The Communism Thread

[A&W]

Can capitalism work, just with mediated government regulation? As you said many government programs work and in the 20th century made the lives of our citizens exponentially better, but I do not think we need to revert to communism. If you are arguing we should have limited socialism (which seems to be more the point) there is some truth in that as we have been progressing like that since FDR. We are still one of the most free markets on earth, sometimes to our own detriment (coughhealthcarecough) and incredibly individualistic and that has helped make us the great innovator.

But as much as libertarians and corporate Republicans bemoan medicare, social security, food regulation, minimum wage, national parks and the post office--to name only a few--these programs have greatly benefited the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans.

For the record, I do not think the idealistic or utopian communist society would work. Because like every other institution in the world, it is run by people who can be corrupted. People in power without oversight can pretty much do whatever they want (look at the Fed or Goldman Sachs for that. Or the Patriot Act). Giving the government control of everything stifles growth, stifles innovation and likely leads to an authoratative regime as history shows time and again.

With that said, it is equally as naive to say "no government intervention" and "let the market decide" and pretend free market lassiez-faire is the answer to our world's problems. 2008 was a great to show what limited deregulation would do and yet the libertarians want to basically destroy government and regulation from the equation completely.

for the time being I agree with this. the utopian communist society wont be possible for a long time.

one key part I'd like to touch on though.

People in power without oversight can pretty much do whatever they want

That is why there should never be people in power without oversight. I believe that BECAUSE of my communist beliefs. It's not in contradictin with them at all. The communism ideology forbids unchecked power. That is why we support constitutions with checks and balances.

why do so many people assume that if you support communism you don't support checks and balances too? why do people assume you can't have one without the other?

 

[The Overlord]

well that is all a matter of opinion. what I'm trying to say is that not all communist views are the same, which is why I feel that all this dictator talk is irrelevant as to whether one should oppose communism as a whole. It all comes down to whether or not people make it into a dictatorship. It has nothing to do with whether one supports capitalism or communism.

Except history has not been kind to large scale communist societies, which gives people a reason to distrust communism in general.

Plus considering communists don't even get along with each other (Leninists and Maoists have never liked each other, that's why China and the USSR never got along)

Neither one of us know much about North Korea. It's surrounded in secrecy.

Except groups like Human Rights Watch have documented several human rights in North Korea: http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-count...information-on-north-korea/page.do?id=1011313

the same way you would in a capitlaist society. With a democratic constitution.

Why didin't that happen in the USSR?

Marx was a brilliant man, but his theory of history did not unfold as he predicted it would.

Well that's a particularly big hole in Marx's theory.

what happened does not negate the examples I have given of communism working.

It negates in a large scale, which is what I care about.

What you are talking about is something you would find in social democracy, like Norway, rather then what Marx's envisioned.

Because it can't work on a massive scale encompassing the entire economy in today's world. Just like we can't go to other solar systems yet. That doesn't mean that as we become more advanced we wont be able to in the future.

It is my opinion that all attempts to have a completely communist society have failed. There is too much needed labour that only gets done either because people need a paycheck, or because they are forced to do it like slaves.

But someday technology will change that. some day all the roards, houses, products, assemby lines, will all be handled by machines. I honestly do believe that one day we will have replicators like they have on star trek as well. Our houses will collect solar energy, not just on the roof, but even our siding will collect it and feed it back into the grid. Energy will be limitless. Homes would be available for everybody. The government wont have to be buried in paperwork making sure your local grocery store has what you need, because an automated system will keep the shelves stocked.

some jobs would still require human effort of course. let people pick a career they are passionate about. I think that with technology getting most of the labour out of the way, and education reforms to install the value of hard work, there will be enough people who want to work to fill those jobs.

That's a big assumption and you can't always predict where technology will go.

15 years ago, people were talking about a "paperless office" and that never came true.

You can't assume technology will solve all your problems for you.

one key part I'd like to touch on though.
That is why there should never be people in power without oversight. I believe that BECAUSE of my communist beliefs. It's not in contradictin with them at all. The communism ideology forbids unchecked power. That is why we support constitutions with checks and balances.

why do so many people assume that if you support communism you don't support checks and balances too? why do people assume you can't have one without the other?

