View Full Version : Communist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjljgI5YzvU
I hate vids. What's on it?
Hi, I'm a consumer, and I'm a communist. :sarcastic:
I hate vids. What's on it?
Idiots.
Cagemonkey
11-18-10, 20:41
DISGUSTING! Cold War ends and a decade later the Commies are coming out of the closet. Many years ago, these idiots would have J.E. Hoover and the FBI on they're ass. This country is going to shit.
Bolt_Overide
11-18-10, 22:14
These "enlightened" liberal ****s thinking communism is cool are really starting to wear...
Belmont31R
11-18-10, 22:23
Funny half of them appear to be non-native English speakers.
The other half appear to be nasties who haven't bathed in a month.
RancidSumo
11-18-10, 22:42
This
Idiots.
and this
Funny half of them appear to be non-native English speakers.
The other half appear to be nasties who haven't bathed in a month.
Accurately sum up that video and let you know everything you need to know about this whole movement.
I did enjoy the two highest rated comments on the video though.
I don't really get the whole communist revolution thing. you seize the "means of production" from the top 10%, then you turn it over to the ruling 1% :confused:
I don't really get the whole communist revolution thing. you seize the "means of production" from the top 10%, then you turn it over to the ruling 1% :confused:
Communism = poverty for all but the top 1%. It's all about equality... well accept for those at the top :D
Belmont31R
11-19-10, 00:17
Communism = poverty, death, starvation, and tyranny for all but the top 1%. It's all about equality... well accept for those at the top :D
Mao and Stalin killed more people than Hitler and Japan.
arizonaranchman
11-19-10, 02:25
Yep, there was a day not so long ago when these maggots hid in the woodwork cuz they were hunted down like the dogs they are. Wish it was still the case.
"I'd rather be killing communists" would be a great bumper sticker.
ChicagoTex
11-19-10, 02:51
DISGUSTING! Cold War ends and a decade later the Commies are coming out of the closet. Many years ago, these idiots would have J.E. Hoover and the FBI on they're ass. This country is going to shit.
Yep, there was a day not so long ago when these maggots hid in the woodwork cuz they were hunted down like the dogs they are. Wish it was still the case.
"I'd rather be killing communists" would be a great bumper sticker.
Since when do people excercising their constitutional rights to believe in a different form of economy/government warrant federal harassment, juvenile deprecation, and violence?
I, for one, use the fact that the American Communist Party is alive and relatively well as a metric for the fact that the 1st Amendment still counts in this country. I don't endorse them in any way, but I'm damn proud to live in a country where they're allowed to believe they want to believe publicly.
To suggest that people deserve harm for their beliefs (flawed or otherwise) is literally the least American thing I can think of.
arizonaranchman
11-19-10, 03:51
Communism has murdered people by the tens of millions in the past century. It's no different than the Nazi's, just slightly different variation in philosophy. I see no reason to give them quarter here to promote what eventually evolves into iron fisted dictatorship and mass graves.
Our tolerance of terrorists, communists, etc is going to cost us our very nation one of these days. In fact communist/liberals are in the process at this very moment of destroying this nation right before our eyes.
The bumper sticker comment was said tongue in cheek, but these people are no joke. They don't believe in American principles, they believe in an iron fisted State. Go spend a year or two in North Korea and see if you still feel like we should entertain communists. They're utterly repugnant and deserve no quarter anywhere on earth.
I didn't see the video the OP linked, so maybe I'm out of context here. I'm not talking about dorks in Birkenstocks on college campuses I'm talking about communist/fascist nations that slaughter their citizens by the millions, enslave them, etc. They're enemies of humanity.
Since when do people excercising their constitutional rights to believe in a different form of economy/government warrant federal harassment, juvenile deprecation, and violence?
I, for one, use the fact that the American Communist Party is alive and relatively well as a metric for the fact that the 1st Amendment still counts in this country. I don't endorse them in any way, but I'm damn proud to live in a country where they're allowed to believe they want to believe publicly.
To suggest that people deserve harm for their beliefs (flawed or otherwise) is literally the least American thing I can think of.
in your justification then homegrown terrorists also get your respect after all its their right to believe in the destruction of our country and the killing of citizens
guess the rest of us should learn from you !
yeah not supporting communism and the destruction of our country and way of life ? thats so un American
sorry their are some things we fight to keep away from our country and communism is one of them !
ChicagoTex
11-19-10, 05:15
Communism has murdered people by the tens of millions in the past century. has murdered people by the tens of millions in the past century.
Your premise is fundamentally flawed. It wasn't Communism (or even Nationalism) itself that murdered people, but the abusive and corrupt psuedo-despots who manipulated the system for their own terrible ends.
For what it's worth, my main objection to Communism is that it's extremely vulnerable to such corruption (much more so than Socialism, Republicanism, or Democracy anyway). In a perfect world, Communism is a delightful system - it just didn't work out that well in practice.
Nevertheless, attributing the muderous actions of a given regime in power in a Communist (or any other form of government) country to that country's form of government is precisely akin to claiming that people don't kill people and that their guns do. It's ass-backwards thinking.
I didn't see the video the OP linked, so maybe I'm out of context here. I'm not talking about dorks in Birkenstocks on college campuses I'm talking about communist/fascist nations that slaughter their citizens by the millions, enslave them, etc. They're enemies of humanity.
The people in the video do basically amount to a bunch of college students and staff who don't actually say anything besides "I'm so and so, I like to do the following normal stuff, and I'm a Communist" (Which, to be honest, makes me wonder if these people even really know what it means to be a Communist, but I digress...) Bottom line: These aren't the murderers you're looking for.
As to those who are, I share your sense of condemnation - I ask only that you recognize that the people perpetuating horrors against mankind are the ones to blame, and not the systems of government they choose to abuse to get there.
in your justification then homegrown terrorists also get your respect after all its their right to believe in the destruction of our country and the killing of citizens
First, to make things crystal clear here, a terrorist is someone who commits an act (or a demonstrably provable plan to act) of violence for the specific purpose of destablizing a region, government, or way of life. Someone who chooses to embrace a faith or a set of beliefs that claims that I, for whatever reason, should die a thousand deaths and burn in the fires of hell for all eternity is not a terrorist, a criminal, or a threat unless and until they try to DO something about it.
I have had people tell me point blank that God will strike me down and that I will suffer unimaginably for all eternity, and then left me to be on my way. While I revile that outlook, they have a right to believe it as long as they make no attempt to harm me.
Oh, look, that's exactly how the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as well. Funny that.
So... I guess the question becomes, are you willing to destory a fundamental right explicitly detailed in our U.S. Constitution in order to preserve your narrow concept of what America "should be", or will you elect to take America as it is and stop trying to make thoughtcrime a reality?
arizonaranchman
11-19-10, 05:49
Tex,
I agree with you in "believe or think what you want". In my rant against communism I wasn't speaking of the college dorks who usually haven't the foggiest idea of what communism really means or it's bloodstained history, they just chant it cuz they're ignorant and it's in "vogue" these days to be a communist.
I'm sitting here trying to think of a communist nation that was successful. I can't think of any at all, and most if not all that come to mind were varying only in their degrees of cruelty and malice towards humanity.
In a pure/theoretical sense perhaps a communist society might be successful, but in all attempts so far in the real world it evolves into enslavement by the millions and even death by the millions in many cases.
Communists, Nazis, etc are folks we should have a basic intolerance for in my opinion. They can take their beliefs elsewhere and enjoy the very communism they worship in real life.
Carry on and have a great day! :)
ChicagoTex
11-19-10, 08:15
I'm sitting here trying to think of a communist nation that was successful. I can't think of any at all, and most if not all that come to mind were varying only in their degrees of cruelty and malice towards humanity.
In a pure/theoretical sense perhaps a communist society might be successful, but in all attempts so far in the real world it evolves into enslavement by the millions and even death by the millions in many cases.
Oh, like I said, Communism works very poorly in real-world practice. I'm not suggesting that any one SUPPORT the American Communist party - just saying we should recognize that they have a right to be here like the rest of us.
Communists, Nazis, etc are folks we should have a basic intolerance for in my opinion. They can take their beliefs elsewhere and enjoy the very communism they worship in real life.
As demonstrated by the recent incident with the Westboro Baptist Church in southern Oklahoma, there are plenty of American methods for intolerance which are entirely legal and constitutional - namely the refusal of business and social exclusion. If you choose to express your intolerance in manners such as these, I have no issue with you. It's only when it crosses the threshold of violence and/or governmental persecution that I, and the U.S. Constitution take exception.
Carry on and have a great day!
And the same to you, sir. :)
ChicagoTex, gotta disagree with you on this one, at least partially.
Communism, as a system NEVER does anything but suck. It just cannot work.
And because the system is so intrinsically inconsistent with reality, sooner or later the proponents of it HAVE to murder everyone who disagrees with them, and them.
Any system that is so conflicted cannot survive, unless enforced with brute force.
Belmont31R
11-19-10, 09:43
Exactly. Communism is not a natural order of how human beings can live so it has to be forced onto a society. That means jailing people who fight against it, killing them, mass propaganda and brainwashing, ect.
You always hear the excuse that prior examples weren't really "true" communism, and aren't examples that it doesnt work or leads to mass murder. Thats a crock of shit. Communism has to be forced. Opponents have to be squashed. Its happened in ~every communist country. South America, Asia, Russia, ect. A communist nation/government was always proceeded by mass murder and purges of the opposition.
GermanSynergy
11-19-10, 12:32
The American Communist Party should be treated the same as Al Qaida, Hezbollah and a variety of other groups that want to subvert, undermine & destroy the American way of life. Permitting a group which openly calls for the destruction of our liberties to raise funds and operate with impunity is unwise, IMHO. I say the same about the various Nazi organizations.
They exist solely to deprive fellow citizens of their rights (based on race,creed,religion,national origin or economic status), and it's high time that being called a Communist carries the negative stigma that it did in the 1950's. My family in Europe suffered greatly as a direct result of Nazi/Communist rule, so I know what these people are about. They're either useful idiots, or plain evil.
We don't want them in this country, tell them to go to Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam or North Korea for all I care.
RancidSumo
11-19-10, 13:29
Your premise is fundamentally flawed. It wasn't Communism (or even Nationalism) itself that murdered people, but the abusive and corrupt psuedo-despots who manipulated the system for their own terrible ends.
For what it's worth, my main objection to Communism is that it's extremely vulnerable to such corruption (much more so than Socialism, Republicanism, or Democracy anyway). In a perfect world, Communism is a delightful system - it just didn't work out that well in practice.
Nevertheless, attributing the muderous actions of a given regime in power in a Communist (or any other form of government) country to that country's form of government is precisely akin to claiming that people don't kill people and that their guns do. It's ass-backwards thinking.
The people in the video do basically amount to a bunch of college students and staff who don't actually say anything besides "I'm so and so, I like to do the following normal stuff, and I'm a Communist" (Which, to be honest, makes me wonder if these people even really know what it means to be a Communist, but I digress...) Bottom line: These aren't the murderers you're looking for.
As to those who are, I share your sense of condemnation - I ask only that you recognize that the people perpetuating horrors against mankind are the ones to blame, and not the systems of government they choose to abuse to get there.
First, to make things crystal clear here, a terrorist is someone who commits an act (or a demonstrably provable plan to act) of violence for the specific purpose of destablizing a region, government, or way of life. Someone who chooses to embrace a faith or a set of beliefs that claims that I, for whatever reason, should die a thousand deaths and burn in the fires of hell for all eternity is not a terrorist, a criminal, or a threat unless and until they try to DO something about it.
I have had people tell me point blank that God will strike me down and that I will suffer unimaginably for all eternity, and then left me to be on my way. While I revile that outlook, they have a right to believe it as long as they make no attempt to harm me.
Oh, look, that's exactly how the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as well. Funny that.
So... I guess the question becomes, are you willing to destory a fundamental right explicitly detailed in our U.S. Constitution in order to preserve your narrow concept of what America "should be", or will you elect to take America as it is and stop trying to make thoughtcrime a reality?
I take issue with the bolded statement. The only way that you can possibly believe that communism is great in theory is if you have literally ZERO respect for basic human rights. Even in theory it violates peoples' rights by its very nature. It disgusts me when I hear/see people say that.
Screw the communist party. My litle sister was being indocrinated by them, being led like alittle sheep. I had to step in and do some serious work to get her back to reality, and un-brainwashed from what those idiots imbeded in her head.
I got into several arguments with them, including some physical altercations as well. They told me I was brainwashing my own sister from the truth:mad:.
The peace they always like to preach doesn't fall in-line with their actions. I was attacked on several occassions by multiple "communists" (I was actually happy they did, I wante to assualt them real bad, but held back, so getting hit and legally being able to pummel the idiots was just great!:D).
They know not what communism even is; they just preach bad information that was forced into their brains.
I even had one of them claim that Jesus was a communist and that is why we all should be...:rolleyes:
EDITED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
Just to be clear on this; I hate commies more than most, but that doesn't take away their rights to be idiots and believe what they want; no matter how ignorant and mislead they may be. THis is America, where, if by chance you wish to be a ****ing idiot without a clue, you can because you have men and woman who are willing to fight and die for you to do so. I hate the commies like I hate the westboro ****s, but they have their rights too, and I would never suspend those rights willfully; just as I would never allow others to suspen mine willfully.
Your premise is fundamentally flawed. It wasn't Communism (or even Nationalism) itself that murdered people, but the abusive and corrupt psuedo-despots who manipulated the system for their own terrible ends.
For what it's worth, my main objection to Communism is that it's extremely vulnerable to such corruption (much more so than Socialism, Republicanism, or Democracy anyway). In a perfect world, Communism is a delightful system - it just didn't work out that well in practice.
No it isn't a delightful system, even in a perfect world. Your opinion often expressed when one looks at communist's motto of " everybody contributes according to their abilities, everybody takes according to their needs". However, according to communist theory (not practice but theory as outlined in seminal communist texts), the above goals are achieved by severe limitations of private property, nixing ANY inheritance, global centralization of finances, infrastructure, communications etc. as means of achieving equality. Some here may have problem with calling this delightful, even under most ideal non-corrupt circumstances.
You're correct in that people erroneously equate mass-murder and tyranny of totalitarian regimes with true theory of communism. However, it is also hard to argue that many principles of communism lend themselves very well to becoming starting points of said tyrannies.
ChicagoTex
11-19-10, 17:12
Communism is not a natural order of how human beings can live so it has to be forced onto a society.
To one extent or another, all forms of centralized government are unnatural. They are the synthetic constructs of man and all involve social contracts where one compromises oneself for the greater good - the variable is the terms of the contract. I will very freely grant that Communism is one of the most extensive and personally restrictive batch of social contracts out there, but to argue that it is specifically "unnatural" suggest the obvious implication that other forms of centralized government are, and that simply doesn't make sense to me.
But maybe I'm getting boiled down in semantics. If what you're really trying to say is basically that Communism crosses the line into fundamental individual intolerability, then that's not a point I'm equipped or inclined to argue against.
You always hear the excuse that prior examples weren't really "true" communism, and aren't examples that it doesnt work or leads to mass murder. Thats a crock of shit.
I personally feel that it is and it isn't. On the one hand, it's obvious to me that past and current examples of Communism in the world are dominated by substantial corruption and idealogical perversion at every level, but on the other hand I feel I have no reason to believe that anyone else on Earth applying it would fare any better (at least on something as large as a country-wide scale). So, while I don't really agree with your fundamental premise, I'm certainly not attempting to make the argument that "next time will be different".
Communism is clearly a failed system, but I believe it to be so because it's function requires the full and true dedication of every member of a Communist society. People make poor robots, however, so it simply doesn't work on any kind of practical level.
Your opinion often expressed when one looks at communist's motto of " everybody contributes according to their abilities, everybody takes according to their needs". However, according to communist theory (not practice but theory as outlined in seminal communist texts), the above goals are achieved by severe limitations of private property, nixing ANY inheritance, global centralization of finances, infrastructure, communications etc. as means of achieving equality. Some here may have problem with calling this delightful, even under most ideal non-corrupt circumstances.
This is a fair point. Peoples' personal values and priorities differ and to make the blanket statement that Communism, even in it's pure utopian thereotical state, was a worthwhile system for everyone was overassumptive of me. So I will instead revise my statement to say that to many, including myself, idealized Communism would still be a delightful system. For those that feel otherwise, we'll have to chalk it up to "agree to disagree" and call it a day. Either way you cut it, Communism would certainly be an inappropriate choice for America.
