The DNC Platform – the end of Capitalism.

Posted by Ben_C 1 month, 1 week ago to Economics
23 comments | Share | Flag

The 2020 DNC platform reveals the intent of the Democratic Party to become the all inclusive provider of all services. Outwardly it portrays itself as the champion of the people. However, its platform lays out the massive expansion of government control dictating how society and industry will perform. Nowhere does it mention personal responsibility. Karl Marx would be proud. Amity Shales in The Forgotten Man defines the origins of the Marxism in the Democratic Party. Ninety years later it is a very real possibility we are done as a nation. Atlas Shrugged IS no longer fiction. Where is Galt’s Gulch?
SOURCE URL: https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-07-31-Democratic-Party-Platform-For-Distribution.pdf

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month ago
    WOW....who reads all this Drek!. The interesting thing is that thile both Communism and Fascism are both Socialist systems, [not the opposite ends of the spectrum as the socialists would like us to believe] The major difference between the two is that in Communism the means of production is in the hands of "the People" [Read Government.] In Fascism, the means of production are in the hand of private owners....the government just tells them what to do and what to make. This country is definitely heading towards a Fascist state, we already have blackshirts in the street rioting, shouting people down at college campuses and generally terrorizing the populous.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Commander 1 month, 1 week ago
    It's interesting that pg 4 land acknowlegements of the tribes has overlooked The Trail of Tears from 1831-77 where all but 2 presidents were Republican.
    Although the "Parties" have changed to a reasonable degree over time, the thing I find constant is that the tools of enslavement are the only historical changes.
    As I read through the rest, I find an anti-Trump expostulation without a specific "remedy" other than that of oppression of those who succeed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 1 month ago
      Uh, the Republican Party didn't even exist until Lincoln in 1960. Prior to that the two major parties were the (Jeffersonian) Democratic Republicans - which morphed into just the Democrats under Andrew Jackson in 1829 - and the Federalists/Whigs which were a holdover from Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The Democratic Republicans (later the Democrats) were predominantly from the South and though they initially couched their party platform in terms of States Rights were thoroughly racist in practice. It was these same Democrats such as Henry Clay and Jefferson Davis which led the rallying cry for the Southern States to rebel and secede. The primary plank in the Republicans' platform initially was the equality of men and the abolition of slavery.

      The Trail of Tears is one of a legacy of Andrew Jackson, first as a military commander who undertook several unauthorized campaigns to "liberate" large portions of Florida for white settlement and later as President when he used the power of the army to "negotiate" land cessions in Florida and those regions by expelling the native inhabitants. I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America" as an excellent documentary on the racism which has been with the Democratic Party since at least Andrew Jackson.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 1 month ago
        Because I am feeling particularly snarky today .... ;)

        Technically the first Republican party came out of the split between Jackson and J.Q. Adams, with the former's side chopping off "-republican" from the party name, and the latter's side picking it up and creating the "National Republican party". They soon disbanded and mostly/somewhat became the Whigs.

        Now, that isn't the same as the later Republican party founded in Lincoln's era, but what is most interesting is that they share values. John Quincy Adams was staunchly and vocally opposed to slavery (especially so over his congressional career -- IIRC he did 9 terms in Congress after being POTUS) and was the rallying-point for the NRP until he lost to Jackson in their second contest.

        One of the lesser known aspects of this is that Adams increasingly relied on his notion that in a republican form of government, one could not have slavery. This argument would be later espoused by secessionists in the run-up to the Civil War. They, too, argued that under a republican form of government, everyone had to be legally equal. However they used this line as to why the split from a republic and went with a democracy.

        While the CSA structure was somewhat similar to the US government, there were key differences that still resonate with the Democrats. One of which was the printing of more and more money to pay for the government - and the resulting inflation will surprise none of us today. They "doubled down" on cotton because they had nothing else going. I'm sure we can imagine the problems that wrought. They went through a significant depression. While at the higher level this can be argued as a result of the northern blockades, the underlying reality is that they had no industrial base. I know, you're shocked. ;)

        That lack of industrial base meant they imported most of what they needed, which is why the blockade was so effective. While most of the fighting occurred in just two states (Tennessee and ... Virginia), infrastructure went belly up in all confederate states - even Texas and Florida - due to the allocation of resources the CSA demanded and the inability to support both local and confederate demands and needs. Again, this resonates with the actions of the current Democratic Party in their never-ending bid to seize and control local resources and wealth for their social desires.

        Side note: when you see figures on military operations in that war, bear in mind that nearly all of them will give you totals and estimates after excluding Texas and Florida. For example you might see Paskoff's assertion that Union forces were in 56% of the counties, but often not the "after" exclusion I mention above. And I'm never a fan of "X% of Y ....(after getting rid of huge parts of Y's dataset)" claims.