Because the types of government communism has created so far, like one in the USSR.

People distrust communism because of the history it creates and you can't really ignore that.

 

[A&W]

I want to point out that Lenin was not a communist. he referred to himself as one, but he wasn't. If you take an ideology class you will see there is not much disagreement on this by communist philosophers. He even proclaimed that Marx was not a communist himself.

I gotta go right now so I can't touch on certain things but I want to quick comment on your comments on norway's social democracy and where technology will be in 15 years.

These are prime examples of why future generations will figure out the details we can't. They will have acess to information that we don't have. They will have a better understanding of what is best. But in order for soceity to have that better understanding we need to start promoting objectivity with regards to communism today.

America does view communism through a religous lens. It's almost like people oppose it because they think they are supposed to or because that's how they were raised. If someobody proposes a government program that is communist, one should view that program objectively without a bias in favor of or against capitalism.

For example. What's the best way for us to get tvs today? Obviously capitalism is the more efficent way of getting people their televisions in today's world. What's the most efficent way of making sure people have roads to drive on. Communism as it has been in America since Roosevelt first built our highway system, which helped pull us out of the depression. yes communism actually pulled this country out of the depression. Not massive scale communism, but still communism none the less. It was a gradual move in that direction which is what I advocate. One step at a time, evaluating each step to make sure that step will be an improvement...............edit....actually that is communism on a pretty massive scale.

People distrust communism because of the history it creates and you can't really ignore that.

true, but once you go dictatorship it's not longer communism. the country becomes privately owned instead of publicly owned.

You also have to look at the history of capitalism. It's pretty ugly too. Deosnt' mean we should stereotype communism, because then were just being blind and ignoring options.

 

[Kelly]

I agree with you that communism, can help a struggling country...but I do not agree that it works long term. Why? Because we have nothing to go from as far as history...

Communism looks great on paper, reality tells us otherwise...

 

[DACrowe]

Karl Marx argued communism to be a temporary thing. He very astutely pointed out how the upper class conspired with the middle and new rich of Bourgeoisie, who held most of the capital in the workforce, to keep the working poor or Proletariat down and poor. You have a working force of uneducated sheeple and then blame it on their own shortcomings or laziness in capitalism. You see that today with the reluctance in the '30s to give public schools free text books and pave roads in rural counties with tax dollars. On the Federal level the New Deal and social security was viewed as evil by the haves in society and divided the bourgeoisie of the time of what to do. It happens again with fanatical defense against medicare, Civil Rights Legislation and now healthcare. Many at the top view the poor as lazy and too stupid (this also feeds into racism and stereotypes about African Americans and hispanics in this country).


That is all fine and dandy and Marx does a great job of diagnosing, if in broad simplistic terms, the flaws and evils of capitalism. But his answer was terrible. Make everybody equal by removing the market and have the government put hte proletariat for a short time.

The idea is that they would equally distribute work and happiness among the commune and create stability. Then the government would dissolve itself and a nation or state would live in harmony.

That will never happen, because honestly there needs to be a government to regulate. People will always want more and even if you try to stifle competition and capitalistic urges, you are just forcing your state to be backward and fall behind on the global scale to the point where it will collapse under poverty. And people would always want more. AS you say, without government or police, people would walk all over each other. Well, that was Marx's endgame.

But if you stay in a regulated communist society, the state runs everything. So the state is omnipotent. What does the state do? Hold elections to let the proletariat of the new era into power and be on the outside of who calls the shots? That is ridiculous.

The closest to Marixan ideals was the initial communist revolution in Russia. I can guarantee Lenin had no plans to dissolve the state. The beloved revolutionary Trotsky was not the psychopath that Stalin was (though he and Stalin did not begin on bad terms) or the murderous dictator. But he was all fine and dandy with killing for the good of the state and seeing the Soviet Union become an authoritative regime. He was never going to be the perfect leader that he is romanticized in, though he wouldn't have been the monster Stalin was. However, he would have oppressed his people and I suspect the state would have still taken those who didn't agree with them over.