You're correct in that people erroneously equate mass-murder and tyranny of totalitarian regimes with true theory of communism. However, it is also hard to argue that many principles of communism lend themselves very well to becoming starting points of said tyrannies.
I can't think of one communist state that is/was flourishing and not executing opponents en masse.
Belmont31R
11-19-10, 17:37
To one extent or another, all forms of centralized government are unnatural. They are the synthetic constructs of man and all involve social contracts where one compromises oneself for the greater good - the variable is the terms of the contract. I will very freely grant that Communism is one of the most extensive and personally restrictive batch of social contracts out there, but to argue that it is specifically "unnatural" suggest the obvious implication that other forms of centralized government are, and that simply doesn't make sense to me.
But maybe I'm getting boiled down in semantics. If what you're really trying to say is basically that Communism crosses the line into fundamental individual intolerability, then that's not a point I'm equipped or inclined to argue against.
I personally feel that it is and it isn't. On the one hand, it's obvious to me that past and current examples of Communism in the world are dominated by substantial corruption and idealogical perversion at every level, but on the other hand I feel I have no reason to believe that anyone else on Earth applying it would fare any better (at least on something as large as a country-wide scale). So, while I don't really agree with your fundamental premise, I'm certainly not attempting to make the argument that "next time will be different".
Communism is clearly a failed system, but I believe it to be so because it's function requires the full and true dedication of every member of a Communist society. People make poor robots, however, so it simply doesn't work on any kind of practical level.
When our country was founded we didn't have a centralized government. The feds were intentionally left out of most governing functions, and the majority of their role was left to international issues to represent the sovereign states as a whole. If you look at section 1-8 the majority of the powers of Congress deal with things that relate to outside of our country. The military was to be used outside of the country. The domestic issues were there to conjoin the states like a single currency, regulating trade between the states. The feds were not supposed to be able to dictate things within a single state.
We also have free elections, and the people in this country can choose their own way in life. As far as government goes our founders thought all government was bad but you needed the smallest amount of it possible to avoid anarchy. Past that was off limits.
Our governing system was setup to not intrude on a persons daily life, and our laws were there so each person could exercise their rights in a free society without being infringed upon by others. Communism jumps that by leaps and bounds regulating a persons daily life, and stripping them of any rights. Everything in society is dictated. If you speak out you'll be jailed or shot. No one owns anything. Your life is not yours but owned by the state and if you resist what they have planned for you then they'd just as soon shoot you. Look at how Soviet troops were treated in WW2. They had about an equal chance of being shot by the Germans as they did their own people.
The problem with saying communism is good on paper is that whats on paper doesn't account for human nature. Therefore the whole "theory" thing is flawed from the start. I prefer to judge communism based on real life examples that take all factors into account. That includes a mass murder event preceding a communist take over, extreme paranoia by the state against any perceived internal threats, corruption, ect. Just like 100% capitalism turns out to have child labor, slave wages, ect. On paper capitalism is a different animal than real life examples. A functioning society needs a minimum amount of law to function but that can be accomplished without infringing on people's rights, liberties, and self destiny. Even if you look at societies that are very basic in nature they establish their own internal rules and code of conduct basically. Its natural for a group of people to establish a basic set of rules which is what we had in our founding. That has been perverted to what we have today which is basically a half socialist half capitalistic society. The socialist side feeds off the capitalist side because socialism is dependent on someone elses money.
I can't think of one communist state that is/was flourishing and not executing opponents en masse.
In strict sense of communist theory, not a single communist state has ever existed. Even during "best years" of USSR, the Soviet political theorist admitted that communism has not been achieved (doh), and viewed socialism as an intermediate step towards communism. Hence, USSR stood for union of soviet Socialist, not communist, republics.
As I said, communist ideas make a great, if not the best, medium for totalitarian governments to rise. Nowhere in Communist Manifesto it says "kill millions of own citizens on your way to communism" - as opposed to, for example, Nazi theory of German race superiority and need for racial cleansing. The common denominator here is not the underlying theory, but its practical execution resulting in totalitarian governments intolerant of opposition and resistance, in turn leading to mass murder.
Belmont31R
11-19-10, 18:34
In strict sense of communist theory, not a single communist state has ever existed. Even during "best years" of USSR, the Soviet political theorist admitted that communism has not been achieved (doh), and viewed socialism as an intermediate step towards communism. Hence, USSR stood for union of soviet Socialist, not communist, republics.
As I said, communist ideas make a great, if not the best, medium for totalitarian governments to rise. Nowhere in Communist Manifesto it says "kill millions of own citizens on your way to communism" - as opposed to, for example, Nazi theory of German race superiority and need for racial cleansing. The common denominator here is not the underlying theory, but its practical execution resulting in totalitarian governments intolerant of opposition and resistance, in turn leading to mass murder.
The only way for a communist state to rise is to kill people.
Its impossible without it.
arizonaranchman
11-19-10, 19:04
Screw the communist party. My litle sister was being indocrinated by them, being led like alittle sheep. I had to step in and do some serious work to get her back to reality, and un-brainwashed from what those idiots imbeded in her head.
I got into several arguments with them, including some physical altercations as well. They told me I was brainwashing my own sister from the truth:mad:.
The peace they always like to preach doesn't fall in-line with their actions. I was attacked on several occassions by multiple "communists" (I was actually happy they did, I wante to assualt them real bad, but held back, so getting hit and legally being able to pummel the idiots was just great!:D).
They know not what communism even is; they just preach bad information that was forced into their brains.
I even had one of them claim that Jesus was a communist and that is why we all should be...:rolleyes:
You're my Hero! Kicking communists' a$$es... hehe
The only way for a communist state to rise is to kill people.
Its impossible without it.
It is an assumption, probably accurate, but since, as I said, from strict theoretical sense a communist state never existed, it would remain to be an assumption.
I would word it this way: the only way for a totalitarian state to rise is to kill people. Every state that ever used communist ideas as its backbone turned totalitarian, and killed people.
Whether it is practically possible to build a communist state without overt and oppressive totalitarian rule - I don't know, never been done, not sure I want to know...
GermanSynergy
11-19-10, 19:25
I find it amazing that Communism, even in theory, is being defended by some here. It's an inhuman system that feeds off the blood of the innocent. No Communist government has ever come to power without a sea of blood following the "revolution".
How many Americans have died fighting these bastards since 1945?
I find it amazing that Communism, even in theory, is being defended by some here. It's an inhuman system that feeds off the blood of the innocent. No Communist government has ever come to power without a sea of blood following the "revolution".
How many Americans have died fighting these bastards since 1945?
People will defend any theory, as long as there is a way to separate said theory with its practical application. More so, if you had a true communist here, he'd pick a fight with you just using your post above. "Capitalism is an ihuman system that feeds of sweat of the innocent [oppressed workers]", "how's sea of blood during revolution is different from sea of blood during Civil war?" etc. Heard that before, a lot.
OK folks, I've had to study communism more than I ever cared for, and, worse, I had to live it, or its "transitional" phase. Recalling all that puts me in bad mood, I am done with this thread.
GermanSynergy
11-19-10, 19:43
Arguing with a Communist is alot like teaching a chimpanzee to recite Shakespeare. You piss off the chimp, and end up frustrating youself in the process.
Communists are enemies of the Unites States, same as AQ, Hezbollah and other groups that want to destroy our way of life.
People will defend any theory, as long as there is a way to separate said theory with its practical application. More so, if you had a true communist here, he'd pick a fight with you just using your post above. "Capitalism is an ihuman system that feeds of sweat of the innocent [oppressed workers]", "how's sea of blood during revolution is different from sea of blood during Civil war?" etc. Heard that before, a lot.
OK folks, I've had to study communism more than I ever cared for, and, worse, I had to live it, or its "transitional" phase. Recalling all that puts me in bad mood, I am done with this thread.
In a perfect world, Communism is a delightful system...
Why do people always make this kind of statement about Communism?
There is no such thing as a perfect world, and no evidence that Communism would be delightful if there was.
The retards in the video would be some of the first put against a wall and shot if a Communist revolution ever took place. Most of them are Communists because of a psychological defect requiring them to buck the system and that doesn't go over well in a Communist State.
Alaskapopo
11-19-10, 19:57
DISGUSTING! Cold War ends and a decade later the Commies are coming out of the closet. Many years ago, these idiots would have J.E. Hoover and the FBI on they're ass. This country is going to shit.
You mean the Red Scare when good people were persecuted for their political beliefs or for even being suspected of having differing political beliefs. Sorry but those were dark times not something to remember and be proud of. In this country we are all free to hold whatever political views we want.
Pat
These "enlightened" liberal ****s thinking communism is cool are really starting to wear...
Just because it has failed miserably each and every time it has been attempted for the last 100 years doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
:sarcastic:
We should have an exchange program with China and Cuba where we trade our "wannabe" communists for their "wannabe" capitalists. We could use some more people with a work ethic who understand what the hell they are talking about.
You mean the Red Scare when good people were persecuted for their political beliefs or for even being suspected of having differing political beliefs. Sorry but those were dark times not something to remember and be proud of. In this country we are all free to hold whatever political views we want.
Pat
Wasn't all "good people" who were persecuted, and as it turns out a lot of those "good people" were communist after all. It is however a shame that there were "innocent people" who got caught up in it. But that is nothing new and the number of innocent people caught up in our "red scare" pales in comparison to the numbers of "innocent people" caught up in the failures of other governments throughout the world at the same time.
Hell just 20 years prior when we were dabbling in Roosevelt socialism we were sterilizing US citizens as part of our eugenics program.
Funny thing is... I was raise in a partially communist society that worked. For a while, at least. Our extended family has held farm equipment "in common" for generations, and we shared in both gains and losses in our ag ventures. In the end, though, corporate farming did a much, much, much better job of keeping use competitive and ensuring family survival.
It also cut down on the amount of family squabbles, as disagreements would arise that would also persist for generations. The corporate structure, at least in our example was superior to the commune system, in that it set concrete and obtainable goals and limits to our efforts, and was fairer in rewarding effort, and did a much better job of determining division of labor.
My Uncle is still a better money manager than my dad, and my dad is still a superior farmer; now, with corporate roles that assign those positions, the former fights have become job description and both prosper more.
Alaskapopo
11-19-10, 20:56
Wasn't all "good people" who were persecuted, and as it turns out a lot of those "good people" were communist after all. It is however a shame that there were "innocent people" who got caught up in it. But that is nothing new and the number of innocent people caught up in our "red scare" pales in comparison to the numbers of "innocent people" caught up in the failures of other governments throughout the world at the same time.
Hell just 20 years prior when we were dabbling in Roosevelt socialism we were sterilizing US citizens as part of our eugenics program.
So they were communist that was no reason to persecute them. Your political views do not make you a good or bad person. I have friends who are right wing Republicans and I have friends that are left leaning Democrats. They are all good people even though they don't agree. Persecuting Communists is no more acceptable to persecute a Republican right wing extremist or a liberal Democrat. This country was founded on freedom. We are free to chose the political parties we want no matter how un popular. I am not saying communism is the way to go but they do not deserve persecution and they enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of us.
Pat
Belmont31R
11-19-10, 21:26
It is an assumption, probably accurate, but since, as I said, from strict theoretical sense a communist state never existed, it would remain to be an assumption.
I would word it this way: the only way for a totalitarian state to rise is to kill people. Every state that ever used communist ideas as its backbone turned totalitarian, and killed people.
Whether it is practically possible to build a communist state without overt and oppressive totalitarian rule - I don't know, never been done, not sure I want to know...
You can create anything in theory. A more realistic approach to looking at communism is how its actually been practiced or at least attempted.
Capitalism on paper doesn't say anything about child labor but thats what occurs without a government check. I don't think unchecked capitalism is great or try to defend it. Im about as libertarian as they come (little l) and I still see the reasoning in a little bit of government.
Belmont31R
11-19-10, 21:32
So they were communist that was no reason to persecute them. Your political views do not make you a good or bad person. I have friends who are right wing Republicans and I have friends that are left leaning Democrats. They are all good people even though they don't agree. Persecuting Communists is no more acceptable to persecute a Republican right wing extremist or a liberal Democrat. This country was founded on freedom. We are free to chose the political parties we want no matter how un popular. I am not saying communism is the way to go but they do not deserve persecution and they enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of us.
Pat
You can believe whatever political views you want but if you turn those views into sedition then yes you can be prosecuted. You're attempting to bring down our way of life and freely elected government.
I would count a lot of acts by communists in our country as being seditious in nature. Its they only way they can bring communism to the US.
Its one thing to disagree with a politician or political party buts its another thing entirely to subvert the system and government to go around said system and government to instill or coerce in another system or government. Thats not legal, and has been a common law for centuries.
GermanSynergy
11-19-10, 21:54
Well said. Think of them as a Trojan Horse, using our freedoms to usurp and destroy us.
You can believe whatever political views you want but if you turn those views into sedition then yes you can be prosecuted. You're attempting to bring down our way of life and freely elected government.
I would count a lot of acts by communists in our country as being seditious in nature. Its they only way they can bring communism to the US.
Its one thing to disagree with a politician or political party buts its another thing entirely to subvert the system and government to go around said system and government to instill or coerce in another system or government. Thats not legal, and has been a common law for centuries.
ChicagoTex
11-19-10, 22:12
You can believe whatever political views you want but if you turn those views into sedition then yes you can be prosecuted. You're attempting to bring down our way of life and freely elected government.
I would count a lot of acts by communists in our country as being seditious in nature. Its they only way they can bring communism to the US.
What acts would those be, exactly? And no, you can't use this as an excuse to pretend Obama is a communist. I'm talking about official, clear, declared Communists in America - what is it that they have actually DONE that is "seditious in nature"?
using our freedoms to usurp and destroy us.
That's one of the prices of freedom. You either accept it, or forfeit your freedom in the name of "security".
Alaskapopo
11-19-10, 22:13
You can believe whatever political views you want but if you turn those views into sedition then yes you can be prosecuted. You're attempting to bring down our way of life and freely elected government.
I would count a lot of acts by communists in our country as being seditious in nature. Its they only way they can bring communism to the US.
Its one thing to disagree with a politician or political party buts its another thing entirely to subvert the system and government to go around said system and government to instill or coerce in another system or government. Thats not legal, and has been a common law for centuries.
The Communists are free to participate in the political system just like any other party its not sedition to nonimate a canidate and have them run for office.
People are way too emotional about this. Emotion and not logic is what caused the Red Scare. You don't have to like other poltical parties but you do need to have tolerance and live and let live.
Pure Capitalism is just is bad just in different ways.
Pat
Belmont31R
11-19-10, 22:27
What acts would those be, exactly? And no, you can't use this as an excuse to pretend Obama is a communist. I'm talking about official, clear, declared Communists in America - what is it that they have actually DONE that is "seditious in nature"?
That's one of the prices of freedom. You either accept it, or forfeit your freedom in the name of "security".
SDS and AFL-CIO for starters.
I already said things like poltical differences are fine. You can believe whatever you want. But if you abuse your rights to bring down the government or our way of life its sedition.
You can also do things that are treasonous such as sending care packages to our enemies like the bay area libtards did in the 60's.
Just like free speech stops at inciting violence or a riot. You cant use free speech or political acts to bring down the government.
Your rights (all of ours) are subject to some restrictions.
So they were communist that was no reason to persecute them. Your political views do not make you a good or bad person. I have friends who are right wing Republicans and I have friends that are left leaning Democrats. They are all good people even though they don't agree. Persecuting Communists is no more acceptable to persecute a Republican right wing extremist or a liberal Democrat. This country was founded on freedom. We are free to chose the political parties we want no matter how un popular. I am not saying communism is the way to go but they do not deserve persecution and they enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of us.
Pat
Umm Communist is not the same as Democrat and Republican. Communist is more like National Socialist. More importantly, these weren't just misguided idiots with unrealistic Utopian beliefs. These were communists who were part of a conspiracy to infiltrate several areas of society to promote a communist agenda with the goal of communist revolution in this country.
So that makes them more or less the same as the dangerous "nazi" guys the SPLC is always going after with the exception that the communist conspiracy was larger, better entrenched and with much more intelligent agents who are far more effective. Let's not forget how Stalin got the bomb and who gave it to him. Certainly wasn't members of the American Bund.
And a writer or play write is certainly free to subscribe to a communist philosophy, but that doesn't mean nobody is allowed to use it against him or as a reason to not hire him. We do that to people who subscribe to a KKK philosophy all the time. But if and when he seeks to help install a communist government, or support a plot to do so, in this country he does in fact become an enemy of this country and should be treated accordingly.