        One thing that does seem to stick over time is the Left's/Democrats' focus on groups as opposed to individuals. Even when they are claiming to be for freedoms and liberty it is always a group rather than individuals: "gay rights", "women's rights", "white's rights", "German's rights", and so on. They try to condition it away from choice - the individual context - and onto seemingly non-choices attributes such as skin color, lineage, sexuality, etc.

        Take "gay marriage" for example. They argued that gay people should be allowed to marry not because it was the right of each adult to enter into that agreement voluntarily, but because "they were born that way." Not only does that create a group and thus rights based on a group, it excludes or implies the exclusion of individual choice being a factor. For a leftist/liberal this is how they look at it. For a conservative/classical liberal/libertarian/individualist it doesn't matter if they choose to "be that way" or nor - what matters is that they are (all) consenting adults.

        Recognizing that even when they push for freedom/liberty/rights it is always in the context of being group-based reconciles a lot of otherwise seemingly contradictory positions they've espoused over the centuries.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 1 month ago
          A great informational piece! Thank you!

          "One of which was the printing of more and more money to pay for the government - and the resulting inflation will surprise none of us today. They "doubled down" on cotton because they had nothing else going."

          That's because at the time, cotton was the #1 export in the entire world and it commanded a premium. When the cotton exports from the South were threatened, the South thought that the economic incentives of cotton would bring the English in on their side. What the confederacy didn't know was that the mills in England already had stockpiles of cotton - enough to last them nearly a year of production. When England took a "wait and see" attitude, the market for cotton crashed and with it much of the South's economy. Though C.G. Memminger, Secretary of the Treasury for the Confederacy, was an able financier, the problem was that no foreign nation wanted to lend them credit (no one would accept Confederate printed money) so they insisted on payment in hard currency - usually gold. This resulted in the Confederacy forcing an exchange of Confederate bills (which quickly devalued) for hard currency (sound familiar). As the demand for gold financing of the war increased - and without any mines from which to obtain that gold - the exchange rate between Confederate bills and gold rose even further until even the most ardent Confederate patriot was forced to admit that the economics of the war was destroying the Confederacy faster than the Union Armies.

          "One thing that does seem to stick over time is the Left's/Democrats' focus on groups as opposed to individuals."

          A key observation. And why? Because membership in a group is wholly dependent on the leader of the group. It creates an instant power dynamic and inequality among the members. Groups make it easier to assert and maintain control over individuals simply by controlling the terms of group membership, membership duties, and membership rewards.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by TheRealBill 1 month ago
            "A key observation. And why? Because membership in a group is wholly dependent on the leader of the group. It creates an instant power dynamic and inequality among the members"

            An interesting take, and certainly backed by millennia of history.

            I think their focus on groups is deeper than that. A key "feature" of grouping is the ability to distance uncomfortable parts of human nature from oneself. It is, and should be, particularly discomforting and even nauseating, to confront the reality that humans of all kinds are capable of great and terrible things. The Christians have "There, but for the grace of God", go I as their reminder that any among us are capable of those things.

            This is another time-worn facet of the Left - their never-ending quest to render themselves somehow immune to wrongdoing. We see it more generally in our referencing of people who do these things as "monsters", "demons", "evil", "animals", or anything that makes them "not like me." It is why I've made, and continue to do so, a concerted effort to not refer to people that way. I studied they why and how of the rise of Fascism and Naziism with the specific intent of understanding how people could be pushed into that space where it became acceptable. Outside of Christianity we have the villain who is the hero of their own story as out warning parable. Some people do just want to see the world burn, but even out of them most do so because they thing something "good" for people will come out of it.

            And think of it as the stories we tell: in fiction pick your 5 favorite villains. How many of them thought they were doing "the right thing"?

            It is part of the stoic reminder that we are all capable of it in the right conditions.

            For the Left that condition is "I am morally superior and better than you" - which IMO isn't a very high bar. People will do things to groups quicker and more easily than to an individual. This does tie back in with your observation about the power dynamic, so it isn't like we're disagreeing here. :) I'm just adding some, perhaps call it color, to it. We can see this in the current burning, looting, and murdering going on.

            How many of these are "this person is of this group I have considered evil, therefore this that I am doing is to a group, not the person" rather than something the person actually did? All of them. We don't see "I killed him because he supports Trump" but "I killed him because he is a Trump supporter" instead.

            It is, in my view, an important distinction. The former acknowledges the agency of the victim, the latter removes it. And in so doing removes the responsibility of agency on the murderer's part. He didn't kill a person, he killed a member of a group.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Commander 1 month ago
        this is why I put "Parties" in quotes.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 month ago
          When people mention the parties switching sides.

          I say that is A DEMOCRAT Marketing Campaign, and an outright lie.