When you put people in charge of everything, they will never relinquish that power and you must assume the state will simply allow people to be free without trying to control them, even if they control everything else. A communist state would economically ruin its country, especially in the increasingly globalized 21st century and it would lead to massive oppression. The state would have absolute power in communism. Why keep a series of checks and balances when you don't have to?


That is why Marxism, despite its noble intentions, failed in history. It cites a real and disturbing problem, but his solution was a fantasy that will never be realized. I'm not arguing for pure capitalism which is a nightmare, but there is a grey area that the United States has been in for over a hundred years and for the most part it has been to our continual growth and overarching prosperity.

Comparitevely smaller social programs that keep the bourgeoisie or businesses in check and protect the welfare of the state, but still allows room for the freedom to create and innovate is a superior model that we continue to tinker with. And one day we may have real free healthcare and our system will be a little better. But it will still be a democratic republic (which cannot exist in a communist state) and it will still be a limited, but powerful capitalist society.

 

[C. Lee]

A man worked as a gardner on a rich man's estate.

Every Monday night he went to a meeting of Communists....and for the rest of the week spoke to everyone he saw of how they were going to make a better world.

One week after the meeting he said nothing.

The next Monday he didn't go to the meeting.

Everyone was curious...and finally one asked why he didn't talk about it anymore.

He said....At the last meeting I went to, the speaker said that when we came to power we would take the money from everyone who had more than $10,000 in the bank and distribute it evenly among everyone, so that there would be no poor people.

The other guy said "That doesn't sound so bad."

The gardner said "But I have $11,000 in the bank."

 

[DACrowe]

Funny. I am not against taxing the rich more at an adjusted scale, but communism means there is no wealth in this country and as much as some like to paint their political opponents as such in this country, few believe that really.

 

[A&W]

Karl Marx argued communism to be a temporary thing. He very astutely pointed out how the upper class conspired with the middle and new rich of Bourgeoisie, who held most of the capital in the workforce, to keep the working poor or Proletariat down and poor. You have a working force of uneducated sheeple and then blame it on their own shortcomings or laziness in capitalism. You see that today with the reluctance in the '30s to give public schools free text books and pave roads in rural counties with tax dollars. On the Federal level the New Deal and social security was viewed as evil by the haves in society and divided the bourgeoisie of the time of what to do. It happens again with fanatical defense against medicare, Civil Rights Legislation and now healthcare. Many at the top view the poor as lazy and too stupid (this also feeds into racism and stereotypes about African Americans and hispanics in this country).


That is all fine and dandy and Marx does a great job of diagnosing, if in broad simplistic terms, the flaws and evils of capitalism. But his answer was terrible. Make everybody equal by removing the market and have the government put hte proletariat for a short time.

The idea is that they would equally distribute work and happiness among the commune and create stability. Then the government would dissolve itself and a nation or state would live in harmony.

That will never happen, because honestly there needs to be a government to regulate. People will always want more and even if you try to stifle competition and capitalistic urges, you are just forcing your state to be backward and fall behind on the global scale to the point where it will collapse under poverty. And people would always want more. AS you say, without government or police, people would walk all over each other. Well, that was Marx's endgame.

I always thought the part about dissolving the government was crazy. I think that was an example of Karl Marx putting too much faith in mankind.

But if you stay in a regulated communist society, the state runs everything. So the state is omnipotent. What does the state do? Hold elections to let the proletariat of the new era into power and be on the outside of who calls the shots? That is ridiculous.

I'm not sure what you mean by "be on the outside of who calls the shots?" I would prefer Representative Democracy.

The closest to Marixan ideals was the initial communist revolution in Russia. I can guarantee Lenin had no plans to dissolve the state. The beloved revolutionary Trotsky was not the psychopath that Stalin was (though he and Stalin did not begin on bad terms) or the murderous dictator. But he was all fine and dandy with killing for the good of the state and seeing the Soviet Union become an authoritative regime. He was never going to be the perfect leader that he is romanticized in, though he wouldn't have been the monster Stalin was. However, he would have oppressed his people and I suspect the state would have still taken those who didn't agree with them over.


When you put people in charge of everything, they will never relinquish that power and you must assume the state will simply allow people to be free without trying to control them, even if they control everything else.

In a democracy, you don't have to wait for somebody to relinquish their power. You only have to wait for their term to expire.

A communist state would economically ruin its country, especially in the increasingly globalized 21st century and it would lead to massive oppression. The state would have absolute power in communism.

I think today it would. But neither one of us have the economic data that will be available from 2010 to 2050. Things might be different then.

Imagine if we have government agencies producing all the goods and services we need. People buy these goods and services from the government for a fee based on how much they want or need. The profits go straight back to the government replacing taxes. People get paychecks in exchange for working. Business decisions are made for the purpose of benefiting the overall economy instead of just the individual business. These decisions are guided by economists. The people who make these decisions are elected officials.

In this form of communism, no not everybody would be equal, but we would be more equal than we are now. Right now the 1% richest Americans have more wealth than the other 99% combined.

This is just one form the future economy could take. It could also go the route of no money at all.

Why keep a series of checks and balances when you don't have to?

who says you don't have to?

That is why Marxism, despite its noble intentions, failed in history. It cites a real and disturbing problem, but his solution was a fantasy that will never be realized. I'm not arguing for pure capitalism which is a nightmare, but there is a grey area that the United States has been in for over a hundred years and for the most part it has been to our continual growth and overarching prosperity.

An inventor can fail a thousand times at trying to create something, before finally succeeds. It doesn't mean that technology was a fantasty that was never realized. I feel that communism is a futuristic option. One that requires a lot of advancement. I believe that is why it failed.

Comparitevely smaller social programs that keep the bourgeoisie or businesses in check and protect the welfare of the state, but still allows room for the freedom to create and innovate is a superior model that we continue to tinker with. And one day we may have real free healthcare and our system will be a little better. But it will still be a democratic republic (which cannot exist in a communist state) and it will still be a limited, but powerful capitalist society.

That is really not true at all. By definition a Communist state can not exist without being a democracy. If it's not a democracy than it's not communism.

edit... unless you mean a democratic republic can't exist in communism, but democracy can. Yes it is true that complete communism can not take the form of a republic.

 

[A&W]

In a few moments I will come back with two steps towards communism I'd like the United States to take right now.

I'm curious what people here will think about them.

 

[Backdrifter]

You need to spend more time reading about the millions upon millions of people that have been ruthlessly slaughtered under communist rule instead of listening to your college professors hock this crap.

Communism is an idealist fantasy that will never happen the way it is described. Ever. Come back to reality.

--------------------

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. - Ayn Rand

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -Ronald Reagan (1986)


A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. –Thomas Jefferson (1801)


The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. -Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948



In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. –Voltaire (1764)


Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen. - Ayn Rand


Businessmen are the one group that distinguishes capitalism and the American way of life from the totalitarian statism that is swallowing the rest of the world. All the other social groups- workers, farmers, professional men, scientists, soldiers- exist under dictatorships, even though they exist in chains, in terror, in misery, and in progressive self-destruction. But there is no such group as businessmen under a dictatorship. Their place is taken by armed thugs: by bureaucrats and commissars. Businessmen are the symbol of a free society- the symbol of America. - Ayn Rand


Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear. - Ayn Rand


It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both. This was the great American achievement—and if concern for the actual welfare of other nations were our present leaders' motive, this is what we should have been teaching the world. Instead, we are deluding the ignorant and the semi-savage by telling them that no political knowledge is necessary—that our system is only a matter of subjective preference—that any prehistorical form of tribal tyranny, gang rule, and slaughter will do just as well, with our sanction and support. It is thus that we encourage the spectacle of Algerian workers marching through the streets [in the 1962 Civil War] and shouting the demand: "Work, not blood!"—without knowing what great knowledge and virtue are required to achieve it. In the same way, in 1917, the Russian peasants were demanding: "Land and Freedom!" But Lenin and Stalin is what they got. In 1933, the Germans were demanding: "Room to live!" But what they got was Hitler. In 1793, the French were shouting: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!" What they got was Napoleon. In 1776, the Americans were proclaiming "The Rights of Man"—and, led by political philosophers, they achieved it. No revolution, no matter how justified, and no movement, no matter how popular, has ever succeeded without a political philosophy to guide it, to set its direction and goal. - Ayn Rand

 

[The Overlord]

You need to spend more time reading about the millions upon millions of people that have been ruthlessly slaughtered under communist rule instead of listening to your college professors hock this crap.

Communism is an idealist fantasy that will never happen the way it is described. Ever. Come back to reality.

--------------------

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. - Ayn Rand

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -Ronald Reagan (1986)


A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. –Thomas Jefferson (1801)


The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. -Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948



In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. –Voltaire (1764)


Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen. - Ayn Rand


Businessmen are the one group that distinguishes capitalism and the American way of life from the totalitarian statism that is swallowing the rest of the world. All the other social groups- workers, farmers, professional men, scientists, soldiers- exist under dictatorships, even though they exist in chains, in terror, in misery, and in progressive self-destruction. But there is no such group as businessmen under a dictatorship. Their place is taken by armed thugs: by bureaucrats and commissars. Businessmen are the symbol of a free society- the symbol of America. - Ayn Rand


Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear. - Ayn Rand


It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both. This was the great American achievement—and if concern for the actual welfare of other nations were our present leaders' motive, this is what we should have been teaching the world. Instead, we are deluding the ignorant and the semi-savage by telling them that no political knowledge is necessary—that our system is only a matter of subjective preference—that any prehistorical form of tribal tyranny, gang rule, and slaughter will do just as well, with our sanction and support. It is thus that we encourage the spectacle of Algerian workers marching through the streets [in the 1962 Civil War] and shouting the demand: "Work, not blood!"—without knowing what great knowledge and virtue are required to achieve it. In the same way, in 1917, the Russian peasants were demanding: "Land and Freedom!" But Lenin and Stalin is what they got. In 1933, the Germans were demanding: "Room to live!" But what they got was Hitler. In 1793, the French were shouting: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!" What they got was Napoleon. In 1776, the Americans were proclaiming "The Rights of Man"—and, led by political philosophers, they achieved it. No revolution, no matter how justified, and no movement, no matter how popular, has ever succeeded without a political philosophy to guide it, to set its direction and goal. - Ayn Rand

I think Rand views are just as much of an unrealistic pipe dream as Marx's were.

 

[A&W]

Okay the first is with energy, and I kind of wish the government would have started this a few years back because it would create the new jobs needed to replace the jobs we just lost. In a recession companies figure out new ways to be efficent with a smaller work force, so even when the economy comes back they still don't need to hire many of the workers they laid off. You need brand new jobs to replace them.

The government starts to spend a lot of money purchasing solar panels and putting them on rooftops of random homeowners who are willing to let them. Start with 20 billion one year, and then 40 the next year, and work your way up to a hundred billion a year on this right. Solar panels can now produce several times as much electricity as the average home consumes and under current law in most of the country your local utility has to buy your extra electricity from you.

Before I figured if you were lucky enough to be selected to have this on your house, all of the electricity this produces will generate revenue which will go straight back to the government untill the cost of the panel is paid off to give this program a neutral effect on the deficit. As of a few years ago the best solar panels on the market took 10 years to pay for themsleves.

I figured once it's paid off, the luckly homeowner gets to keep the solar panels free and they would benefit from this of course which is why so many people would be willing to accept them.

Now I would say you don't get to keep the electricity or the funds you get from selling it untill after the panel has paid for itself plus another 20% of the cost. So in essence the government would be selling energy and using the profits to help lower the deficit.

You announce ahead of time that 6 years from now a government contract for 70 billion a year for six years will go to whoever can give us the best bang for our buck. And six years later we will do the same thing to whoever can give us the best deal at that time. Offer a second prize of 20 billion and a third prize of 10 billion. You want to keep other producers of this in business to encourage competition to help make sure the government can get the best deal possible.

This would create a lot of jobs over several years, long lasting jobs that would continue in the new industry that would emerge. It would help lower the deficit, lower the costs of energy, help the environment, and it would help our forign policy dramatically. In addition other producers of energy might have to lower their price as well to compete. I'm not sure on that.

Obviously you would need regulation to get new cars to run on electricity, otherwise the supply of electricity would be so huge compared to the demand and the price would be so low that the program would never pay for itself and it would add hundreds of billions to our debt.

But continue this for about 2 decades and then let the free market take over.

That is one idea I had that I want our government to take. It is technically communism because the government would be selling us electricity, but it relies heavily on a lot of competition and private investment as well.

 

[A&W]

Backdrifter you need to realize something. I'm not an evil person that wants to slaughter and murder people. I'm not a hopeful dictator. I just have a different belief about how best to progress things. You need to stop stereotyping communists as a bunch of Saddam Husseins, and remember that capitalists governments have done the same things. Your post was offensive and insulting.

According to your logic nobody should ever be islamic because of the horrible things that have been done in the name of Islam or Christianity ect.

when it comes to Communism Ronald Raegen isn't the best guy to get your advice from. Honestly when it came to Communism Raegen was incredibly stupid and religous about it. Remember what he said about Medicare?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

"If we pass socialized medicine, one day in the future grandfathers will sit with their grandsons by the fire and talk about the good old days when men were free." Yeah decades later I really wish I lived back in his day. NOT!

 

[Kelly]

A&W, I think the problem with your hypothesis, as far as all that communism would do, is the fact that...there is no proof that it would do all that you say it would, yet you speak as if it is fact that it is guaranteed that it would all happen. You just don't know...

 

[A&W]

A&W, I think the problem with your hypothesis, as far as all that communism would do, is the fact that...there is no proof that it would do all that you say it would, yet you speak as if it is fact that it is guaranteed that it would all happen. You just don't know...

actually I've been saying exactly that. It all comes down to what the government proposes or does. If the government decides to hell with the constitution and declares a military state then that is what's going to happen. If the government decides not to, then it wont. This would belong in a thread debating whether or not democracy is desirable. It doesn't belong in the communism thread. Communism is an economic system.

I never said it was a fact any of this would happen. In fact I've been saying imagine this, imagine the possiblities we haven't thought ot, future generations might be able to figure out the details of what's best. We can't decide right now that the future will or wont be communist. ect.. I have said communism can take many forms such as public education like we already have in the United States. Well where is the dictatorship? Where is the brainwashing? Where is the government telling me what kind of underwear to wear? These people sound crazy talking about it.

I'm saying whenever a government proposes something that is communism in nature, you view it objectively without a preconceived prejudice against or in favor of communism or capitalism. You throw the "ism" out the window and judge each program or proposal on it's own two feet.

I never said we should be on a mission to make this entire country communist. I have said you take it one step at a time. If somebody proposes privatizing something and it sounds like a good idea I'll support it. If somebody supports a government action that sounds like communism and I think it's a good idea I'll support it.

These people are throwing out religous dogma from the Raegen era to make people hate communists and going completely over the top and out of this world. Kind of like those death panels were all going to end up on if we get the public option. They are going way out there.

I have repeatedly said communism can be good or bad. It comes down to what you do with it. It's kind of like guns. Can a gun be used to commit murder? yeah, but doesn't mean every gun ever produced will be used for it.

 

[A&W]

Nobody can gurantee that capitalism wont lead to a dictatorship can they? Or even something close to it, like oh I don't know, rich people bribing politicians so that the rich have all the power or most of it?

 

[Kelly]

We have quite a few years behind us where it didn't...and yes there is some of what you say, in all forms of government. Doesn't make us anywhere near a dictatorship...

 

[A&W]

Honestly I wish the words capitalism and communism and socialism didn't exist so people could debate things with more realism and they didn't have those terms to fall back on.

 

[A&W]

We have quite a few years behind us where it didn't...and yes there is some of what you say, in all forms of government. Doesn't make us anywhere near a dictatorship...

Actually this country was a monarchy back in the day. Originally the only people who could vote in this country were wealthy white men who owned land. A few had power over everybody else.

This is exactly what communists are opposed to and disgusted by. They believe in the elimination of such classes. They believe in equality, including equal access to vote for elected officials and equal opportunity to run and try to be elected.

This country became more and more democratic at the same time it became more and more socialized. Now I feel that is a mere coincedence because I don't feel the two are connected, but if I took the route of my opponents I wouldn't be admitting that it's not connected. I'd be blaming slavery, segregation, oppression of women on capitalism and free markets. It wouldn't be too difficult since the people who committed these atrocities were fiercely opposed to communism. But it would be dishonest of me to try and make that connection. That would be like saying we have to oppose mustaches because of Hitler.

It doesn't come down to whether the people in power support communism. It comes down to whether the poeple in power support dictatorships.

 

[Kelly]

Actually this country was a monarchy back in the day. Originally the only people who could vote in this country were wealthy white men who owned land. A few had power over everybody else.

This is exactly what communists are opposed to and disgusted by. They believe in the elimination of such classes. They believe in equality, including equal access to vote for elected officials and equal opportunity to run and try to be elected.

This country became more and more democratic at the same time it became more and more socialized. Now I feel that is a mere coincedence because I don't feel the two are connected, but if I took the route of my opponents I wouldn't be admitting that it's not connected. I'd be blaming slavery, segregation, oppression of women on capitalism and free markets. It wouldn't be too difficult since the people who committed these atrocities were fiercely opposed to communism. But it would be dishonest of me to try and make that connection. That would be like saying we have to oppose mustaches because of Hitler.

It doesn't come down to whether the people in power support communism. It comes down to whether the poeple in power support dictatorships.

None of this tells me, or proves to me that communism is nothing more than a short term fix. And you won't be able to prove that, because what communism started out as, was turned quite quickly to nothing more than a totalitarian government. Show me proof...

 

[Venom'sDad]

Many of you don't know how good you had it.

 

[A&W]

None of this tells me, or proves to me that communism is nothing more than a short term fix. And you won't be able to prove that, because what communism started out as, was turned quite quickly to nothing more than a totalitarian government. Show me proof...

well in the united states we have communism roads, schools, medicare, fire departments, social security ect. and it still hasn't turned into that. In some ways socialism can be compared to utolotitarianism in that we believe in the government doing what's best for society, but I don't believe in ignoring the needs of the few or the minority. I dont' believe in leaving people behind to slip through the cracks or suffer. I can't speak for every communist because not every communist is going to have the same views. Some people do believe it benefits the majority than it's acceptable to harm a small number of people. Those people probably fall into every categotry from conservatism to liberalism to facism.

Communist efforts can be a short fix or a long term fix. It depends on what it's intended to be and most importantly how well thought it is.

Public roads and schools weren't a short term fix. They were long term. The bail out? Yeah that was short term, but I wish it would have been done differently. I don't like that these companies can just pay us back the money and be done with it. I wish we had permenent part ownership of these companies so some of the profits they make each month for years to come could go back in the hands of the tax payers and take care of some of our debt for us.

My post you quoted was not intended to prove that communism was a long term fix. It was intended to dissolve the connection you made between dictators and communists. This connection is nothing more than a stereotype. It's like comparing mustaches to holocausts.

I provided an example of an extremely anti communism, anti big government, pro capitalism society was was extremely oppressive and anti democratic.

 

[Backdrifter]

The level of ignorance in this thread is appalling.

 

[A&W]

basically what I'm trying to say is that something isn't automatically a bad thing just because it's communism. How many people here feel that NASA was an infringement upon freedom? How many people feel it's an investment in the short term and not the long term?

how many feel that capitalists are investing in the long term prosperity of this country and not the short term prosperity of their own bank accounts?

 

[Kelly]

I see it as a mixed market economy...you see it however you want.....that's cool.