If an American wants communism, they should move to a communist country.
What acts would those be, exactly? And no, you can't use this as an excuse to pretend Obama is a communist. I'm talking about official, clear, declared Communists in America - what is it that they have actually DONE that is "seditious in nature"?
Oh gee I don't know. How about communists like Klaus Fuchs giving Stalin the atomic bomb? How about people like the Rosenbergs establishing an organization for the delivery of US military secrets to Stalin?
Simple things like that which almost came to a head during minor events like the Cuban Missile Crisis which could have resulted in the complete destruction of this county.
I think things like that qualify.
The Communists are free to participate in the political system just like any other party its not sedition to nonimate a canidate and have them run for office.
Pat
You are correct, Communists are FREE to participate in the American election process. What they are NOT allowed to do is violate the US Constitution which does important things like keep us from becoming a communist country. They aren't allowed to do that even if they WIN the election. That is because we aren't a pure democracy.
So you are correct, they are allowed to waste their time participating in an election process in a country that prohibits most of the communist agenda regardless of the outcome of those elections.
It is when they attempt to implement parts of their agenda, in violation of Constitutional restrictions, that they become criminals and domestic enemies.
And it is hardly emotion, it is understanding exactly what communism is and having well founded fears of idiots who think it would be a good idea here. And it is the proponents of communism (who usually lack a realistic appreciation for what it actually is) who tend to be driven by emotion rather than reason.
ChicagoTex
11-19-10, 23:23
Oh gee I don't know. How about communists like Klaus Fuchs giving Stalin the atomic bomb? How about people like the Rosenbergs establishing an organization for the delivery of US military secrets to Stalin?
Simple things like that which almost came to a head during minor events like the Cuban Missile Crisis which could have resulted in the complete destruction of this county.
I think things like that qualify.
Fair enough, I wasn't thinking that far back. What I really had in mind was more of a modern (i.e. the last 20-30 years) context. As in, what groups today currently represent a demonstrable seditionist threat and are openly Communist?
jklaughrey
11-19-10, 23:25
Didn't we already beat the Commies by Reagan's arms buildup. Thereby causing the USSR to go broke? Communists now are in name only and just a hollow shell of their former selves. These non English speaking and dirty long haired college RETARDS can barely spell Communism, let alone actually understand the failed ideology it encompasses.
They are about as scary as the worker owned coffee house anarchists you see in liberal dive communities and cities...umm Portland for example. Dirty, smelly, paranoid, oh and jobless!
Belmont31R
11-19-10, 23:29
Fair enough, I wasn't thinking that far back. What I really had in mind was more of a modern (i.e. the last 20-30 years) context. As in, what groups today currently represent a demonstrable seditionist threat and are openly Communist?
Van Jones calling for a violent revolution in the US.
Belmont31R
11-19-10, 23:34
Didn't we already beat the Commies by Reagan's arms buildup. Thereby causing the USSR to go broke? Communists now are in name only and just a hollow shell of their former selves. These non English speaking and dirty long haired college RETARDS can barely spell Communism, let alone actually understand the failed ideology it encompasses.
They are about as scary as the worker owned coffee house anarchists you see in liberal dive communities and cities...umm Portland for example. Dirty, smelly, paranoid, oh and jobless!
If you don't think people with communist style beliefs are a threat you need look no further than our president, Soros, and all that comes with them.
It was posted earlier socialism is the road to communism, and that is exactly what they are pushing. In socialist societies means of production is owned by the government and the workers. In communism its just the government. They are using the unions (the workers part), and the once the unions have fulfilled their role the focus will shift to the government.
The unions have always been just a means to an end going back to the AFL and CIO when they were separate entities. Communists infiltrated them (and others). They have used the unions as an attack on free market principles, and people have ate it up. Once those unions are no longer needed they will be reduced to poverty like the rest of us will be.
Just look at how many union heads visit the white house. If Obama didn't need them now they would not get in. Since they are still needed he has their ear, and talks about he is one of them. Of course it will be years off before that occurs but it will occur.
jklaughrey
11-19-10, 23:43
While I agree that Socialism and all its intrinsic ideals would lead to a Communist result. I do feel however that many people have too much "tin foil hats and Spam" stockpiled. Sure can they be a threat...yes. But are there safe guards to prevent a total take over of our system of government? Yes, there is. Personally I could care less about Obama, he is gone in '12 and labor unions have been a part of the US since the turn of the century. While I have mixed feelings on unions, mine here in WA state for LE is quite good and we get the needed bargaining we require come contract negotiations.
Either way, the number of "good Americans", far out number the fair weather Commie.
Belmont31R
11-19-10, 23:55
While I agree that Socialism and all its intrinsic ideals would lead to a Communist result. I do feel however that many people have too much "tin foil hats and Spam" stockpiled. Sure can they be a threat...yes. But are there safe guards to prevent a total take over of our system of government? Yes, there is. Personally I could care less about Obama, he is gone in '12 and labor unions have been a part of the US since the turn of the century. While I have mixed feelings on unions, mine here in WA state for LE is quite good and we get the needed bargaining we require come contract negotiations.
Either way, the number of "good Americans", far out number the fair weather Commie.
We do have safeguards but they can be defeated if worked.
Van Jones got a seat in the WH.
jklaughrey
11-20-10, 00:02
Let us hope we remain vigilant despite their poorly executed rallies and threats. It only takes one idiot to convince and lead an even larger group of idiots.
Fair enough, I wasn't thinking that far back. What I really had in mind was more of a modern (i.e. the last 20-30 years) context. As in, what groups today currently represent a demonstrable seditionist threat and are openly Communist?
People who are openly communist are a lot like people who are openly KKK members. The fact that you can keep tabs on them means they personally don't engage in much that can be used against them. The exception being those who recruit and advocate for their cause. They teach and motivate those who are NOT openly members of their organizations and they are the ones who do the real damage. The crazy part is while Tom Metzger would never be permitted to teach at a major university guys like Ward Churchill, Bill Ayers and other like them do.
And we are talking about the real thing here, not just a college kid who gets high and wished he lived in some imaginary Utopia where the government would provide all his wants and needs and he'd work part time in a record store.
Belmont31R
11-20-10, 00:07
Let us hope we remain vigilant despite their poorly executed rallies and threats. It only takes one idiot to convince and lead an even larger group of idiots.
Like it or not they are among us, and one is in the WH right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WHKYbTXoqs
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/12/obamas-christmas-tree-celebrates-mass.html
Belmont31R
11-20-10, 00:10
People who are openly communist are a lot like people who are openly KKK members. The fact that you can keep tabs on them means they personally don't engage in much that can be used against them. The exception being those who recruit and advocate for their cause. They teach and motivate those who are NOT openly members of their organizations and they are the ones who do the real damage. The crazy part is while Tom Metzger would never be permitted to teach at a major university guys like Ward Churchill, Bill Ayers and other like them do.
And we are talking about the real thing here, not just a college kid who gets high and wished he lived in some imaginary Utopia where the government would provide all his wants and needs and he'd work part time in a record store.
Van Jones was passed off as a quack until all the sudden he was in the WH including a few others.
The entire media besides Glenn Beck have ignored them (even the rest of the fox news people).
ChicagoTex
11-20-10, 00:23
People who are openly communist are a lot like people who are openly KKK members. The fact that you can keep tabs on them means they personally don't engage in much that can be used against them. The exception being those who recruit and advocate for their cause. They teach and motivate those who are NOT openly members of their organizations and they are the ones who do the real damage. The crazy part is while Tom Metzger would never be permitted to teach at a major university guys like Ward Churchill, Bill Ayers and other like them do.
In a roundabout way you've made my point for me. People who openly endorse Communism really aren't a threat, just a wacky byproduct of the American right to be wrong. If other individuals should listen to them and be influenced by them and then commit seditionist or treasonous acts, they should be dealt with individually based on what they've done.
In essence: no dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.
You want an example of communists in our own government? Go to www.justice.gov and take a look at the quote at the top of the page. Then do a google search and research on C. Wilfred Jenks, the unattributed author of the quote. THIS IS IN THE US DOJ FOLKS!
Communism is evil - pure and simple. It destroys freedom and the human spirit. It is diametrically opposed to human nature (and is therefore, "unnatural").
Remember - under Communism (and other socio-utopian theories), "all are equal, some are just more equal than others".
ChicagoTex
11-20-10, 00:55
You want an example of communists in our own government? Go to www.justice.gov and take a look at the quote at the top of the page. Then do a google search and research on C. Wilfred Jenks, the unattributed author of the quote. THIS IS IN THE US DOJ FOLKS!
So... what you're saying is that agreeing with anything any communist ever said is tantamount to full complicity in the Communist agenda... :rolleyes:
Belmont31R
11-20-10, 00:59
So... what you're saying is that agreeing with anything any communist ever said is tantamount to full complicity in the Communist agenda... :rolleyes:
I believe its called a preponderance of the evidence.
Alaskapopo
11-20-10, 01:05
SDS and AFL-CIO for starters.
I already said things like poltical differences are fine. You can believe whatever you want. But if you abuse your rights to bring down the government or our way of life its sedition.
You can also do things that are treasonous such as sending care packages to our enemies like the bay area libtards did in the 60's.
Just like free speech stops at inciting violence or a riot. You cant use free speech or political acts to bring down the government.
Your rights (all of ours) are subject to some restrictions.
The AFL CIO communist. Ok your political colors are showing. That statement is so false its not worth debating.
Pat
ChicagoTex
11-20-10, 01:05
I believe its called a preponderance of the evidence
That only works if there IS evidence.
Alaskapopo
11-20-10, 01:06
I believe its called a preponderance of the evidence.
Actually preponderance of the evidence is only used in civil trials. If your trying them criminally its beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard.
Pat
Alaskapopo
11-20-10, 01:08
You want an example of communists in our own government? Go to www.justice.gov and take a look at the quote at the top of the page. Then do a google search and research on C. Wilfred Jenks, the unattributed author of the quote. THIS IS IN THE US DOJ FOLKS!
Communism is evil - pure and simple. It destroys freedom and the human spirit. It is diametrically opposed to human nature (and is therefore, "unnatural").
Remember - under Communism (and other socio-utopian theories), "all are equal, some are just more equal than others".
Yea right. Pure evil. Your simply talking from emotion and not logic.
Pat
So... what you're saying is that agreeing with anything any communist ever said is tantamount to full complicity in the Communist agenda... :rolleyes:
That's not what I said and would be idiotic to assert. For example, if Marx himself stated the cloudless sky appears blue, I would agree. But, that has nothing to do with the communist agenda and your argument is specious.
Two things are bothersome:
1. The communist quote appears on a US government website (DOJ, no less).
2. The statement of said communist is contraconstitutional.
So if this does not bother you, maybe instead of rolling your eyes, perhaps they would be put to better use studying the principles behind our Constitution.
Yes, the First Amendment recognizes the rights of free citizens to criticize the government, but the principles of communism are anaethema to the principles upon which this country was founded and should be met with ridicule and derision.
Belmont31R
11-20-10, 01:13
Yea right. Pure evil. Your simply talking from emotion and not logic.
Pat
What evidence is there to the contrary?
Alaskapopo
11-20-10, 01:28
Umm Communist is not the same as Democrat and Republican. Communist is more like National Socialist. More importantly, these weren't just misguided idiots with unrealistic Utopian beliefs. These were communists who were part of a conspiracy to infiltrate several areas of society to promote a communist agenda with the goal of communist revolution in this country.
So that makes them more or less the same as the dangerous "nazi" guys the SPLC is always going after with the exception that the communist conspiracy was larger, better entrenched and with much more intelligent agents who are far more effective. Let's not forget how Stalin got the bomb and who gave it to him. Certainly wasn't members of the American Bund.
And a writer or play write is certainly free to subscribe to a communist philosophy, but that doesn't mean nobody is allowed to use it against him or as a reason to not hire him. We do that to people who subscribe to a KKK philosophy all the time. But if and when he seeks to help install a communist government, or support a plot to do so, in this country he does in fact become an enemy of this country and should be treated accordingly.
If an American wants communism, they should move to a communist country.
There are criminals who are communist no doubt and they should be delt with under the law same with Demcrats and Republicans. If an american wants to be a commuist they have the same rights you do to join which ever political party they want. You don't get to say who can stay and who goes. If they were born here they are just as much an american as you. What I am preching is tolerance. Many a people have fought and died for the freedom we enjoy in this country and that freedom is not just for certain political party members. Also someones political party does not mean they are a good or evil person. The KKK is not a political party but rather a raciest domestic terrorist group like the black panthers.
Pat
Alaskapopo
11-20-10, 01:30
What evidence is there to the contrary?
Sorry but stating that a political party is evil is juvenile. Its about hate pure and simple and not fact. I have no problem with any political party as long as their members follow the laws of our country.
Pat
Yea right. Pure evil. Your simply talking from emotion and not logic.
Pat
How is destruction of the human spirit not evil? I don't see any logic coming from you.
Have you ever known anyone that lived under communist rule (I do) or studied history?
What incentive is there to innovate or excel if there is no reward? "For the greater good" and "Each according to his ability to each according to his need" is Utopian blather. There is always corruption and some "elite" at the top controlling the actions of the remainder.
At some point, people realize that there is no point in doing more or working harder if there is no personal benefit to their effort. So what happens is that people do the bare minimum to get by and become drones for the collective.
variablebinary
11-20-10, 01:37
Communists are the enemy of the United States, and certainly freedom.
Remember Scarface? That is how I feel about communists.
Sorry but stating that a political party is evil is juvenile. Its about hate pure and simple and not fact. I have no problem with any political party as long as their members follow the laws of our country.
Pat
Again, you are parsing. I didn't say that the communist party is evil. I stated that communism (the philosophy behind the party) is evil and anaethema to the principles upon which this country was founded. The same could be said for the principles behind National Socialism, as well.
So are you saying that the idea that a philosophy can be evil is juvenile?! I guess in your eyes NAMBLA should be tolerated and consideration of the philosophy behind said organization as evil is juvenile as well?
Or is it that the entire concept of "good/evil" is juvenile to your "enlightened" mind?
Alaskapopo
11-20-10, 02:49
Again, you are parsing. I didn't say that the communist party is evil. I stated that communism (the philosophy behind the party) is evil and anaethema to the principles upon which this country was founded. The same could be said for the principles behind National Socialism, as well.
So are you saying that the idea that a philosophy can be evil is juvenile?! I guess in your eyes NAMBLA should be tolerated and consideration of the philosophy behind said organization as evil is juvenile as well?
Or is it that the entire concept of "good/evil" is juvenile to your "enlightened" mind?
You’re comparing an organization of child molesters to a political party. Sure they disagree with our ideals of wealth and the pursuit of happiness. But those ideals in and of themselves are not evil. A lot of churches are run in a similar fashion. Everyone donates their money and then it’s given out based on the need.
I don't think communism is evil. I do think it’s flawed because it takes away peoples drive to succeed. If you know that you will not be rewarded any more than the next guy even through you work harder pretty soon you will not work hard or you will do just enough to get by. That is the problem I have with communism. On its face the ideals sound good. Everyone works hard and everyone takes out according to their needs. It’s like a Star Trek world where people are no longer simple obsessed with amassing wealth. But in reality it does not work. Just like pure capitalism does not work. (It ends in monopoly and high prices if the market runs UN checked)
I just have a problem with calling a political point of view evil because you don't agree with it. I don't like anti gunners but I don't think they are evil. Ill informed yes but evil no.
It would be like me calling you evil because we disagree. That would be wrong. I don't think your evil. You just have a different point of view. For the record I am not a communist. I just believe in a little tolerance.
Belmont31R
11-20-10, 10:21
Sorry but stating that a political party is evil is juvenile. Its about hate pure and simple and not fact. I have no problem with any political party as long as their members follow the laws of our country.
Pat
So the Nazi National Socialists weren't evil? They were a political party.
Communists are the enemy of the United States, and certainly freedom.
Pure and simple. They've slowly been chipping away, but it seems like the last 10-15 years somewhere it went into overdrive and this isn't the same America I grew up in, in the late 80s to early 90s.
Belmont31R
11-20-10, 11:51
Pure and simple. They've slowly been chipping away, but it seems like the last 10-15 years somewhere it went into overdrive and this isn't the same America I grew up in, in the late 80s to early 90s.
One of the cornerstones of communist ideology is a proletariat revolution. So if you believe in communism you believe you must get the non-owners to revolt against the owners and take over.
That is why simply being a communist in this country is not the same thing as beiing a democrat or republican. Sure they are all political parties but one of them believes the way to take over is to violenty revolt, steal, and kill people.
Just like religion you can't practice ANY religion you want. Human sacrifice would not be protected as being religious. You can believe in a religion that practices human sacrifice but you can't actually do it. Just like you can be an admitted communist but if you actually tried to implement it you would be breaking the law. Just for their beliefs they are dangerous people who's political ideology calls for the death of fellow citizens if necessary during the "proletariat revolution".
Unions are there way of organizing the non owners.
They are also dangerous because their way of taking over a country is by infiltrating an open society, exploiting it, and then bringing it down from within. They attempt to turn social norms on their head and set the conditions right for a revolution. That whole Cloward and Piven thing mixed with some Alinsky (among others) strategy. SDS, a socialist/communist group organizing students against the Vietnam war to bring social upheaval to the US. Even today they are still big on student rallies. Look at the rallies earlier this year in the US, and recently in Britain. Always hiding behind a veil of something else until the conditions are right.
If working to undermine the US, and bring down our government isn't sedition then what is? They've been doing it since the start of the 20th Century when the AFL and CIO (again among others) were infiltrated by communists, and they used the labor groups to bring social change to the US without really telling the truth about why they were pushing for what they were. Even today these labor groups have the ear of Obama, and get frequent visits in the White House. SEIU is another one.
Another modern example is the supposed anarchists who protest the G20 meetings, the republican convention, ect. Those are communists stoking the fire for "change", and to paint current governments in a negative light. When Greece had its protests those were communists.
These people are not innocent, and are very dangerous.
In a roundabout way you've made my point for me. People who openly endorse Communism really aren't a threat, just a wacky byproduct of the American right to be wrong. If other individuals should listen to them and be influenced by them and then commit seditionist or treasonous acts, they should be dealt with individually based on what they've done.
In essence: no dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.
So you agree that Tom Metzger is perfectly harmless and should probably run for elected office or at least become a professor at a major university?
So... what you're saying is that agreeing with anything any communist ever said is tantamount to full complicity in the Communist agenda... :rolleyes:
So... what you're saying is that agreeing with anything any hate group ever said is tantamount to full complicity in the hate group agenda... :rolleyes:
Yea right. Pure evil. Your simply talking from emotion and not logic.
Pat
Having met a few people who have escaped communism, I don't think he was far off the mark. A few of my friends who have worked near the Berlin wall and seen East Germans lose their lives trying to flee would also tend to agree.
I think any system that uses minefields and attack dogs to keep it's populations captive qualifies as evil. I cannot understand how anyone could use logic and not come to the same conclusion.
There are criminals who are communist no doubt and they should be delt with under the law same with Demcrats and Republicans. If an american wants to be a commuist they have the same rights you do to join which ever political party they want. You don't get to say who can stay and who goes. If they were born here they are just as much an american as you. What I am preching is tolerance. Many a people have fought and died for the freedom we enjoy in this country and that freedom is not just for certain political party members. Also someones political party does not mean they are a good or evil person. The KKK is not a political party but rather a raciest domestic terrorist group like the black panthers.
Pat
I said they were no different than the National Socialists, not the KKK. And the National Socialists IS a political party that Americans are free to join and support. Do you preach the same tolerance for National Socialists? Are they just as American as you if they were born here?
I just have a problem with calling a political point of view evil because you don't agree with it.
National socialism is a political point of view. Is it evil?
ChicagoTex
11-20-10, 14:19
So you agree that Tom Metzger is perfectly harmless and should probably run for elected office or at least become a professor at a major university?
I have zero problem with him TRYING. It is the responsibility of the Universities to decide whether they want to hire him and the responsibility of the American to decide whether they want to elect him.
Any nation with free elections operates on a fundamental trust of the people, trying to to vilify people for their philosophies is a compromise of that trust I won't tolerate.
I know it scares the shit out of some people to see Tom Metzger running for officem. Me? I'd love to see him run and lose - that's how America is meant to work.
I have zero problem with him TRYING. It is the responsibility of the Universities to decide whether they want to hire him and the responsibility of the American to decide whether they want to elect him.
Any nation with free elections operates on a fundamental trust of the people, trying to to vilify people for their philosophies is a compromise of that trust I won't tolerate.
I know it scares the shit out of some people to see Tom Metzger running for officem. Me? I'd love to see him run and lose - that's how America is meant to work.
He is of course free to try.
What I asked (or to clarify what I mean) is if you agree he would be perfectly harmless in elected government or as a college professor in the same way you believe communists are no threat in those roles.
For those who don't understand why communism is inherently evil maybe these pictures will help.
http://www.dailysoft.com/berlinwall/xgraphics/photographs/history/grenzanlagen.jpg
http://citynoise.org/upload/9355.jpg
http://media-files.gather.com/images/d229/d546/d744/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00260/berlin27_260308s.jpg
The state will always exist at the cost of the individual and freedom. It always happens, every time and in every case. In almost all aspects of life, you don't decide - the state does.
And anyone who doesn't think communism is inherently evil deserves to be working at a state run factory someplace. This is the biggest problem with the end of the Cold War and the failure of communism in the former USSR. People forget.
ChicagoTex
11-20-10, 16:04
What I asked (or to clarify what I mean) is if you agree he would be perfectly harmless in elected government or as a college professor in the same way you believe communists are no threat in those roles.
In that case, I think we first need to seperate the college professor and elected official positions. As a college professor, I would see Metzger as basically harmless.
As an elected official... while he could be "harmful", he has the ability and even perhaps the impetus to be if elected.
Pretty much everyone who's ever been elected has done something that's perceived as "harmful" to someone.
The fact of the matter is if Metzger ran for Congress on his agenda and was elected accordingly, he has the right to attempt to implement that agenda within the bounds of existing legislative powers (which, yes, can be modified with substantial support).
In short, if the people vote for Communism strongly enough to enable constitutional modification (which will never happen, but since we're talking about Metzger being elected anything but dog catcher, we've already checked into LaLa Land...), then they get Communism and that's the way it should be.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says we should be protected from "harmful ideas", there's lots in the Constitution protecting freedom of thought. What you or I or anyone else view as "harmful" doesn't matter, we still live in a fairly free society, so we just have to suck it up and deal.
ChicagoTex
11-20-10, 16:22
For those who don't understand why communism is inherently evil maybe these pictures will help.
Logos isn't working for you so you try to roll out the Pathos? We've already stipulated to past government atrocities. What the hell do you want?
Tell you what, we'll just re-write the 1st amendment to read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, unless a half dozen people on the internet think it's intrinsically "evil" or "harmful", and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There, I think that fits better with what you're looking for.
Belmont31R
11-20-10, 16:38
Logos isn't working for you so you try to roll out the Pathos? We've already stipulated to past government atrocities. What the hell do you want?
Tell you what, we'll just re-write the 1st amendment to read:
There, I think that fits better with what you're looking for.
You guys are the ones running around trying to say theres nothing wrong with communism and there is no such thing as an evil political ideology. Yeah the national socialists and commies killed over 100 million people in less than 20 years between 1935 and 1955. Tens of millions more between 1955 and 1985 between SE Asia and South America.
So yes their political ideology is evil, and should not be tolerated in the US. You can't have a church that kills people as part of its beliefs can you? So what makes you think a communist is any different when its a cornerstone of the belief is revolution (kill people and take over)?
ChicagoTex
11-20-10, 16:51
You can't have a church that kills people as part of its beliefs can you?
But we can and do have ones who believe they should. And no, those aren't just Mosques.
Why is this so hard to understand? The seperator is what is DONE, not what is BELIEVED. Just because you rename "I don't like it" to "evil" doesn't change the fact that all beliefs are permitted, and that to change that would be a fundamental betrayal of everything America stands for.
Logos isn't working for you so you try to roll out the Pathos? We've already stipulated to past government atrocities. What the hell do you want?
There seem to be a few people who have forgotten. The post wasn't directed specifically to you. It was directed to anyone who doesn't understand the inevitable result and inherent evil of that system.
Also showing the ACTUAL result of a communist system isn't an appeal to emotion, it is a proof of consequence which would be more in the realm of logic. Is it pathos if you show Holocaust pictures when demonstrating the dangers of National Socialism?
Tell you what, we'll just re-write the 1st amendment to read:
There, I think that fits better with what you're looking for.
Please don't misrepresent me or the things I say. To barrow a line of thought from you, I've already stated they are FREE to espouse anything they want. Even KKK members are free to do so.
What they are NOT free to do attempt to actually establish their ideologies as a form of government due to that very same Constitution that let's them say any stupid thing they wish.
Having actually taken the oath a time or two, I'm perfectly fine with the first amendment as written.
But we can and do have ones who believe they should. And no, those aren't just Mosques.
Why is this so hard to understand? The seperator is what is DONE, not what is BELIEVED. Just because you rename "I don't like it" to "evil" doesn't change the fact that all beliefs are permitted, and that to change that would be a fundamental betrayal of everything America stands for.
Legal doesn't mean tolerated or endorsed.
Again it would be "legal" for Tom Metzger to become a Governor, Senator or college professor. Do you believe that there would be no danger in doing so?
The issue is this:
our government was not created "for freedom" or to allow the promulgation of any political philosophy any individual can come up with in their own fevered imagination.
It was created, as is clearly stated, to protect the natural rights of individuals as given to them by their creator.
I cannot reconcile as to how I am supposed to accept political philosophies which do not accept those rights, do not accept the existence of that creator, or at least mitigate those rights to the point where they practically exist in name only.
I also cannot accept that history has mitigated those rights, when those same founders define, assert, and defend them with infinitely more intellectual rigor than is contained in the arguments made today to abrogate them.
I don't know where the line is drawn. I am not for thought crimes. But that is perhaps the greatest argument for limited government. When silly revolutionaries have to compete in a free market of ideas, their influence is confined to the theme parks that are our universities and self-conscious urban hipster enclaves.
It's when, throught the growth of government, they get control of the courts, the NGOs, the education/indoctrination edifice, that I start wondering when it crosses from amusing poseur affectation to direct threat to my health and wealth.
ChicagoTex
11-20-10, 19:53
Again it would be "legal" for Tom Metzger to become a Governor, Senator or college professor. Do you believe that there would be no danger in doing so?
Honestly, I've seen people actually elected Governor in my states of occupation I consider more dangerous than Tom Metzger...
Everyone's "dangerous", you get over it.
In defense of communism, Stalin and Mao's governments weren't the communist states of Karl Marx's vision.
But than again you'll never have a utopia when a body of peers always has to be in charge of a society, and that's why ideas like communism and socialism will never work in the real world. If they did, than people wouldn't have freewill and life would be with out purpose.
Belmont31R
11-20-10, 22:13
But we can and do have ones who believe they should. And no, those aren't just Mosques.
Why is this so hard to understand? The seperator is what is DONE, not what is BELIEVED. Just because you rename "I don't like it" to "evil" doesn't change the fact that all beliefs are permitted, and that to change that would be a fundamental betrayal of everything America stands for.
I never said anything different. I explicitly said people are allowed to have communist beliefs. If they act on them most likely its going to be sedition based on the nature of the ideology which calls for an overthrow of the government.
Im perfectly capable of separating the two.
ChicagoTex
11-20-10, 23:21
I never said anything different. I explicitly said people are allowed to have communist beliefs. If they act on them most likely its going to be sedition based on the nature of the ideology which calls for an overthrow of the government.
Im perfectly capable of separating the two.
Then why pose the question?
Honestly, I've seen people actually elected Governor in my states of occupation I consider more dangerous than Tom Metzger...
Everyone's "dangerous", you get over it.
So then your position is politicians and college professors who are openly communist and promote a communist ideology are inherently dangerous?
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 00:30
Then why pose the question?
Because there is a huge difference between the theory (which you guys says is fine) and the application.
What you guys are basically saying is there is nothing wrong with Nazi National Socialists just as long as they don't do the whole kill 6 million jews and a few million others. Its not evil to believe killing over 10 million people is the right thing to do just so long as you don't actually do it.
Funny you guys have come out attacking Palin in the past but we attack communism, and we are "haters".
In defense of communism, Stalin and Mao's governments weren't the communist states of Karl Marx's vision.
Correct, they are the inevitable result of every attempt at Karl Marx's vision because the state exists at the expense of the individual, freedom and his ability to do anything about it.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 00:41
Quitting mid-term as Alaska's Governor to run around to rallies, write a moronic book, and entertain rumors of running for POTUS probably didn't engender a lot of confidence from the people she abandoned out of sheer convenience.
This is a great day for Alaska. I am glad that bimbo is leaving. She was the worst thing to happen to the GOP in a long time.
I used to be a one issue voter but not anymore. While the 2nd amendment is very important to me. I will not vote in an evil person just because they promise to let me keep my guns.
I guess you're only a "hater" if you disagree with communism but its cool to call Palin a bimbo, evil, call her work moronic, ect.
As soon as your guy's ideology gets attacks you throw out the classic attack of labeling a person as some minimizing term but you throw around these terms like candy on Halloween when it suits you.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 00:45
In defense of communism, Stalin and Mao's governments weren't the communist states of Karl Marx's vision.
But than again you'll never have a utopia when a body of peers always has to be in charge of a society, and that's why ideas like communism and socialism will never work in the real world. If they did, than people wouldn't have freewill and life would be with out purpose.
Oh bullshit. Communism calls for the non-owners (proletariat) to revolt against the owners. WTF do you think is going to happen during that type of revolt? Millions dying is exactly what Marx had in his mind when he wrote that shit. Thats exactly why every communist revolution has resulted in wide scale mass murder.
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 01:00
What you guys are basically saying is there is nothing wrong with Nazi National Socialists just as long as they don't do the whole kill 6 million jews and a few million others. Its not evil to believe killing over 10 million people is the right thing to do just so long as you don't actually do it.
From a social acceptance standpoint that's more or less correct. It's not that it is or isn't evil, it's that it doesn't matter. I literally don't care as long as long as it's all hypothetical anyway.
Take Mel Gibson for example: pretty obvious the dude's a hefty anti-semite. I don't buy into anti-semitism, but as he's just some dude who isn't running for office and isn't gunning down innocent jews, I don't care. I'm not spending a single moment of my life trying to actively be intolerant of Mel Gibson because that would be a massive, futile waste of time.
I've encountered neo-nazis before, I didn't care about them either... why should I bother to get all in a tizzy about Communists who don't threaten me?
Funny you guys have come out attacking Palin in the past but we attack communism, and we are "haters".
I've personally never declared Palin to be evil, just monumentally stupid. I'm also genuinely hard-pressed to see how this is a remotely cogent point.
I get it, you guys think Communism is "evil". Good for you. I fail to see how your personal philosophy has any bearing on how anyone who isn't you should conduct their lives.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 01:10
From a social acceptance standpoint that's more or less correct. It's not that it is or isn't evil, it's that it doesn't matter. I literally don't care as long as long as it's all hypothetical anyway.
Take Mel Gibson for example: pretty obvious the dude's a hefty anti-semite. I don't buy into anti-semitism, but as he's just some dude who isn't running for office and isn't gunning down innocent jews, I don't care. I'm not spending a single moment of my life trying to actively be intolerant of Mel Gibson because that would be a massive, futile waste of time.
I've encountered neo-nazis before, I didn't care about them either... why should I bother to get all in a tizzy about Communists who don't threaten me?
I've personally never declared Palin to be evil, just monumentally stupid. I'm also genuinely hard-pressed to see how this is a remotely cogent point.
I get it, you guys think Communism is "evil". Good for you. I fail to see how your personal philosophy has any bearing on how anyone who isn't you should conduct their lives.
Minimize the oppositions points, and then counterattack. Right out of Alinksy.
Im not that stupid.
Alaskapopo
11-21-10, 01:43
So then your position is politicians and college professors who are openly communist and promote a communist ideology are inherently dangerous?
What is truly dangerous is when people label others as dangerous for espousing a different point of view. That is what happened in the red scare and a lot of people were targeted who had done nothing wrong.
Pat
Oh bullshit. Communism calls for the non-owners (proletariat) to revolt against the owners. WTF do you think is going to happen during that type of revolt? Millions dying is exactly what Marx had in his mind when he wrote that shit. Thats exactly why every communist revolution has resulted in wide scale mass murder.
I never disagreed that it results in murder, I don't think anyone is arguing this.
I'm simply stating the obvious that's been stated already, and that is you'll never have a utopia.
No animal in nature exist with out conflict.
It's the nature of every creature to be competitive it's survival to see the next day, if we didn't have the drive we wouldn't exist, hell we wouldn't even have offspring.
So the idea of utopia state is a wonderful idea, but it's a fantasy that will never materialize, but instead you'll get mass murder and suffering.
Who wouldn't want to live in a perfect world where nobody goes hungry and everyone is satisfied. Maybe one day we can drug everyone and feed them soylent green and we'll see that world... :D
Until than I'll stay in this country as imperfect as it is.
Magic_Salad0892
11-21-10, 05:36
You guys do realize that we're on the same side right?
And yes, as long as they don't actually do it, it's not really that important.
However, I view Communists to be the exception, because it is part of their belief to infiltrate by technicalities of a free state. Such as the ''freedom'' part.
Letting crap like this go un-checked leads to shit like the USSR, or Berlin in 1934.
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 11:33
Letting crap like this go un-checked leads to shit like the USSR, or Berlin in 1934.
And checking it leads us much closer to it than not checking it would.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 11:46
What is truly dangerous is when people label others as dangerous for espousing a different point of view. That is what happened in the red scare and a lot of people were targeted who had done nothing wrong.
Pat
Like it or not there are good people, everyday people, bad people, and really evil people.
If you want to put everyone on the same pedestal no matter what their beliefs are, and try to convince us no one is anymore dangerous than another then you're ignoring reality.
You still haven't answered the question if the nazi national socialists were evil as a political ideology.
Ill agree the red scare caught some innocent people up but there were a lot of communist spies within the US and even people within the CPUSA working for the soviets. Classified documents released in the 90's proved this.
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 11:59
Like it or not there are good people, everyday people, bad people, and really evil people.
And who, exactly, gets to be the judge of who fits into what category?
I've been called "dangerous" on this very forum before. I've been called "evil" by more people I can count for not subscribing to a specific religion they held dear.
I don't plan on murdering anyone, but that doesn't stop people from categorizing me as a "threat" because I'm not compatible with their agenda. Oh wait, it's starting to sound like the totalitarianism we're all worried about again. Hmm...
Sure there are some universally awful folks out there, but the second we start categorizing PEOPLE instead of ACTIONS, we open the door big and wide for the horrible totalitarian regimes we've already agreed are ideal to avoid.
I won't sell my soul so my body can feel safer at night. I won't tolerate the business of putting complex people into simple morality boxes. I won't.
Because to me, THAT'S true evil.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 12:26
And who, exactly, gets to be the judge of who fits into what category?
I've been called "dangerous" on this very forum before. I've been called "evil" by more people I can count for not subscribing to a specific religion they held dear.
I don't plan on murdering anyone, but that doesn't stop people from categorizing me as a "threat" because I'm not compatible with their agenda. Oh wait, it's starting to sound like the totalitarianism we're all worried about again. Hmm...
Sure there are some universally awful folks out there, but the second we start categorizing PEOPLE instead of ACTIONS, we open the door big and wide for the horrible totalitarian regimes we've already agreed are ideal to avoid.
I won't sell my soul so my body can feel safer at night. I won't tolerate the business of putting complex people into simple morality boxes. I won't.
Because to me, THAT'S true evil.
Theres nothing totalitarian about saying a political party is dangerous. CPUSA did a lot of espionage and was partially funded by the USSR begining in the 20's. They were given money to recruit spies, and infiltrate the government to gain access to state secrets.
On July 24 I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of unusual destructive force. The Russian Premier showed no special interest. All he said was he was glad to hear it and hoped we would make "good use of it against the Japanese."
Harry S. Truman, Year of Decisions (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1955) p. 416.
Thanks to CPUSA and other western born communist spies they knew about the bomb being developed or talked about in 1941.
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 12:30
Theres nothing totalitarian about saying a political party is dangerous.
We are clearly at an impasse.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 12:45
We are clearly at an impasse.
So you're going to ignore the threat CPUSA and other communists have posed to our government and people? They're just the same as the tea party?
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 12:51
So you're going to ignore the threat CPUSA and other communists have posed to our government and people? They're just the same as the tea party?
If that's how you want to look at it, sure, why not?
I'm done dealing with your spin. An impasse is just that.
calling a dangerous political party "dangerous" is dangerous because of the danger of further compartmentalizing people. all these labels we throw around are often the cause of big problems. the communism witch hunts of mccarthy was a really good example of that. the American people were told "these 'communists' are the greatest threat to American security we've ever faced." so in the spirit of patriotism, and fear of stigmatization, everyone just sat back and let some pretty ridiculous rights violations go basically unchecked.
i pretty much hold to the idea that the people are to run the government, not the other way around. the communists have never wanted to take over by force- they wanted to use undercurrent to shift the people ideologically in their favor. since the people have the authority to do what they want, if they're stupid enough to buy into leftist views, then thats their fate.
and it has been. you cant stop it, and it's not the government's duty, nor do they have the authority, to stop it. unfortunately, by trying to stop it, they've just brought us closer to it. the American people, who once held to the idea of freedom above all, now seem to hold the idea of freedom only within the narrow bounds given by the all-mighty government. let them eat cake- but only this kind, during these hours, with these types of frosting, and no more than 3 candles per. additional candles will require a tax, background check, and waiting period.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 13:31
McCarthy caught some innocent people up but you have to remember at the time we had huge security breaches because of communist infiltration.
As I said earlier Stalin knew about the bomb when Truman told him we have something because of native born communists as well as Brits like Klaus Fuchs. He was british born working for the british government as part of them helping us develop the atomic bomb.
Its not just them saying this what we believe, and we'd like you to vote for us. They have been actively working to undermine this country by criminal methods.
If the tea party does the same thing then Id have the same view of them as being dangerous. Its not just a ideological difference. One party is getting state secrets to foreign governments, taking cash from them, ect.
We do have the ability to change our government, and if that means communism then so be it. But until that time communists in this country don't have the right to espionage, sedition, ect just like no one else does. Your political party participation doesn't give anyone the authority to break the law.
Calling them dangerous is recognizing them for who they are, and that is people who believe revolution is the way to instill their ideology. If you study history working within the system is part of the tactic, and when the time is right they will launch a revolution. There is no way for them to instill communism here without a revolt at some point. If you guys think otherwise then wheres the proof? My argument is based on the words of their own ideology and history.
Not to mention the acts they have carried out against our country in the last 60 years. Espionage, assassination of a president, domestic terrorism, openly calling for revolution, and the list could go on and on.
To hold them on the same pedestal as "any other old political party" is to stick your head in the sand and ignore their own words, history, their ideology, ect.
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 13:34
Not to mention the acts they have carried out against our country in the last 60 years. Espionage, assassination of a president, domestic terrorism, openly calling for revolution, and the list could go on and on.
LOL, now you're stating as a fact that the Communists killed Kennedy? Apparently you live in a world where rumors qualify as proof.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 13:57
LOL, now you're stating as a fact that the Communists killed Kennedy? Apparently you live in a world where rumors qualify as proof.
I thought you were done?
So it was just a rumor he was getting newsletters from communists groups, and traveled to the USSR while trying to renounce his citizenship? He's on video admitting to being a marxist.
Anyways.....
Marxist ideas have been elaborated and modernized by other great revolutionaries such as Vladimir Lenin, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. The validity of Marxism has been repeatedly demonstrated by its role in guiding successful social struggles and revolutions in every part of the world.
from CPUSA.org
But nope they are just the same as any other political party, and should be welcomed in the US with open arms....:rolleyes:
variablebinary
11-21-10, 14:00
I'm a child of the Cold War.
Communists should be shot, black listed, and purged (in no particular order)
They have no place in America. Their dialog has zero merit in America. The communist is the inherent enemy to America.
Suwannee Tim
11-21-10, 14:02
LOL, now you're stating as a fact that the Communists killed Kennedy? Apparently you live in a world where rumors qualify as proof.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist Tex. You regard Oswald's guilt as a rumor?
Communists are enemies of freedom. They are, they were and they always have been. Most of these nice folks on the Youtube video would have little reservation about shooting one if their enemies in the back of the head. These things are done "for the greater good." Anything can be justified by recourse to "the greater good."
The idea that man can perfect himself is the most toxic idea in the history of humanity. From this idea directly springs Communism and it's fraternal twin Naziism.
I'm a child of the Cold War.
Communists should be shot, black listed, and purged.
They have no place in America. Their dialog has zero merit in America. The communist is the inherent enemy to America.
i sort of like you, so don't take this like i'm pissing on your grandmother... but these kinds of attitudes do more harm to America than any communist ever has.
communism is incorrect and cannot work, so long as man covets. since man will always covet, communism cannot work. but banning an idea is what we often refer to as "thought policing," the very thing we hate about communists as they've existed in the last century.
you're being way too ethnocentric about it. you cannot, even in the spirit of die-hard patriotism, abandon the principles of this country to save it. if that were truly the only way, let it burn.
variablebinary
11-21-10, 14:13
i sort of like you, so don't take this like i'm pissing on your grandmother... but these kinds of attitudes do more harm to America than any communist ever has.
communism is incorrect and cannot work, so long as man covets. since man will always covet, communism cannot work. but banning an idea is what we often refer to as "thought policing," the very thing we hate about communists as they've existed in the last century.
you're being way too ethnocentric about it. you cannot, even in the spirit of die-hard patriotism, abandon the principles of this country to save it. if that were truly the only way, let it burn.
Communism is cancer that is not benign. Cutting it out is the only way to deal with it. Letting it fester and metastasize is a threat to our way of life.
Communism is parasitic as well. It can only thrive within a host that tolerates its bullshit.
Communism is about as tolerable as murder and rape since that is all a communist has to offer. Throughout the 20th century we learned this, but memories are short. The trend in this country today is to embrace socialist ideals. Lets see where that gets us.
If I were old enough in the 60's, I would have enlisted just to shoot communists in the head. They disgust me even more than Jihadists
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 14:19
Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist Tex. You regard Oswald's guilt as a rumor?
Oswald was, at best, a sociopathic loner. Even if he was the shooter, and only shooter, I find it incredibly hard to believe he was acting as a deliberate agent of the Communist party.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 14:27
Oswald was, at best, a sociopathic loner. Even if he was the shooter, and only shooter, I find it incredibly hard to believe he was acting as a deliberate agent of the Communist party.
I never said he was acting as an agent of the communist party.
He however did have communist/marxist beliefs, moved to the USSR, moved back to the USA, and tried to get back to the USSR the same year he shot Kennedy. He is on tape admitting to studying marxism and being a marxist. The difference is subtle (marxism is the ideology communist is the political party/action of the ideology). If you want to split that hair go right ahead but he was one of them either way you slice it.
Here is a picture of him (with analysis) holding the gun used to shoot Kennedy along with the "The Militant" which was a communist paper: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/iconic_lee_harvey_oswald_photo_authentic_says_forensics_expert
variablebinary
11-21-10, 14:28
Oswald was, at best, a sociopathic loner. Even if he was the shooter, and only shooter, I find it incredibly hard to believe he was acting as a deliberate agent of the Communist party.
Irrelevant. He was a communist.
The very nature of communism requires one to act to achieve communist goals by way of assassination, subterfuge, espionage, chicanery and insurrection.
wholly crap.. you guys arent seriously gonna debate the JFK assassination..??
that's a completely un-answerable question, gentlemen.. i'd think men of the apparently above average IQ the 3 of you can at least agree on that.
IBTL!
What is truly dangerous is when people label others as dangerous for espousing a different point of view. That is what happened in the red scare and a lot of people were targeted who had done nothing wrong.
Pat
What a giant load of steaming shit.
I never called anyone dangerous because they are different. I called them dangerous because they are dangerous.
I disagree with the "different positions" of politicians all day long, both Democrat and Republican. I don't agree with those positions, but that doesn't make them dangerous.
But when we discuss things like Communism and National Socialism those things ARE dangerous because they exist at the expense of the individual. And only a person who is being deliberately evasive or completely ignorant of historical fact would suggest otherwise. It is like me saying "slavery" is not inherently evil, it is just a "different point of view" regarding labor and production.
And checking it leads us much closer to it than not checking it would.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So you believe we were wrong to "check" Roosevelt socialism and the related eugenics programs that forcibly sterilized US citizens? That made us Nazi Germany? We should have kept doing it?
Please, please, please learn some history.You have an entire internet at your disposal.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 14:47
wholly crap.. you guys arent seriously gonna debate the JFK assassination..??
that's a completely un-answerable question, gentlemen.. i'd think men of the apparently above average IQ the 3 of you can at least agree on that.
IBTL!
Im debating people who are intent on distorting the truth and history while putting truly evil ideologies on the same pedestal as everyone else.
Wherever that takes us is fine with me including the ideologies of the man who shot JFK.
And who, exactly, gets to be the judge of who fits into what category?
I've been called "dangerous" on this very forum before. I've been called "evil" by more people I can count for not subscribing to a specific religion they held dear.
I don't plan on murdering anyone, but that doesn't stop people from categorizing me as a "threat" because I'm not compatible with their agenda. Oh wait, it's starting to sound like the totalitarianism we're all worried about again. Hmm...
Sure there are some universally awful folks out there, but the second we start categorizing PEOPLE instead of ACTIONS, we open the door big and wide for the horrible totalitarian regimes we've already agreed are ideal to avoid.
I won't sell my soul so my body can feel safer at night. I won't tolerate the business of putting complex people into simple morality boxes. I won't.
Because to me, THAT'S true evil.
To the best of my knowledge I've never called YOU dangerous or evil.
And unless you are in fact a communist, I've never said anything about YOU as an individual. If you are in fact a communist then you DO subscribe to a political belief that IS dangerous and inherently evil.
And I've gone to great length to qualify why those who subscribe to various ideologies ARE IN FACT following a political ideology that is both dangerous and inherently evil.
Communism and National Socialism are not simply different, they always result in the same thing. Even comparatively more benign forms of Democratic Socialism attempted in this country have resulted in some pretty horrific things such as our Eugenics program of the 1930s which forcibly sterilized US citizens who qualified as "indigent" and our race based immigration policies which were borrowed by German almost verbatim.
I guarantee you would not enjoy living under such a system. You fear totalitarianism in this country right now. The loss of individual freedom you would experience under a communist or socialist system seems to be beyond your understanding. Thankfully we are a long way off from experiencing a true totalitarian system from the left of the right, but I think you need to understand many members here have knowledge of what happened in other places and are vigilant to snip such things in the bud. If you have ever known anyone who actually grew up behind the Iron Curtain or in Cuba, I think your perspective on the inherent dangers and evils of communism would change.
Oswald was, at best, a sociopathic loner. Even if he was the shooter, and only shooter, I find it incredibly hard to believe he was acting as a deliberate agent of the Communist party.
[sigh]
In October 1959, just before turning 20, Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union, the trip planned well in advance. Along with his self-taught Russian, he had saved $1,500 of his Marine Corps salary,[n 3] got a hardship discharge (claiming his mother needed care)[11][27] obtained a passport, and submitted several fictional applications to foreign universities in order to obtain a student visa.
Oswald spent two days with his mother in Fort Worth, then embarked by ship from New Orleans on September 20 to Le Havre, France, then immediately proceeded to England. Arriving in Southampton on October 9, he told officials he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for one week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, where he was issued a Soviet visa on October 14. Oswald left Helsinki by train on the following day, crossed the Soviet border at Vainikkala, and arrived in Moscow on October 16.[28]
Almost immediately, Oswald told his Intourist guide of his desire to become a Soviet citizen,[29] but was told on October 21 that his application had been refused. Oswald then inflicted a minor but bloody wound to his left wrist in his hotel room bathtub, after which the Soviets put him under psychiatric observation at a hospital.[30][31]
On October 31 Oswald appeared at the United States embassy in Moscow, declaring a desire to renounce his U.S. citizenship.[32][33] John McVickar, an official at the Moscow embassy, felt that Oswald, "...was following a pattern of behavior in which he had been tutored by [a] person or persons unknown...seemed to be using words which he had learned but did not fully understand...in short, it seemed to me that there was a possibility that he had been in contact with others before or during his Marine Corps tour who had guided him and encouraged him in his actions."[34] He told Soviet officials[when?] "...that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps and that he...would make known to them such information concerning the Marine Corps and his speciality as he possessed. He intimated that he might know something of special interest."[35] (Such statements led to Oswald's hardship/honorable military discharge being changed to undesirable.)[36]
Marina Prusakova, Minsk 1959
Though Oswald had wanted to attend Moscow University, he was sent to Minsk to work as a lathe operator at the Gorizont (Horizon) Electronics Factory, a facility producing radios, televisions, and military and space electronics. He also received a subsidized, fully furnished studio apartment in a prestigious building and an additional supplement to his factory pay—all in all, an idyllic existence by Soviet working-class standards,[37] although he was under constant surveillance.[38]
In April, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald moved to New Orleans. On 26th May, 1963, Oswald wrote to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and proposed "renting a small office at my own expense for the purpose of forming a FPCC branch here in New Orleans". Three days later, without waiting for a reply, Oswald ordered 1,000 copies of a handbill from a local printers. It read: "Hands Off Cuba! Join the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, New Orleans Charter Member Branch, Free Literature, Lectures, Everyone Welcome!"
According to Bill Simpich: "4/18/63 is the postmark date of the letter sent from Dallas by Oswald to the national FPCC office in New York. An FBI memo about this letter refers to “photographs of the below listed material made available by NY 3245-S* on 4/21/63...in the event any of this material is disseminated outside the bureau, caution should be exercised to protect the source, NY 3245-S*, and the communication should be classified “Confidential”". This refers to Victor Thomas Vicente, who was the FBI spy at the FPCC.
Oswald rented an office for the FPCC at 544 Camp Street. No one joined the FPCC in New Orleans but Oswald did send out two honourary membership cards to Gus Hall and Benjamin Davis, two senior members of the American Communist Party.
On 9th August, 1963, he was giving out his Fair Play for Cuba Committee leaflets when he became involved in a fight with Carlos Bringuier. Oswald was arrested and on 12th August, he was found guilty and fined $10. While in prison he was visited by FBI agent, John L. Quigley. Five days later Oswald debated the issue of Fidel Castro and Cuba with Bringuier and Ed Butler on the Bill Stuckey Radio Show. Later that month Oswald was seen in the company of David Ferrie and Clay Shaw.
In September, 1963, Marina Oswald moved to Dallas to have her second child. Lee Harvey Oswald visited Mexico City where he visited the Cuban Embassy where he attempted to get permission to travel to Cuba. His application was turned down and after trying to get a visa for the Soviet Union he arrived in Dallas in October, 1963. Marina and June were living with a woman called Ruth Paine. Oswald rented a room in Dallas and with the help of Ruth Paine, he found a job at the Texas School Book Depository.
wholly crap.. you guys arent seriously gonna debate the JFK assassination..??
that's a completely un-answerable question, gentlemen.. i'd think men of the apparently above average IQ the 3 of you can at least agree on that.
IBTL!
I think we can safely and reasonably determine Oswald was a communist.
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 15:14
To the best of my knowledge I've never called YOU dangerous or evil.
It wasn't you, or anyone involved in this particular thread to whom I was referring. If you're really curious you can do a search to find out who it was, not that it matters.
And unless you are in fact a communist, I've never said anything about YOU as an individual.
Again, I wasn't referring to you (and for the record, no, I'm not a Communist).
I guarantee you would not enjoy living under such a system.
I've stated repeatedly that Communism doesn't work in the real world because it is easily corrupted by people, who are intrinsically corrupt to one degree or another. I've stated repeatedly that Communism would be an incredibly poor choice for America. The closest to Communism I've ever actually advocated is nationalized healthcare, and it would be my desire to see that particular piece of socialism restricted strictly TO healthcare (how feasible that dream is is another discussion for another time).
So you believe we were wrong to "check" Roosevelt socialism and the related eugenics programs that forcibly sterilized US citizens? That made us Nazi Germany? We should have kept doing it?
Please, please, please learn some history.You have an entire internet at your disposal.
To say I'm not convinced would be the understatement of the century. My entire internet's research has shown me that this crackpot theory you're using as fact, which I've never heard before, is based on a single alleged quote that Mr. Davenport, the posterchild of American eugenics, claimed to have been told by Mr. Roosevelt AFTER he was no longer president.
If I have to explain to you why that trips my skepticism button, then all further discussion is a waste of time anyway.
Suwannee Tim
11-21-10, 15:23
Occam's Razor: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one."
Oswald shot Kennedy. Oswald was a communist. No, they did not find orders to shoot President Kennedy signed by Nikita Khrushchev in his pocket.
dookie1481
11-21-10, 15:32
alaskapopo and ChicagoTex -
I like you guys, and I agree with some of what you say. I think you guys bring some needed balance to this forum.
However, this kind of sophistry is very unbecoming of you.
Jay
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 15:50
I like you guys, and I agree with some of what you say. I think you guys bring some needed balance to this forum.
However, this kind of sophistry is very unbecoming of you.
Sorry to disappoint? I think most of the "sophistry" on both ends is being generated by confusion because the scope of this discussion keeps changing.
Suwannee Tim
11-21-10, 15:56
I've stated repeatedly that Communism doesn't work in the real world because it is easily corrupted by people
Communism and socialism are not inherently bad. It is the bad or fallible people, the Communists and socialists who ran the programs that caused a good idea to fail. What we need are a better, more virtuous crop of Communists and socialists to run things. Fortunately, they are available. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, the rest of the Democrat party, ready, willing and able. This is the chronic problem with Communism and socialism, the wrong people always seem to be in charge and ruin things. The correct solution is the current crop of Communists and socialists. They can be trusted to do it right.
Communism and socialism are not inherently bad. It is the bad or fallible people, the Communists and socialists who ran the programs that caused a good idea to fail. What we need are a better, more virtuous crop of Communists and socialists to run things. Fortunately, they are available. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, the rest of the Democrat party, ready, willing and able. This is the chronic problem with Communism and socialism, the wrong people always seem to be in charge and ruin things. The correct solution is the current crop of Communists and socialists. They can be trusted to do it right.
http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/forum/smileyvault-popcorn.gif (http://www.smileyvault.com/)
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 16:20
Communism and socialism are not inherently bad. It is the bad or fallible people, the Communists and socialists who ran the programs that caused a good idea to fail. What we need are a better, more virtuous crop of Communists and socialists to run things. Fortunately, they are available. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, the rest of the Democrat party, ready, willing and able. This is the chronic problem with Communism and socialism, the wrong people always seem to be in charge and ruin things. The correct solution is the current crop of Communists and socialists. They can be trusted to do it right.
As I made clear much earlier in the thread, I'm using the editorial "people", not making the argument that someone new can make it work.
I wouldn't trust myself to make Communism work even if I thought was remotely possible, much less anyone else. Experience has taught us that it's just not doable.
Suwannee Tim
11-21-10, 17:26
....not making the argument that someone new can make it work.
I'm just using you as a foil Tex, I didn't intend to attribute the argument to you. This question should be directed to Democrats in a very public way.....like in a Presidential campaign.......by a Presidential candidate.......say, John McCain. No, it would be impolite to ask hard questions, to make hostile remarks. Your opponent might not invite you to the White House after he wins. Your name would be deleted from important lists. No more dinner parties.:sad:
Magic_Salad0892
11-21-10, 17:39
Oswald was a communist. No I don't believe that Oswald shot Kennedy.
But I do believe he was a large part of it.
Yes, I believe that the Soviets shot Kennedy.
Belmont didn't step out of line or anything.
To say I'm not convinced would be the understatement of the century. My entire internet's research has shown me that this crackpot theory you're using as fact, which I've never heard before, is based on a single alleged quote that Mr. Davenport, the posterchild of American eugenics, claimed to have been told by Mr. Roosevelt AFTER he was no longer president.
If I have to explain to you why that trips my skepticism button, then all further discussion is a waste of time anyway.
And this answer tells me all I need to know. That you have no knowledge at all of this part of American history and no real desire to learn actual answers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#United_States
The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.[20] The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. It was shut down due to ethical problems. The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded and the mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed. According to the activist Angela Davis, Native Americans, as well as African-American women[21] were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth). However, citing a Government Accountability Office investigation which found no evidence to support Davis's claims, The Chicago Reader also noted that the rate of sterilizations for all American women (or their partners) was 41% as of 1995,[citation needed] compared to only "at least 25%" of Native American women receiving sterilization as shown by the activist and physician Connie Redbird Uri Pinkerman, whose work prompted the GAO investigation;[citation needed] The Chicago Reader also claimed that overall, "Accounts in the medical journals suggest that surgical sterilization rates for Native Americans rose during this period but were lower than for the general population. (IHS data for 1975 indicates that the tubal ligation rate was about the same as for the non-Native American population, while the hysterectomy rate was much lower)".[22] Some sterilizations took place in prisons and other penal institutions, targeting criminality, but they were in the relative[citation needed] minority. In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.[23]
The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907,[24] followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.[25]
Most sterilization laws could be divided into three main categories of motivations: eugenic (concerned with heredity), therapeutic (part of an even-then obscure medical theory that sterilization would lead to vitality), or punitive (as a punishment for criminals), though of course these motivations could be combined in practice and theory (sterilization of criminals could be both punitive and eugenic, for example). Buck v. Bell asserted only that eugenic sterilization was constitutional, whereas Skinner v. Oklahoma ruled specifically against punitive sterilization. Most operations only worked to prevent reproduction (such as severing the vas deferens in males), though some states (Oregon and North Dakota in particular) had laws which called for the use of castration. In general, most sterilizations were performed under eugenic statutes, in state-run psychiatric hospitals and homes for the mentally disabled.[26] There was never a federal sterilization statute, though eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, whose state-level "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" was the basis of the statute affirmed in Buck v. Bell, proposed the structure of one in 1922.[27]
After World War II, public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany, though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.[28] The U.S. commonwealth Puerto Rico had a sterilization program as well. Some states continued to have sterilization laws on the books for much longer after that, though they were rarely if ever used. California sterilized more than any other state by a wide margin, and was responsible for over a third of all sterilization operations. Information about the California sterilization program was produced into book form and widely disseminated by eugenicists E.S. Gosney and Paul B. Popenoe, which was said by the government of Adolf Hitler to be of key importance in proving that large-scale compulsory sterilization programs were feasible.[29] In recent years, the governors of many states have made public apologies for their past programs beginning with Virginia and followed by Oregon and California. None have offered to compensate those sterilized, however, citing that few are likely still living (and would of course have no affected offspring) and that inadequate records remain by which to verify them. At least one compensation case, Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital (1981), was filed in the courts on the grounds that the sterilization law was unconstitutional. It was rejected because the law was no longer in effect at the time of the filing. However, the petitioners were granted some compensation as the stipulations of the law itself, which required informing the patients about their operations, had not been carried out in many cases.
The 27 states where sterilization laws remained on the books (though not all were still in use) in 1956 were: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.[30]
And because you will demand sources and be too lazy to source them for yourself.
Eugenics And Its Relevance To Contemporary Health Care, Rachel Iredale, Nursing Ethics 2000 7 (3), 0969-7330(00)NE346OA © 2000 Arnold
Angela Davis, Women, Race and Class (1981) ISBN 0-394-71351-6
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2384/were-40-of-native-american-women-forcibly-sterilized-in-the-1970s
An overview of U.S. eugenics and sterilization is in Daniel Kevles, In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity (New York: Knopf, 1985).
The Indiana Supreme Court overturned the law in 1921 in Williams v. Smith, 131 NE 2 (Ind.), 1921, text at [1]
On the legal history of eugenic sterilization in the U.S., see Paul Lombardo, "Eugenic Sterilization Laws", essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html.
Philip Reilly, The surgical solution: a history of involuntary sterilization in the United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991).
A copy of Harry Laughlin's "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" (including the federal proposal) is available online at: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~wellerst/laughlin/.
Julie Sullivan, "State will admit sterilization past", Portland Oregonian (November 15, 2002). Available online at http://www.people1.org/eugenics/eugenics_article_6.htm
On California sterilizations and their connection to the Nazi program, see: Stefan Kühl, The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Alexandra Stern, Eugenic nation: faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005); and Wendy Kline, Building a better race: gender, sexuality, and eugenics from the turn of the century to the baby boom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).
http://www.toolan.com/hitler/append1.html. Note that this is not a comprehensive list of states which had sterilization laws on the books at any given time (some states had their laws overturned in courts very early on) nor an indication of when states' laws were active (some ceased to be used much earlier).
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 20:45
I get it, you can quote wikipedia. Thank you.
And yes, I admit to not spending a lot of time studying the late 19th/early 20th century eugenics bender in America, so sue me. But you presented it as Teddy Roosevelt's baby and my skepticism on that point remains the same for exactly the same reasons.
Ultimately though, this whole topic is at best tangential. What I meant by "checking that damns if you do and damns if you don't" is creating new law that says "such and such sets of ideas are illegal". As evidenced by what you posted, pretty much all eugenics policies that were implemented as law were overturned or ignored by their respective authorities due to gross constitutional violation.
In essence, it was already checked as much as it needed to be.
Do you disagree?
I get it, you can quote wikipedia. Thank you.
No, I can find answers and do actual research rather than simply dismiss things as a "crackpot theory" in an attempt to discredit people I disagree with. Something you could have easily done yourself with the slightest inclination to actually know the truth.
And yes, I admit to not spending a lot of time studying the late 19th/early 20th century eugenics bender in America, so sue me. But you presented it as Teddy Roosevelt's baby and my skepticism on that point remains the same for exactly the same reasons.
And there is the famous ChicagoTex distortion. Nowhere did I present it as Roosevelt's baby. What I said EXACTLY is this:
"Even comparatively more benign forms of Democratic Socialism attempted in this country have resulted in some pretty horrific things such as our Eugenics program of the 1930s which forcibly sterilized US citizens who qualified as "indigent" and our race based immigration policies which were borrowed by German almost verbatim."
And as I have demonstrated, it is true. Now I also said in a previous post:
"So you believe we were wrong to "check" Roosevelt socialism and the related eugenics programs that forcibly sterilized US citizens?"
And it WAS Roosevelt's Democratic Socialism which PERMITTED such things as the US Eugenics program so ultimately he would be responsible, even it it wasn't "his baby" just as people hold President Bush accountable for many things that happened during his administration even if it wasn't "his baby." And you should know very well what I'm talking about as you seem to be one of the bigger proponents of blaming Bush for anything that happened during his administration.
And the fact that you "remain skeptical" about anything stated above is simply you shouting your bias.
Ultimately though, this whole topic is at best tangential. What I meant by "checking that damns if you do and damns if you don't" is creating new law that says "such and such sets of ideas are illegal". As evidenced by what you posted, pretty much all eugenics policies that were implemented as law were overturned or ignored by their respective authorities due to gross constitutional violation.
Nothing is tangible unless you are trying desperately to dodge the point. Everything on this post reinforces the original point. And that is systems of government where the state exists at the expense of the individual and his freedoms are dangerous and inherently evil.
We have offered you example after example from US agents who give people like Stalin atomic weapons, a US citizen who advocated communism, moved to Russia and later executed a US President, the horrors of the Berlin Wall and an entire population held hostage and even the dangers of a comparatively less malignant form of Democratic Socialism of the 1930s in this country which resulted in the forced sterilization of citizens simply because the "state" gave itself the right to do so.
But rather than understand all the examples given and how they directly relate to the original topic, you stick your head in the sand and grasp at anything that will permit you to dismiss, discredit or otherwise reject those examples and how they are directly related.
You remind me of those who insist the Ft. Hood shooting was completely unrelated to Islam and that the individual just happened to be a Muslim. This is an example to demonstrate what I am talking about, you will dismiss it as an unrelated tangent.
In essence, it was already checked as much as it needed to be.
Do you disagree?
More correctly, it was abandoned. After the war, given the Nazi example where all forms of socialism end up, even if they are a US Democratic Socialism, we realized the inherent evil of such a system and ceased our experiment with those forms of government. Thankfully it was not a fully implemented socialist government or we'd have been powerless to stop and change course. But that shows just how dangerous even quasi socialism can be and how quickly it can go terribly wrong.
It was not a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't, because the NON socialist forms of government which existed previous and following our period of Democratic Socialism were perfectly acceptable. So in those cases we were only "damned if you do." And while our country wasn't perfect (and it never is) when we ceased to have a government that practiced Democratic Socialism, the citizens were then in a position where they could address and attempt to correct the various social issues that still plagued us.
To put it in a context you might understand, do you think for a moment the civil rights movement would have stood a chance under a government engaged in Democratic Socialism. Those efforts to correct racial and other inequities would have been strangled in the crib. Only in a free, representative government can such changes be made.
Now I know you are very young, and that you haven't done a lot of research on these topics so I'm gonna try not to hold too much of that against you. I also do fully understand you are approaching this subject from a "pure liberty" standpoint. And to an extent I actually agree with you. I do believe that a US citizen can be a communist, national socialist or member of the KKK and should be free to do so IF they decide. Where we differ is I understand there is an inherent evil in those political philosophies and participation in them should have consequences. For example I don't believe former KKK members should be permitted to participate in government as they would need to represent all people. Unfortunately along with avowed communists and socialist we have also had racists in government as well.
I would strongly urge you to actually consider the examples we have provided and understand that they are all related, this is where things always go when the government is in control of the people and they have no power to stop it.
ChicagoTex
11-21-10, 23:41
And you should know very well what I'm talking about as you seem to be one of the bigger proponents of blaming Bush for anything that happened during his administration.
I suspect on this point you may be confusing me with another frequent poster on this forum who takes a lot of flak for liberalist views (you know who I am referring to). I've operated on the position that pretty much since after the Eisenhower presidency, and with the admitted exceptions of Reagan (who was extremely personally active in policy-making) and Ford (who appeared to be deliberately INACTIVE in policy-making) any given U.S. President has largely been a patsy to his own manipulative cabinet as far as domestic policy goes. This too, however, is a discussion for another day.
Nowhere did I present it as Roosevelt's baby. What I said EXACTLY is this:
"Even comparatively more benign forms of Democratic Socialism attempted in this country have resulted in some pretty horrific things such as our Eugenics program of the 1930s which forcibly sterilized US citizens who qualified as "indigent" and our race based immigration policies which were borrowed by German almost verbatim."
And as I have demonstrated, it is true. Now I also said in a previous post:
"So you believe we were wrong to "check" Roosevelt socialism and the related eugenics programs that forcibly sterilized US citizens?"
And it WAS Roosevelt's Democratic Socialism which PERMITTED such things as the US Eugenics program so ultimately he would be responsible, even it it wasn't "his baby" just as people hold President Bush accountable for many things that happened during his administration even if it wasn't "his baby."
Fair enough, I lost your first quote in all noise and mischaracterized your claim - for that I apologize. And if your pitch is condemnation for INaction rather than action, then you've got yourself a pretty solid point. It certainly seems like something a U.S. President should have come out against, if only to have it on the record. Not because it's inherently evil (though the purpose behind it would certainly appear to be), but because it's demonstrably contra-constitutional to force it.
You remind me of those who insist the Ft. Hood shooting was completely unrelated to Islam and that the individual just happened to be a Muslim. This is an example to demonstrate what I am talking about, you will dismiss it as an unrelated tangent.
I understand the parallel, I understand that it's apt from your perspective. If you'll recall, we actually did have that discussion a few months back and my position was that it really wasn't that simple.
...And so it is here.
I suspect I may have discovered the fundamental disconnect between our perspectives, however.
You seem to fundamentally view government as something that is forced onto people - a compulsory set of restrictions. I will freely admit that in reality this is mostly the case. I believe that it happens that way because the great human drive to compete inevitably drives humans to oppress each other as much as they are able. As systems like Communism or National Socialism give a small number of humans a great deal of power to oppress a much larger group of humans, it naturally follows that such systems lead to greater oppression.
I have made this concession from the start.
I fundamentally view government as an opportunity for many humans to come together and achieve things not possible individually for the betterment of the whole, much like a giant mutual fund or co-op - a collective contract amongst all it's citizens entered into and participated in voluntarily. To me, idealized Communism (which we've already agreed doesn't and never will exist) represents the ultimate abandonment of materialistic tendencies. Stuff is just stuff, and while I like my stuff as much as the next guy, I'd gladly forfeit it in exchange for living in a society that traffics in ideas and interaction, rather than who owns what or who beat whom. Honestly, the notion of not having to worry about stuff is far more appealing than the notion of having said stuff. To me, the notion of idealized Communism doesn't kill the human spirit, it sets it free.
But these are pipe dreams, and I recognize that. However, that's how the discussion turned: to idealization, utopia, etc.
The question was: is Communism in it's unmolested form - in my fantasy world where unicorns thrive and puppy dogs shit rainbows - a good thing, or at least a noble thing? I responded in the affirmative, and you and Belmont in particular have done your damnedest to try to show that because Communism has always been corrupted, it's an inherently corrupt concept.
This, to me, simply does not compute, and further examples of corruption aren't going to change that.
I suspect on this point you may be confusing me with another frequent poster on this forum who takes a lot of flak for liberalist views (you know who I am referring to). I've operated on the position that pretty much since after the Eisenhower presidency, and with the admitted exceptions of Reagan (who was extremely personally active in policy-making) and Ford (who appeared to be deliberately INACTIVE in policy-making) any given U.S. President has largely been a patsy to his own manipulative cabinet as far as domestic policy goes. This too, however, is a discussion for another day.
If I have you wrong, then I'll let that one go.
Fair enough, I lost your first quote in all noise and mischaracterized your claim - for that I apologize. And if your pitch is condemnation for INaction rather than action, then you've got yourself a pretty solid point. It certainly seems like something a U.S. President should have come out against, if only to have it on the record. Not because it's inherently evil (though the purpose behind it would certainly appear to be), but because it's demonstrably contra-constitutional to force it.
Actually you quoted the first quote, they are BOTH there. And it isn't simply a matter of Roosevelt failed to stop it, he ushered in a new brand of government which not only permitted it but supported it. It simply wasn't a Roosevelt decree. And a great deal of what Roosevelt did and/or supported was in conflict with the US Constitution.
I understand the parallel, I understand that it's apt from your perspective. If you'll recall, we actually did have that discussion a few months back and my position was that it really wasn't that simple.
...And so it is here.
I suspect I may have discovered the fundamental disconnect between our perspectives, however.
You seem to fundamentally view government as something that is forced onto people - a compulsory set of restrictions. I will freely admit that in reality this is mostly the case. I believe that it happens that way because the great human drive to compete inevitably drives humans to oppress each other as much as they are able. As systems like Communism or National Socialism give a small number of humans a great deal of power to oppress a much larger group of humans, it naturally follows that such systems lead to greater oppression.
I have made this concession from the start.
I fundamentally view government as an opportunity for many humans to come together and achieve things not possible individually for the betterment of the whole, much like a giant mutual fund or co-op. To me, idealized Communism (which we've already agreed doesn't and never will exist) represents the ultimate abandonment of materialistic tendencies. Stuff is just stuff, and while I like my stuff as much as the next guy, I'd gladly forfeit it in exchange for living in a society that traffics in ideas and interaction, rather than who owns what or who beat whom. Honestly, the notion of not having to worry about stuff is far more appealing than the notion of having said stuff. To me, the notion of idealized Communism doesn't kill the human spirit, it sets it free.
But these are pipe dreams, and I recognize that. However, that's how the discussion turned. To idealization, utopia, etc.
The question was: is Communism in it's unmolested form - in my fantasy world where unicorns thrive and puppy dogs shit rainbows - a good thing, or at least a noble thing? I responded in the affirmative, and you and Belmont in particular have done your damnedest to try to show that because Communism has always been corrupted, it's an inherently corrupt concept.
This, to me, simply does not compute, and further examples of corruption aren't going to change that.
Actually, in my view, government is what is actually limited, or that is the way it is supposed to be. I think everyone agrees that it isn't that way, and perhaps never was.
As for the concept of "cooperative communism" (even though you state it can never actually exist in that form) being positive in concept, I still disagree. That is because the "cooperative" part is never voluntary and always dictated by others. While all men may be equal in terms of the rights due to them, that is about where it ends.
People are NOT equal in terms of intelligence, diligence, work ethic or any of the other things that determine the worth of one individual to the next. And as a result they should be rewarded according to those things. That is the fatal flaw of all forms of communism/socialism. it removes the incentive to achieve, except for fear of reprisal, on the part of the individual who possesses actual talent and ability.
And stuff is not just stuff. That is the lie told, that communism is just the rejection of materialism. And without all that "stuff" we could all be truly equal.
What that "stuff" they are talking about actually is are things like the ability to be independent, self reliant and the ability to completely provide for yourself, your loved ones and others as you see fit. That is all pretty important stuff to have, it means you don't have to depend upon the government to give it to you. And it will always be cheaper to earn "stuff" on your own than to look to the government to provide you with "stuff." Unlike the government, the "stuff" you provide for yourself will be much better and used with your best interests in mind first.
And the government will always want something in exchange for giving you "stuff" and it doesn't take a genius to understand what that is. And once gone, you will be getting a lot less "stuff."
Now, if you personally feel you don't want "stuff" you are in luck. You live in a free country. You can quit your job and go live in a wood shack Ted Kaczynski style. You probably have enough money right now to achieve this goal. And if you bring along a few like minded friends you can put your shacks side by side and have a commune. it will be your own little slice of the Utopian dream. And you don't have to destroy a free government to have this opportunity, you can do it right now.
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 01:32
The question was: is Communism in it's unmolested form - in my fantasy world where unicorns thrive and puppy dogs shit rainbows - a good thing, or at least a noble thing? I responded in the affirmative, and you and Belmont in particular have done your damnedest to try to show that because Communism has always been corrupted, it's an inherently corrupt concept.
This, to me, simply does not compute, and further examples of corruption aren't going to change that.
So you think a violent revolution where millions could be killed is a good thing? That is part of communism, and even the CPUSA listed a few communist leaders as being "great", and all of their rises to power ended up with lots of people in their path who had been killed. The communist revolution in Cuba was full of death.
Carl Marx studied the French Revolution in detail on how the lower class can revolt against the the "owners", and the most iconic thing about the French Revolution was the guillotine. I think its pretty well established in history that the way communists (both in the theory and application) take power is by spilling the blood of the "owners" and people who get in the way.
formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution
From the Communist Manifesto of course....;)
But you can keep pretending cases where this happened with communists...the mass murder, rape, pillaging, ect is just because people didn't practice communism right..
RancidSumo
11-22-10, 01:37
The question was: is Communism in it's unmolested form - in my fantasy world where unicorns thrive and puppy dogs shit rainbows - a good thing, or at least a noble thing? I responded in the affirmative, and you and Belmont in particular have done your damnedest to try to show that because Communism has always been corrupted, it's an inherently corrupt concept.
This, to me, simply does not compute, and further examples of corruption aren't going to change that.
Once again, seriously, what the ****? Even in your imaginary world where it could be implemented it still fundamentally violates property rights. The right to be secure in one's property is the basis for all things we consider "rights" now. They are all just branches of property rights. How can you support anything that takes them away? Communism, even in its "unmolested form", is an evil concept and anyone who believes otherwise holds a view that is barely above a mass murderer's in morality.
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 02:22
Once again, seriously, what the ****? Even in your imaginary world where it could be implemented it still fundamentally violates property rights. The right to be secure in one's property is the basis for all things we consider "rights" now. They are all just branches of property rights. How can you support anything that takes them away? Communism, even in its "unmolested form", is an evil concept and anyone who believes otherwise holds a view that is barely above a mass murderer's in morality.
I really don't see how anyone can support it. Even the theory, as I pointed out, calls for violent overthrow.
If someone supports it that means they support violence against their fellow citizens as a normal part of their ideology.
Which is exactly why communism/communists are dangerous and evil. Not on the same pedestal as every other political ideology. Our founders revolted because they were being oppressed. Communism does the exact opposite by revolution to suppress and take from others.
I fundamentally view government as an opportunity for many humans to come together and achieve things not possible individually for the betterment of the whole, much like a giant mutual fund or co-op - a collective contract amongst all it's citizens entered into and participated in voluntarily. To me, idealized Communism (which we've already agreed doesn't and never will exist) represents the ultimate abandonment of materialistic tendencies. Stuff is just stuff, and while I like my stuff as much as the next guy, I'd gladly forfeit it in exchange for living in a society that traffics in ideas and interaction, rather than who owns what or who beat whom.
PATHETIC !!!
and sadly this is whats wrong with lots of people like you and what is bringing down this country !!!!
willing to roll over and take it !
at least IMHO :)
I choose to work hard and chart my own path
some choose to get a flop job and milk the gov and expect people like me to take care of them !
so you WANT to get what I have cause you dont want to bother or are to lazy OR
you dont want me to have it cause you dont !!!
the car detail thread is a good example some love to take care of their stuff ? others do not !!! look at the cars on the road
your voluntary comment is the funnies thing in the world !!!
since you would gladly give it up why not just move to a Communist country their are plenty out their !!!!
"we don't own shit... we think," said smugly.
And stuff is not just stuff. That is the lie told, that communism is just the rejection of materialism. And without all that "stuff" we could all be truly equal.
At an even more profound level, "stuff," is not just stuff, it's life.
There's a reason people commemorate the day on the calendar when the average worker's tax liability has been met. It's understood that that length of time, that portion of the worker's life, WHICH HE CAN NEVER GET BACK, has been spent in the toil of benefit to someone else.
If someone steals your big screen tv, they didn't just steal your "stuff," they also stole the time spent earning the money, the time spent learning a skill or trade, the time spent planning, sacrificing....and then they say, "well, it's insured." Insurance ain't free where I live. Whenever I hear someone say "it's just stuff," I cannot believe he actually ever earned anything for himself.
And it's funny that the people who denigrate material possessions are the first ones in your pocket to make sure "the less fortunate" don't go without a damn thing.
At an even more profound level, "stuff," is not just stuff, it's life.
If someone steals your big screen tv, they didn't just steal your "stuff," they also stole the time spent earning the money, the time spent learning a skill or trade, the time spent planning, sacrificing....and then they say, "well, it's insured." Insurance ain't free where I live. Whenever I hear someone say "it's just stuff," I cannot believe he actually ever earned anything for himself.
And it's funny that the people who denigrate material possessions are the first ones in your pocket to make sure "the less fortunate" don't go without a damn thing.
sadly when someone takes it also stole your feeling of security and safety in your home ! the family is usually quite afraid after that etc..
but well said post ;)
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 15:28
so you WANT to get what I have cause you dont want to bother or are to lazy OR
you dont want me to have it cause you dont !!!
As usual you come out full-tilt bias, on the offensive, with no reading comprehension, Honu. I'm getting awfully tired of this.
I don't want or need what you have. I work hard and get by all on my own without participating in any welfare programs or anything of the like. I'm willing to give up my excess to those less fortunate, I just want to see that it's spent well (a great many charities, for example, purchase things retail with the money you donate to them). An idealized government could leverage it's self-regulation and buying power to achieve BIG savings.
In short. I work, I pay taxes, and I'd be perfectly happy to pay higher taxes for the greater good.
I don't want to force you to give me your stuff, I want you to want to. But since that'll never happen, I won't force it - and that's why I say Communism is wrong for America even though I believe it to be a noble idea.
since you would gladly give it up why not just move to a Communist country their are plenty out their !!!!
Because I wouldn't be giving it up for anything useful. Reading comprehension, learn it - I've already covered this shit in detail.
At an even more profound level, "stuff," is not just stuff, it's life.
From my perspective, life is what happens between stuff. But I appreciate your perspective.
From my perspective, life is what happens between stuff. But I appreciate your perspective.
That's not a matter of perspective, it's the difference between freedom and slavery.
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 15:48
As usual you come out full-tilt bias, on the offensive, with no reading comprehension, Honu. I'm getting awfully tired of this.
I don't want or need what you have. I work hard and get by all on my own without participating in any welfare programs or anything of the like. I'm willing to give up my excess to those less fortunate, I just want to see that it's spent well (a great many charities, for example, purchase things retail with the money you donate to them). An idealized government could leverage it's self-regulation and buying power to achieve BIG savings.
In short. I work, I pay taxes, and I'd be perfectly happy to pay higher taxes for the greater good.
I don't want to force you to give me your stuff, I want you to want to. But since that'll never happen, I won't force it - and that's why I say Communism is wrong for America even though I believe it to be a noble idea.
Because I wouldn't be giving it up for anything useful. Reading comprehension, learn it - I've already covered this shit in detail.
From my perspective, life is what happens between stuff. But I appreciate your perspective.
So you say it wouldn't work in America but still proclaim it a noble idea.
Tell me what is noble about a violent overthrow where countless people are bound to be killed in the name of the revolution?
I already pointed out that is part of the communist ideology. It has nothing to do with people becoming corrupt. Its an inherent part of communism as said by Karl Marx himself.
He was also a fan of the Paris Commune in which inner city laborers took up arms against the government after the Prussian invasion, and they started lining people up against walls to institute a communist style government within Paris.
Thats noble?
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 17:12
Of course not. Any idealized form of government would require no force or violence, as it would be entered into voluntarily. I never said Marx was noble, I said the Communist ideal was.
Suwannee Tim
11-22-10, 17:57
I fundamentally view government as an opportunity for many humans to come together and achieve things not possible individually for the betterment of the whole, much like a giant mutual fund or co-op - a collective contract amongst all it's citizens entered into and participated in voluntarily. To me, idealized Communism (which we've already agreed doesn't and never will exist) represents the ultimate abandonment of materialistic tendencies.
You guys are Bogartin (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bogart) the joint again damn it! You know I hate it when you Bogart (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bogart) the joint!
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 18:10
You guys are Bogartin the joint again damn it! You know I hate it when you Bogart the joint!
What can I tells ya? I dream big and then scale down to reality. :happy:
Know what's funny, we're all talking shit about communist and no individual rights... Yet in this country you can't even own a piece of property :sarcastic:
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 18:27
Of course not. Any idealized form of government would require no force or violence, as it would be entered into voluntarily. I never said Marx was noble, I said the Communist ideal was.
The communist ideal calls for violent overthrow/revolution, too.
So you think mass murder for political gain is noble....all I need to know.
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 18:33
The communist ideal calls for violent overthrow/revolution, too.
I disagree, I've made this clear, but by all means keep telling me what I really mean because apparently I don't understand... :confused::rolleyes:
So you think mass murder for political gain is noble....all I need to know.
If you say so...
Does that mean we're done now?
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 18:47
I disagree, I've made this clear, but by all means keep telling me what I really mean because apparently I don't understand... :confused::rolleyes:
If you say so...
Does that mean we're done now?
Its not because I say so its because Ive posted direct quotes from the commies themselves that say what is a part of communism, and you are trying to say its not. Who should we believe? A random person on the internet or whats been said straight out of the horse's mouth?
I thought you were done a couple pages ago. You can quit at anytime you wish. Since we aren't "noble communists" yet we still have a choice in what we do in our lives.
BTW when are you going to set the example, and give all of your possessions to the state to be redistributed to those in need? Its funny all these lefty people like you think everyone should give up their property for the benefit of others but they never want to be "1st" in line. Im sure you could get rid of your car, and take a communal transportation system like the bus, no? Its not very noble of the bourgeois class to own cars when all the little people out there are forced to ride the public system you know.....;)
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 18:57
Its not because I say so its because Ive posted direct quotes from the commies themselves that say what is a part of communism, and you are trying to say its not. Who should we believe? A random person on the internet or whats been said straight out of the horse's mouth?
Why would a society where everybody voluntarily enters communism need to murder people? That literally makes no sense, the only reason you murder people is to foster the revolution - if everybody's willing, no murder is required.
I thought you were done a couple pages ago.
I was done with you. You then changed points and I figured they deserved addressing. Perhaps I was incorrect, my bad - next time I'll just ignore the troll.
BTW when are you going to set the example, and give all of your possessions to the state to be redistributed to those in need?
The state wouldn't need my posessions, they'd need my money.
Im sure you could get rid of your car, and take a communal transportation system like the bus, no?
Given that I don't live in a major city, that wouldn't really work. But I think you already knew that and you're just being specious.
Its not very noble of the bourgeois class to own cars when all the little people out there are forced to ride the public system you know.....
Automobile ownership in America is relatively standard and hardly bourgeois. Just because there are some people in America who don't own automobiles doesn't necessarily make those who do "wealthy".
But, again... I think you're just being specious.
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 19:04
Why would a society where everybody voluntarily enters communism need to murder people? That literally makes no sense, the only reason you murder people is to foster the revolution - if everybody's willing, no murder is required.
Because thats never going to happen.
I was done with you. You then changed points and I figured they deserved addressing. Perhaps I was incorrect, my bad - next time I'll just ignore the troll.
Troll? lol whatever...
The state wouldn't need my posessions, they'd need my money.
In communism people's possessions are taken. No one has any personal property. It all belongs to the state.
Given that I don't live in a major city, that wouldn't really work. But I think you already knew that and you're just being specious.
Im sure you could sell it for something more economical, like a Geo Metro, and give the proceeds to the state. Look at the commie vehicles...a Metro would be about right.
Automobile ownership in America is relatively standard and hardly bourgeois. Just because there are some people in America who don't own automobiles doesn't necessarily make those who do "wealthy".
But, again... I think you're just being specious.
Yeah but you probably have a better car than a lot of people do, and thats just not fair. Gotta have everyone equal, you know. Besides in communism its not up to you if you get a car or not.
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 19:09
Because thats never going to happen.
WHICH IS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN SAYING OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR NINE ****ING PAGES
Good ****ing gravy, I know you guys like your strawmen, but this is going way, way too far.
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 19:18
WHICH IS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN SAYING OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR NINE ****ING PAGES
Good ****ing gravy, I know you guys like your strawmen, but this is going way, way too far.
Calm down man. No need to blow a gasket. Its not very Alinksy of you.
You're still wrong though, and should be ashamed of yourself for supporting an ideology that by its very nature calls for a violent overthrow, theft, romanticizes mass murderers, ect.
You're idealized version of communism you've attempted to portray doesn't exist, and doesn't count as communism in the first place. Your defense of communism in this entire thread has been defeated one silly argument after another.
You have been sacked.....:sarcastic:
Your words:
It wasn't Communism (or even Nationalism) itself that murdered people, but the abusive and corrupt psuedo-despots who manipulated the system for their own terrible ends.
For what it's worth, my main objection to Communism is that it's extremely vulnerable to such corruption (much more so than Socialism, Republicanism, or Democracy anyway). In a perfect world, Communism is a delightful system - it just didn't work out that well in practice.
Does not compute with:
They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution
But keep believing a lie...are you done yet or shall we keep doing this?
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 19:22
You're idealized version of communism you've attempted to portray doesn't exist, and doesn't count as communism in the first place.
Why doesn't it count? It works exactly the same way.
You've inexorably linked the idea of Communism with Marx's method of achieving it, what you fail to realize is that those are two seperate concepts.
The only thing you sacked was some strawman you created to make yourself feel better.
Suwannee Tim
11-22-10, 19:22
WHICH IS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN SAYING OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR NINE ****ING PAGES
Good ****ing gravy, I know you guys like your strawmen, but this is going way, way too far.
You keep letting them Tex.
This place you keep describing, Tex, in my circles, we call it "The City of God".
Suwannee Tim
11-22-10, 19:25
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
Or to paraphrase Forrest Gump "Tyranny is as tyranny does."
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 19:26
This place you keep describing, Tex, in my circles, we call it "The City of God".
That's a great point. Many religions view such an arrangement as the ultimate end goal. Does that mean all such religions are fundamentally evil?
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 19:45
Why doesn't it count? It works exactly the same way.
You've inexorably linked the idea of Communism with Marx's method of achieving it, what you fail to realize is that those are two seperate concepts.
The only thing you sacked was some strawman you created to make yourself feel better.
What I quoted is out of the communist manifesto, and is the official "bible" of communists around the world.
I can give you more quotes:
Marxist ideas have been elaborated and modernized by other great revolutionaries such as Vladimir Lenin, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro.
All mass murderers.
The validity of Marxism has been repeatedly demonstrated by its role in guiding successful social struggles and revolutions in every part of the world.
All of which resulted in mass murder.
The Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels, should be on everyone's must-read list.
Their bible and guide book.
An even shorter article is "The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism." Marx's excellent histories, such as The Civil War in France, combine brilliant historical analysis with a deep sympathy for people's struggles.
They really got a hard on for Marx don't they?
All from CPUSA.org
But yep its just a strawman I created....:rolleyes:
Suwannee Tim
11-22-10, 19:48
That's a great point. Many religions view such an arrangement as the ultimate end goal. Does that mean all such religions are fundamentally evil?
No, it means we are waiting for God to implement it, recognizing as we do, both from scripture and observation, the fallen nature of man. You will find no recipe for Utopia in the Bible. As I have previously stated in a slightly different way, the idea of a Utopia is the most toxic ever to inhabit the mind of man. So noble in appearance and yet so destructive in practice.
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 19:52
But yep its just a strawman I created....
Given that you're talking about CPUSA and I'm talking about idealized communism, that's exactly what you've done.
I never argued that CPUSA had anything right - because they don't.
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 19:54
As I have previously stated in a slightly different way, the idea of a Utopia is the most toxic ever to inhabit the mind of man.
So God's plan is toxic?
Suwannee Tim
11-22-10, 20:06
So God's plan is toxic?
For someone who espouses the highest standards of debate you mighty quick to intentionally misconstrue my statement.
Utopia is, as I am sure you already know, a name for a man made ideal community, not a synonym for Heaven.
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 20:09
Given that you're talking about CPUSA and I'm talking about idealized communism, that's exactly what you've done.
I never argued that CPUSA had anything right - because they don't.
Communism is communism. WTF is idealized communism? And you accuse me of making things up?
CPUSA is the face of communism in the US.
As the leader and organizer of the proletariat, the Communist Party of the U.S.A. leads the working class in the fight for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for the establishment of a Socialist Soviet Republic in the United States, for the complete abolition of classes, for the establishment of socialism, the first stage of the classless Communist society.
Our Party realizes that certain conditions must exist before the outworn capitalist system can be overthrown. What are the conditions? Comrade Lenin, in his pamphlet, "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder, answers this question.
"... for revolution it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, politically active workers) should fully understand the necessity for revolution and be ready to sacrifice their lives for it; secondly, that the ruling classes be in a state of governmental crisis which draws even the most backward masses into politics, weakens the government and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly."
Can you give me some direct quotes that explains from someone of importance what idealized communism is that doesn't include violent overthrow/revolution? Some mainstream communist group that supports idealized communism? Some example of idealized communism being successful in the world?
Suwannee Tim
11-22-10, 20:21
I'm going to bed.
That's a great point. Many religions view such an arrangement as the ultimate end goal. Does that mean all such religions are fundamentally evil?
IF they exist at the expense of the individual and personal freedom (any many do, Islam comes to mind), then yes. Religious folks will tend to see a distinction however as one serves a government of man and the other serves what they believe to be the creator of the Universe. I don't buy it personally, but I can appreciate the perspective.
So God's plan is toxic?
Which God, and which plan? Each religion seems to have their own distinct version.
ChicagoTex
11-22-10, 21:25
WTF is idealized communism?
Communism without the killing, as I've already explained.
Would you be happier if I changed the name to "Non-Violent-Communal-Living"? 'Cause I can do that. I don't care what it's called, I care what it is.
For someone who espouses the highest standards of debate you mighty quick to intentionally misconstrue my statement.
Utopia is, as I am sure you already know, a name for a man made ideal community, not a synonym for Heaven.
Wasn't so much trying to misconsture the statement as find the quickest method to get you to elaborate on what seperates what's good for God and what's good for man. You've done that and eased my curiosity.
I'm going to bed.
I don't blame you.
IF they exist at the expense of the individual and personal freedom (any many do, Islam comes to mind), then yes. Religious folks will tend to see a distinction however as one serves a government of man and the other serves what they believe to be the creator of the Universe. I don't buy it personally, but I can appreciate the perspective.
Fair enough. It was a poor decision to try to drag religion into the topic.
Why would a society where everybody voluntarily enters communism need to murder people? That literally makes no sense, the only reason you murder people is to foster the revolution - if everybody's willing, no murder is required.
Please show me a country that went commie without mass murder.
China went commie in 1949. In 1950, after the commies had complete control (and all the guns), they dragged all the landlords out in the street and killed them. Then they invaded Tibet, razed thousands of Buddhist monestaries and killed 1/3 to 1/2 of the population. The murders continued until 1976, when things calmed down (with Mao finally dead, but not buried). The best estimates have China at 30-40 million murdered AFTER THE COMMIES HAD COMPLETE CONTROL.
Why? I don't know.
In my opinion, the new incarnation of communism uses incremental political change to destroy traditional institutions and replace them with a dictatorial government. The violence will come AFTER they commies have consolidated control, as usual. That seems to be the path that we are on.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v641/500grains/commies.jpg
Magic_Salad0892
11-22-10, 21:41
I understand that a society where everybody gives to eachother without violence and all is a noble thought...
But that isn't Communism, or even idealized communism.
Communism by definition is a power hungry ideal.
Tex, I understand what you mean, but your arguments are very poor. IMHO.
Non Violent Communal Living = accurate term for what you mean.
Idealized Communism = Berlin 1943. (0% Unemployment.)
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 21:56
Communism without the killing, as I've already explained.
Would you be happier if I changed the name to "Non-Violent-Communal-Living"? 'Cause I can do that. I don't care what it's called, I care what it is.
Communal living is not even close to communism, and communal living has occured in the US to a large degree but only at the very local living. Like back in the 1800's a town had a general store, doctor, mill, blacksmith, whatever. Money in those circumstances was but one means of trade. People would often trade their goods for the products or services of another. People paid the doctor with eggs, meat, milk, or maybe mended a fence if they didn't have money. No one was exceedingly rich or exceedingly more poor than anyone else. A farmer could still get the basic services of medical attention, sell his wares and produce in town or trade them, ect.
While not completely devoid of possessions it was as close to voluntary communal living as a somewhat modern society as one can get. It still occurs to some extent right now in less developed areas.
However this type of living does not work beyond a very small sample size because in order for this to work people have to know one another, and have a shared struggle for survival. It doesn't work when your goods are shipped off to people you don't even know or probably don't even care about or don't think are deserving.
Amish for the most part still live in this type of setting.
Where communism fails is that merit is not taken into account, and people always need to have possessions. The indians took pride in a bow they created, their horses, his family, maybe a knife or whatever.
But its not a wise idea to confuse this type of society with what communism represents even if you want to delete the revolutionary mass murder part. Communism is very blatant about it being a dictatorship, forced compliance, theft of people's belongings and property, ect. Its not even close to the communal living mentioned above.
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 21:58
I understand that a society where everybody gives to eachother without violence and all is a noble thought...
But that isn't Communism, or even idealized communism.
Communism by definition is a power hungry ideal.
Tex, I understand what you mean, but your arguments are very poor. IMHO.
Non Violent Communal Living = accurate term for what you mean.
Idealized Communism = Berlin 1943. (0% Unemployment.)
Nazis were national socialists (fascists). Sorta similar to communism but the two ideologies are kinda arch rivals which is evident the way the USSR and Nazi's treated each other during WW2.
Nazis were national socialists (fascists). Sorta similar to communism but the two ideologies are kinda arch rivals which is evident the way the USSR and Nazi's treated each other during WW2.
The only reason Nazis and the Commies fought was because they both struggled for the same thing, absolute control and power. They are extremely similar in nature. Also the Nazi's weren't fascists, that was the Italians. The Nazi's were socialists. There are many common elements with fascism (just as there is with communism) but there are also distinctions as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Relation_with_fascism
Nazism differs from Italian fascism in that it does not view a nation as being created and developed by a state, but that a nation is created and developed outside a state. This difference is based upon the different histories of development of the German and Italian nations that formed the basis of Nazism's and Italian Fascism's respective nationalisms; the German national identity developed outside a state while Italian national identity developed through a state. The Italian fascists proposed a corporatist "organic state" that required uniting the classes of society, like a fasces.
Why would a society where everybody voluntarily enters communism need to murder people? That literally makes no sense, the only reason you murder people is to foster the revolution - if everybody's willing, no murder is required.
THAT IS FUNNY yes after all everyone should voluntarily think the same dress the same want the same things have he same things etc.. and then no murder needed ! of course if you stray from what EVERYONE wants YOU DIE
then you have to ask yourself who decides what you want ! cause its not you
Magic_Salad0892
11-23-10, 03:24
Nazis were national socialists (fascists). Sorta similar to communism but the two ideologies are kinda arch rivals which is evident the way the USSR and Nazi's treated each other during WW2.
I understand what you mean, but idealized communism = national socialism is ideal because there was no resistance in the country. With communism it was always on the brink of chaos. Chaos that the government created.
I worded that like shit, but I think you know what I mean.
I'd be happy to debate with you all day, but you're more educated on this than I am.
Suwannee Tim
11-23-10, 04:49
It was a poor decision to try to drag religion into the topic.
My point was not to bring religion into the discussion but to make the point that I regard Tex's idealized communism as impossible. I was making the point that man's attempts to perfect himself have been disastrous.
I think we have adequate experience with Communism, socialism, National Socialism, Juche Idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche), the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, and all the rest to make firm judgments. The most obvious of those judgments is that these political systems lead to great harm, poverty and suffering. And since you are not going to share the joint, I am leaving.:D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.