          The LEFT(Democrats) were ALWAYS enslaving people, and using the threat of violence. The Republicans were literally founded as anti-slavery and had the first Black congressman. They were always on the side of leaving people alone!

          There was no "switch". That's the Democrats trying to NOT DISCUSS how THEY formed the KKK, and their Klansmen were elected to congress and REVERED by the likes of HRC!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Commander 1 month ago
            I never used or implied "switched" sides.
            "Changed"; Democratic-Republican, Whig, Democrat and Republican.
            Now, regarding your second sentence, are you implying I am of Democrat persuasion. Are you implying I am marketing for Democrats? Are you implying I am a liar? I split the three questions intentionally and in order of importance.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 month ago
              I would have said YOU if this applied to you. I make NO judgement of you, as it's not my place.

              Yes, switched sides, and changed sides are used interchangeably.

              My point stands as a separate FACT, triggered by your comments. My daughter once BOUGHT the idea that the Republicans and Democrats somehow changed sides. They swapped values, in effect.

              And that SIMPLY never happened. That is just another way the LEFT (via Schools) tarnish the conservatives.

              And I use the term LEFT as a derogatory reference to Liberals far left of Libertarian. I don't like disparaging Liberals because the older Liberals are actually more JFK or Libertarian, and it confuses people.

              Plus a trick from Scott Adams: vagueness makes your point apply to more people. (Notice you do NOT know the industry Dilbert is in, or what exactly his company does?). Using LEFT allows me the slight of hand to paint in a direction, and various people will ACCEPT it thinking I mean people LEFT of them... But it gets them to accept it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Commander 1 month ago
                Thanks for clarifying.
                A lot of time the context of the written can be misconstrued without having prior, at least, verbal contact.
                I spent the last 30 years in Minneapolis, moved complete this March and I'm just feeling clean as of recently. I understand how the rhetoric pulls at the empathy of the youngsters...falsely.

                I have a Dilbert collectible, gifted to me because I'm involved in plenty of engineering endeavors.
                Boss to Dilbert: Dilbert, I'm sending you to Elbonia to open up our new subsidiary.
                Dilbert: But they just renounced Communism last week, they don't understand economics and have no appreciation of the real world!
                Dilbert to Dogbert while packing: He thinks they'll make fine engineers....
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 1 month ago
                Outside the US the term "liberal" most often refers to parties and/or people who oppose bigger government. The term "liberal" was stolen by the Democrats in the US from the original "liberals" who feared and fought against central government power and defended individual liberty.
                That theft of the term is a good example of what the left does with language. It steals terms by redefining them to mean often the exact opposite of their long term and original meaning. Liberal once meant defender of liberty.
                Neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans, have defended individual liberty or defended the US constitution in over a century - with very rare exceptions in each party.
                Career politicians must become extinct for individual liberty to flourish again.
                (These comments are not intended as an argument with either Cmdr or Capn.;^)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 1 month ago
    So the Socialist (Marxist) Democrat Party in their platform's Preamble calls the USA the country that prevailed over fascism and communism?
    Well, isn't that so special? Good Schiff that.
    But why am I thinking of smoke and mirrors?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 1 month ago
    One wonders if only we had not given up our children to the anti-capitalism school sys., which taught them to hate capitalism, to seek self-esteem from others instead of earned self respect, and tuaght them rights and entitlements, without mention of responsibility. Why did parents give over their children to education majors with no sense of the real world? This was the beginning of our end.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Katrina41 1 month ago
    The entire platform can be seen as one monstrous deception. For example, at the bottom of page 9 a ridiculous amount of verbiage is wasted in a blatant attempt to pin President Trump with the lack of medical supplies on hand. Every statement in this bilge has a dishonest twist added to a factual statement, changing the meaning entirely.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 month ago
    Democrats see themselves as better than others - the elite. And as the elite they view themselves as deserving of our praise, adoration, ... and money. They are the quintessential feudal lords (reborn) with us as the peasants. The biggest farce to them is the American concept of equality among men based on shared natural rights. No! To them, rights are granted by government (meaning these self-proclaimed elites). You're certainly free to speak your mind - as long as it comports with their glorious vision! You're certainly free to carry a firearm - as long as it is to protect them! You're certainly free to engage in any kind of business you want, just pick from the options they provide. You're certainly free to hold any views about religion you want - as long as they don't interfere with the party platform.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 month ago
      There's been a direct assault on Jews and Christians by the Democrat party. I see lots of information about churches and synagogues not being allowed to have services, but no one has mentioned mosques during this "crisis" so how do we read that?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 1 month ago
    What are these Dems bellyaching about? My dear grandmother wasn't recognized as a citizen of the United States until 1914 (the year my father was born). But hey, why should they, she was just a Comanche Indian.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo