70s then it is now. So what's your point? It's very low in this country. Mitt Romney pays around 12-15% of his income in taxes... this is vastly lower then other developed countries.

Will they ever say we have enough regulations on private business? Clearly not because they are incapable of admitting to themselves that their regulations are excessive or wrong.

What regulations? This country has less regulations on private business then other developed countries.

They cannot now admit that their laws requiring banks to make loans to the poor played a big part in the mortgage meltdown, or their mark-to-market rules, or the FDIC panic.

No. Deregulation created much of the mess, when banks were allowed to do what they wanted and by handing out short term APR loans.

They cannot admit to themseves that burdens on businesses have played a big part in driving businesses overseas and impairing the ability to compete with foreign competitors They always blame the lack of regulation.

Again no. Other countries offer lower wages. It's not burdens on businesses. Businesses move to other countries because of lower wages they can pay to others. So what do you suggest? Getting rid of the minimum wage?

They will never be able to stop their drive to communism.

.

False. I take you don't really accept the fact that not all leftists are communists? Only some are. You've just made several blanket generalizations.

[Benvolio]

Interesting. I could ask republicans and conservatives if they are ever capable of moderation and restraint. Based on what I've seen since 2001, my answer would be: NO. But back to your question, yes those on the left are capable of restraint and moderation. Those on the right have not been.



They had a 94% tax rate on the rich in the 40s. And the tax rate was higher on the rich in the 60s and 70s then it is now. So what's your point? It's very low in this country. Mitt Romney pays around 12-15% of his income in taxes... this is vastly lower then other developed countries.



What regulations? This country has less regulations on private business then other developed countries.



No. Deregulation created much of the mess, when banks were allowed to do what they wanted and by handing out short term APR loans.



Again no. Other countries offer lower wages. It's not burdens on businesses. Businesses move to other countries because of lower wages they can pay to others. So what do you suggest? Getting rid of the minimum wage?



False. I take you don't really accept the fact that not all leftists are communists? Only some are. You've just made several blanket generalizations.

Actually you prove my point. You liberals can never admit any mistake, ever, by the Democrats. Taxes--on others--can never be too high and we can never have too much regulation. It is that mindset that insures the Democrats, unless we stop them, will move our country inexorably toward communism. Not because they now believe in communism but because they do believe in more, always more, regulation and confiscation. They will never be able to stop increasing it. They will always see the need for more.
And your inevitable turning every conversation into a tit for tat equivalency against the Republicans is tiresome and unintelligent. This a thread about Democrats. Why are you afraid to discuss you party?

[GiancarloC]

Actually you prove my point. You liberals can never admit any mistake, ever, by the Democrats. Taxes--on others--can never be too high and we can never have too much regulation. It is that mindset that insures the Democrats, unless we stop them, will move our country inexorably toward communism.

Nobody in the democratic party is a communist nor are they moving this country towards communism. My viewpoints aren't communist. The democrats are not moving this country towards communism. In this country there are two pro-business parties. Regulation and confiscation? Sounds like some GOP talking points. You don't have substance for your accusations. Just more of the same rhetoric.

Like it or not, economic regulation is required to prevent the abuses of the past.

And your inevitable turning every conversation into a tit for tat equivalency against the Republicans is tiresome and unintelligent. This a thread about Democrats. Why are you afraid to discuss you party?

And your turning every conversation into some vendetta either against democrats or immigrants is getting tiresome. My party? I'm not a democrat. That's where you are mistaken.

[Kulindahr]

Whether socialism is a step toward communism depends on whether you believe our liberal/socialists are ever capable of moderation and restraint. Will there come a time when they will say taxes on the rich are high enough? Not likely. Even on this thread there is talk of 94 percent. Will they ever say we have enough regulations on private business? Clearly not because they are incapable of admitting to themselves that their regulations are excessive or wrong. They cannot now admit that their laws requiring banks to make loans to the poor played a big part in the mortgage meltdown, or their mark-to-market rules, or the FDIC panic. They cannot admit to themseves that burdens on businesses have played a big part in driving businesses overseas and impairing the ability to compete with foreign competitors They always blame the lack of regulation. They will never be able to stop their drive to communism.

.

So in your view America is stuck with two choices: communism, or plutocracy.

[Kulindahr]

Actually you prove my point. You liberals can never admit any mistake, ever, by the Democrats. Taxes--on others--can never be too high and we can never have too much regulation. It is that mindset that insures the Democrats, unless we stop them, will move our country inexorably toward communism. Not because they now believe in communism but because they do believe in more, always more, regulation and confiscation. They will never be able to stop increasing it. They will always see the need for more.
And your inevitable turning every conversation into a tit for tat equivalency against the Republicans is tiresome and unintelligent. This a thread about Democrats. Why are you afraid to discuss you party?

You're making stuff up now. Where did he say taxes can never be too high? Where did he said there can never be too many regulations?

He didn't. You assumed he did, because it suits your purpose.

The ironic thing is that you believe in raising taxes -- you've said so. How, then, can we believe you're not a communist?

[Benvolio]

You're making stuff up now. Where did he say taxes can never be too high? Where did he said there can never be too many regulations?

He didn't. You assumed he did, because it suits your purpose.

The ironic thing is that you believe in raising taxes -- you've said so. How, then, can we believe you're not a communist?

Look again. I refered to "you liberals", and to their mindset, rather than anything in particular he said.

[GiancarloC]

Look again. I refered to "you liberals", and to their mindset, rather than anything in particular he said.

"You liberals" Nice way to refer to people.

Liberals don't think that way.

[chrisrobin]

Funny (ironic), any time I ask a "true believer" to define Communism he always changes the subject. I'm sure I'd get the same results from Mr. West. Besides, Communism is sooo fifties!

[Rolyo85]

The mere idea that socialism is somehow magically related to communism is hilarious. That Communism used socialism as a base does not mean that socialism leads to it. The First World is FULL of socialist countries and in many countries in Europe the two-party model is "democrats" and "socialists", and yet somehow Communism hasn't been reborn.

And you know why? Because unlike you, Americans, who have only a textbook idea of what Communism is, half of Europe, my country included, actually experienced it. We KNOW what it is. We KNOW what it creates. To claim that ANYTHING could lead to Communism in the Privileged Billion today is the same as stating that something could lead to the rebirth of concentration camps. Nothing can. It's a thing of the past that has proven inadequate, harmful, inhumane and inhuman. If any country tries to implement it again, the entire world will unite against it and turn it to glass.

...yunno, to put things in a oversimplified dramatic light.

[Kulindahr]

Look again. I refered to "you liberals", and to their mindset, rather than anything in particular he said.

So you're not actually engaging in conversation, you're using posts as pretexts for preaching.

Nice to know.

[Rolyo85]

And that's news to anyone?

[Just_Believe18]

Look again. I refered to "you liberals", and to their mindset, rather than anything in particular he said.

This is the problem with your participation here. You're not engaging in discussion. Rather, you're belittling and stereotyping forum members into obscure and inaccurate paradigms.

[Benvolio]

If we cannot talk about liberals as a group what can we talk about? I was talking about the mindset of liberals as a group on the national level, because it is their actions together which are important. Go back and look at post #58. I was not talking about individuals or members. There are many different shades of opinion among "liberals", but when they act together on the national level, that is what is important. It is not stereotyping, it is a description of the group, not of individuals within the group.

[palemale]

Are you certain that Socialism is not regarded as a step towards [authoritarian] Communism?

Marx also regarded capitalism as a step toward Communism. He saw capitalism as a historical phase that was very revolutionary, that it would sweep away feudalism and usher in a new era of industrialization and progress. He recognized that it was a highly productive economic system capable of generating great wealth. He also correctly recognized the contradictions of capitalism, i.e. that it was capable of promoting great progress in human existence, i.e. new technologies, urbanization, scientific advancement, etc., but that it was also tremendously dehumanizing and was ultimately based on exploitation, which would also lead to a reaction among the proletariat that would lead to revolution, Socialism and ultimately Communism.

It's silly to consider Socialism to be a step towards authoritarian Communism. The world is full of examples of democratic countries where Socialists come to power electorally, and yield power when losing subsequent elections. This is what has happened repeatedly in Britain, France, Germany, the Scandinavian Countries. The Sandanistas yielded power in Nicaragua after losing an election held after they came to power in an armed revolution. Something United States backed governments prior to that time were usually reluctant to do. Socialist governments in Spain, Greece, Israel, and Chile have all yielded power after losing elections.

[Kulindahr]

If we cannot talk about liberals as a group what can we talk about? I was talking about the mindset of liberals as a group on the national level, because it is their actions together which are important. Go back and look at post #58. I was not talking about individuals or members. There are many different shades of opinion among "liberals", but when they act together on the national level, that is what is important. It is not stereotyping, it is a description of the group, not of individuals within the group.

Except you personalized it -- you said "you liberals", but then you deny you're talking about the person(s) you addressed. "You", after all, is second person plural PERSONAL pronoun.

[Kulindahr]

Marx also regarded capitalism as a step toward Communism. He saw capitalism as a historical phase that was very revolutionary, that it would sweep away feudalism and usher in a new era of industrialization and progress. He recognized that it was a highly productive economic system capable of generating great wealth. He also correctly recognized the contradictions of capitalism, i.e. that it was capable of promoting great progress in human existence, i.e. new technologies, urbanization, scientific advancement, etc., but that it was also tremendously dehumanizing and was ultimately based on exploitation, which would also lead to a reaction among the proletariat that would lead to revolution, Socialism and ultimately Communism.

His error was thinking that humans can run a system that isn't based on exploitation. That's an error that both the left and the right make: they pretend that their version of things doesn't involve exploitation. That's why I keep telling KrisHawk that his view is spiritual Marxism: it requires that human beings become something other than what we now have, that they advance to a new spiritual level. So growth out of capitalism and into eventual communism demands not just an economic evolution, but a biological one (perhaps as in a sci-fi short story I read, when due to a mutation, humans started being able to tell when one of their kind was cold or hungry or suffering -- and they suffered from it, too).

[rareboy]

Marx also regarded capitalism as a step toward Communism. He saw capitalism as a historical phase that was very revolutionary, that it would sweep away feudalism and usher in a new era of industrialization and progress. He recognized that it was a highly productive economic system capable of generating great wealth. He also correctly recognized the contradictions of capitalism, i.e. that it was capable of promoting great progress in human existence, i.e. new technologies, urbanization, scientific advancement, etc., but that it was also tremendously dehumanizing and was ultimately based on exploitation, which would also lead to a reaction among the proletariat that would lead to revolution, Socialism and ultimately Communism.

It's silly to consider Socialism to be a step towards authoritarian Communism. The world is full of examples of democratic countries where Socialists come to power electorally, and yield power when losing subsequent elections. This is what has happened repeatedly in Britain, France, Germany, the Scandinavian Countries. The Sandanistas yielded power in Nicaragua after losing an election held after they came to power in an armed revolution. Something United States backed governments prior to that time were usually reluctant to do. Socialist governments in Spain, Greece, Israel, and Chile have all yielded power after losing elections.

Thank you.

Right next door to the US is a country that has a rich history of conservatives, liberals and liberal socialists taking turns exercising and sharing the responsibilities of government.

As I've pointed out, Canada was #5 on the list of happiest countries to live in. The other 4 are European 'socialist' nations.