Communism Taking Over the USA on January 20th?

[christulsa]

If Biden takes the White House, does that signify Communism finally taking over the USA, politically speaking?  All things considered, that's my viewpoint.   China stole the election.  They are not only communist in name, but communist in practice considering their social policies and atheistic materialism, and their intent, as it is with communists in general, is global communism.

Some would say no, it's socialism but not communism.  Others would say it's just the radical left/radical liberalism based on cultural Marxism.  Others would say it just signals the final descent into dystopic chaos without one central ideology.

Take the poll and discuss below.

[Graham]

While China is certainly buttering some of Biden's bread, I don't believe he is a Chinese puppet but rather a neoliberal elitist with woke trappings. Assuming Trump cannot pull this out, which is, sadly, probably a safe bet now, I expect to see more woke capitalism and generally unopposed brazilification of the US.

Woke capital will make more forays into behavioural control and de facto violations of American rights to free speech, association, assembly, and gun ownership. Now that it's understood that public health is an extraordinarily effective pretense for social engineering, we will see it invoked more often. Foreign institutions will also begin to flex more utterly unaccountable control over the American economy, in byzantine and indirect ways that few people will actually understand in detail. Unemployment and purchasing power will continue to worsen, and while this will prompt a great deal of handwringing about basic income and social assistance, nothing really groundbreaking will be passed. But behind all this, the populist reaction will continue to build unstoppably.

That's the general picture imo. I think I will save up some of my thoughts for the 2021 prediction thread.

[GiftOfGod]

If Biden takes the White House, does that signify Communism finally taking over the USA, politically speaking? 

No; Joe Biden is not a communist and when people claim this they lose all credibility. China has no interest in the USA becoming communist (aside from the fact that China communist in name only). China does have an interest in making the USA friendlier to China and weaker economically/militarily. China also has a massive espionage program in the USA to steal secrets.

[ralfy]

Likely Wall Street will take over, as it has been doing since the 1980s, if not for over a century.

[GiftOfGod]

Likely Wall Street will take over, as it has been doing since the 1980s, if not for over a century.

It's been happening since the Reagan Admin., nonstop, without regard to political party.

[christulsa]

Likely Wall Street will take over, as it has been doing since the 1980s, if not for over a century.

How do you see that?  The Dems will jack up corporate taxes, and individual income tax for the wealthy from 41% to 49%.  When the next recession hits, the federal gov't will effectively nationalize more industries.  Its doing that already with health care.  If Wall Street represents capitalism, and the federal gov't is taken over by socialism/communism (socialism being just a softer version of communism), but the gov't regulates Wall Street, then under Biden Kamala, Wall Street is going to suffer more than "take over."

[GiftOfGod]

Likely Wall Street will take over, as it has been doing since the 1980s, if not for over a century.

How do you see that?  The Dems will jack up corporate taxes, and individual income tax for the wealthy from 41% to 49%.  When the next recession hits, the federal gov't will effectively nationalize more industries.  Its doing that already with health care.  If Wall Street represents capitalism, and the federal gov't is taken over by socialism/communism (socialism being just a softer version of communism), but the gov't regulates Wall Street, then under Biden Kamala, Wall Street is going to suffer more than "take over."

Apparently you haven't noticed who Bill Clinton and Barack Obama appointed. Biden claims that he will be different: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/biden-has-kept-the-bankers-and-traders-at-bay-but-will-it-last

[christulsa]

Apparently you haven't noticed who Bill Clinton and Barack Obama appointed. Biden claims that he will be different: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/biden-has-kept-the-bankers-and-traders-at-bay-but-will-it-last

That's not Wall Street "taking over."  Even less so under Biden "being different."

[Elizabeth.2]

It is Luciferians taking over, calling it the Great Reset.  I think the commies already have been mainstream for a while now.  But not brutally enforced quite yet.
But I why should I quibble about Doom 

[ralfy]

How do you see that?  The Dems will jack up corporate taxes, and individual income tax for the wealthy from 41% to 49%.  When the next recession hits, the federal gov't will effectively nationalize more industries.  Its doing that already with health care.  If Wall Street represents capitalism, and the federal gov't is taken over by socialism/communism (socialism being just a softer version of communism), but the gov't regulates Wall Street, then under Biden Kamala, Wall Street is going to suffer more than "take over."

Trump availed of provisions for the rich from his and the Bush and Obama admins. It was also Bush and Obama that provided bailouts to the rich, with the allocated amount estimated by the GAO at $16 trillion by 2011. These plus many deregulation policies were promoted from the early 1980s to the present. That's why borrowing and spending soared across almost four decades:

http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/30/krugman-and-the-pied-pipers-of-debt/

(See the chart in the article).

The phenomenon is part of neoliberalism, where the government implements policies which favor the rich and uses financial aid and loans to sway or control other countries. Connected to that is neoconservatism, an ideology that uses the military and intelligence agencies to control weaker countries, protect the petrodollar, etc., again in favor of the rich, which in turn funds such activities through the military industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned about in the 1950s).

Given that and Biden's past (which shows these two ideologies), then he will likely continue what Bush and Obama did, if not to some extent Trump, who had to work with the same swamp.

[christulsa]

Thanks ralfy.  I find your posts to be informative and edifying.

The way I see it, all the "isms" would boil down to one over-arching "ism" or ideology, even if most don't give it a name.  The "errors of Russia," now obviously spread worldwide, are very specific enough to still refer to "Communism," but less as a political regime but more a philosophy of life.  Which is why "liberal capitalism" tends to be on the same page as communism.  One global collective ruled over by one global authority, no longer serving God and the interests of the Church, but of materialism.  But I don't believe those Lucifereans at the top orchestrating all this are just dystopic oligarchs taking advantage of all the particulr "isms" for their own gain.  I think they commonly subscribe to a specific ideology, which is larger than neoliberalism or neoconservativism.   In essence it is Communism since it imposes a collectivist tryanny on the world in the name of secularism and materialism.  I see no other term to better describe that than "communism."  Short of the US gov't, post 11/3/20 usurping ownership of all businesses, what we will now get from Washington D.C. is unbridled "communism."  In my opinion.

[ralfy]

I think what dominates is free market capitalism because almost all countries follow it partially, except for North Korea, and even that was being swayed by personalities like Trump through peace deals. And there are certain aspects about it to consider given the ff.

Much of the global economy is controlled only by a few private corporations, and most of them are financial:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/

Only a few hundred people on earth have more wealth than most human beings:

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/worlds-billionaires-have-more-wealth-46-billion-people

Much of that wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, and comes in the form of "shadow" derivatives, or unregulated financial contracts based on almost anything:

http://www.investitwisely.com/book-review-the-great-credit-contraction/

(See the liquidity pyramid in the page. The largest component of credit worldwide is derivatives, with an estimated notional value of $1.6 quadrillion. That's "quadrillion.")

71 pct of human beings live on less than $10 a day:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-income/

But almost all of them want to earn more, and have been earning more the last thirty years:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

The other 29 pct are counting on them to not only earn more but even spend more, as their own income is based on increasing sales of goods and services plus more financial speculation.

Thus, results of free market capitalism are growing concentration of wealth, which consists mostly of numbers representing money, among fewer people, and increasing dependence on more people (who are both workers and consumers) to be more productive and earn more to spend more. That means more prosperity coupled with consumerism and materialism, which also translates to more secularism, liberalism, decadence, and with that probably fewer concerns with religious beliefs:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/do-countries-lose-religion-as-they-gain-wealth-1.1310451

That's also why even as they increase corporate tax rates, Democrats (like Republicans) will still bail out the rich, just as Bush and Obama did, and offer all sorts of provisions so that the rich can find loopholes and negate higher taxes with deductions, rebates, etc. In addition, much of their wealth comes from financial speculation, as well as operations in other countries, where there are growing consumer markets and young populations. That's also why belligerence towards other countries will continue, together with all sorts of false flags, as that's the only way to justify high levels of military spending.

Given that, why the concern over Communism? Because what's seen as Communism in rich countries is actually liberalism based on political correctness. That means with so much affluence and decadence more people have greater time to think about issues other than hunger and lack of medicine, and that includes those involving gender and race. Beyond that, these leftists are no different from their critics: they are all part of growing middle classes that want to be happy in consumer spending societies. Capitalists partly support them because liberalism is ideologically linked to free market capitalism: the freedom to think and do as one pleases, and let market forces ultimately determine whether such actions are beneficial.

With that, the government and both political parties, not to mention governments in many countries, will continue working in favor of the rich, as it would be illogical of them to bite the hand that feeds them. And people will vote for politicians who want the same, as their own credit (what they earn and borrow) come from the same rich.

What about real Communism? That will not succeed as long as the producing, earning, selling, buying, and consuming binge continues worldwide, and driven by people who need and want more, and given demand opportunities they probably won't because most people don't have a lot and want to have a lot, and those who have a lot are counting on them to do that because they earn from more sales of goods and services plus more financial speculation.

If so, then what about all this talk about a "great reset" and even calls by Pope Francis for more equity in the global economy, among others, which echo what previous Pontiffs said, including St. Pope John Paul II? It appears that all that economic activity is essentially based on material resources and energy (which Marx ironically pointed out), and there is no way that these are limitless in a planet that's limited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

And it's not an ideological but scientific point: increasing economic activity cannot continue indefinitely. At some point limits will be reached and things will break.

That's why it's not Communists or even leftists but groups normally seen as neutral or even connected to right-wing ideologies that are issuing warnings about these, including the U.S. military, the Pentagon, various multinational banks, insurers, and even auto and oil companies. Most people don't want to acknowledge or think about this because they are heavily invested in a bright, prosperous future. How else can they think otherwise when they constantly worry about not having enough money to buy medicine, pay rent, find a job, etc.?

That's why the same media (which is also mostly owned by the rich) always couple bad news with good, and focus mostly on the good, such as promises of "game changers" that will ensure a wonderful future. After all, that's what corporate sponsors who pay for media content also want.

With that, what will take over on January 20th is the same swamp which serves the interests of the rich.

[james03]

I think what dominates is free market capitalism

You've never owned a business.  Free market capitalism died a long time ago.

What dominates is corporatism where large companies are given monopoly powers and protections from the government.  The huge regulatory burden (free market capitalism?) is to the benefit of corporations in that it allows the creation of monopoly.  You need to get big so you can have a team of lawyers and accountants, and even engineers, to keep you in regulatory compliance.  Meanwhile the corporations cooperate with government for political reasons.  This is why you see inclusion training, quotas for women on boards, gay appreciation month, and of course donations.  Even taxes are not a problem because the level of looting is so high.  A CEO can take down $20 Million IN ONE YEAR.  So what if he himself is looted for $10 Million?

What we have today is corporatism.  Monopoly and concentration of power.  If you believe we have "free market capitalism", do yourself a favor and read through regulation 119 from OSHA (the total regulatory burden just from OSHA fills a book case).  https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.119  This is ONE regulation.  Read through it and learn something.  Then imagine if a group of say engineers want to take over a small plant because they see the waste and looting going on by Big Corporate and realize they can double productivity.  Can they comply with just ONE regulation?  And if you don't, it's called a "Willful" violation, which is an individual criminal offense which results in jail time.

Also, Biden is a vegetable who will be kept around to pardon Ghislaine, and then resign.  Kamala, a prostitute, was selected as president.  Check out her husband.

[james03]

And it's not an ideological but scientific point: increasing economic activity cannot continue indefinitely. At some point limits will be reached and things will break.

This makes no sense.  Basically you have to increase production according to population growth.  Technological advances has far exceeded population growth.  Just look at the incredible increases in food production.

71 pct of human beings live on less than $10 a day:

And they live in command economies. 

[TradGranny]

While China is certainly buttering some of Biden's bread, I don't believe he is a Chinese puppet

How many more millions of payoffs would it take, in your estimation, to put him in the pocket of the CCP?