Open message to communists

[Visbek]

News flash: Communism is almost completely done and over with. Even Cuba is starting to liberalize its economy.

You think the rich have obscene amounts of money.

In the US, they do. Income inequality is the highest it's been since the 1920s. Like it or not, high rates of income inequality corrode the social fabric, and tilt the political system heavily in favor of the wealthy.

Many nations have done a better job at addressing this problem than the US, without adopting Communism, or collapsing into despotism like the USSR. Most of them balance incomes out with progressive taxes, stronger entitlements and poverty protection, and maintain both electoral systems and predominantly capitalistic economies.

You would like the government to arrange for the stripping of all that excess wealth and using it to better the lives of the common man in this country.

What the Communists wanted (note: past tense) was to seize the means of production from the wealthy, and put it in the hands of the political class. In theory, the politians would be in service of the working class.

In practice, it likely didn't work because it concentrated too much power in the hands of the politicians, who didn't know how to run businesses, how to price goods, and had no external oversight.

So: Someone who advocates for progressive tax rates, higher taxes on capital gains, regulation of businesses, and/or restrictions on campaign spending by individuals is not a Communist. They're center left. You understand that, right?

You would like for corporations to be forced to do "the right thing" by the government and you don't think profit for shareholders is that right thing, but rather, paying all employees a very good wage and producing products at the most modest prices.

No, centrists do not believe that shareholders should be screwed. In fact, the tax code is tilted very much in favor of the rentiers and speculators, who have a much lower tax rate for selling investments than from wages.

It's also fairly obvious that corporations can't be trusted to police themselves.

So yes, Communism doesn't work. That's why it has been withering on the vine since 1991, barely exists in the US, and is highly unlikely to appeal to anyone in a society where unions are in decline, and the service economy is on the upswing.

 

[Mustachio]

THERE IT IS!!!!! That's communism sneaking out. It's not "the nation's collective wealth" that "the rich have consolidated". It's individual wealth they amassed for themselves. There is no "collective wealth" here in the USA and every time you hear someone braying about the "shares of the nation's collective wealth", you know that they're the people Joe McCarthy warned us about. Just sayin'.

I don't understand why you're so concerned about labels and terms. When conservatives talked about trickle-down economics, they were saying "conservative fiscal policy is good for the nation's collective wealth." Do you expect everybody to be required to say "______ is good for the individual wealth of many others across the nation" or is that still what a communist would say?

And are you against antitrust laws? Do you feel that capitalism should be unchecked? You support the judicial system keeping capitalists in check, isn't that the government impeding the ability of individuals to amass wealth for themselves? Sounds like something a communist would support.

 

[Papa bull]

News flash: Communism is almost completely done and over with. Even Cuba is starting to liberalize its economy.



In the US, they do. Income inequality is the highest it's been since the 1920s. Like it or not, high rates of income inequality corrode the social fabric, and tilt the political system heavily in favor of the wealthy.

Many nations have done a better job at addressing this problem than the US, without adopting Communism, or collapsing into despotism like the USSR. Most of them balance incomes out with progressive taxes, stronger entitlements and poverty protection, and maintain both electoral systems and predominantly capitalistic economies.



What the Communists wanted (note: past tense) was to seize the means of production from the wealthy, and put it in the hands of the political class. In theory, the politians would be in service of the working class.

In practice, it likely didn't work because it concentrated too much power in the hands of the politicians, who didn't know how to run businesses, how to price goods, and had no external oversight.

So: Someone who advocates for progressive tax rates, higher taxes on capital gains, regulation of businesses, and/or restrictions on campaign spending by individuals is not a Communist. They're center left. You understand that, right?



No, centrists do not believe that shareholders should be screwed. In fact, the tax code is tilted very much in favor of the rentiers and speculators, who have a much lower tax rate for selling investments than from wages.

It's also fairly obvious that corporations can't be trusted to police themselves.

So yes, Communism doesn't work. That's why it has been withering on the vine since 1991, barely exists in the US, and is highly unlikely to appeal to anyone in a society where unions are in decline, and the service economy is on the upswing.

Essentially, you want the government to control the means of production. Not directly, but through onerous taxation and "regulation".

 

[rathi]

Your comparison is perfectly nonsensical. Communism is responsible for the death of dozens of millions of people and for decades of the most brutal repression, concentration camps, famine and mass graves. Yet you chose to say that Havel, Walesa, and others who fought Communism are equally murderous as the Communist tyrants they fought against. I guess you also feel that the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were equally murderous as the Nazi's they fought?

As I said in my original post, there is a difference in opposing communism as a philosophy and hating it with rabid fanaticism. Havel and Walesa didn't commit atrocities. They were motivated by a desire for freedom, not hatred. The problem is with people like Suharto, Pinochet, Hitler, Franco and Videla.

 

[Artevelde]

As I said in my original post, there is a difference in opposing communism as a philosophy and hating it with rabid fanaticism. Havel and Walesa didn't commit atrocities. They were motivated by a desire for freedom, not hatred. The problem is with people like Suharto, Pinochet, Hitler, Franco and Videla.

Then you shouldn't say that anti-Communism is equally destructive as Communism, but rather which other forms of tyranny are equally destructive. Equating anti-Communism with Nazism is like equating anti-Nazism with Communism.

 

[Papa bull]

I don't understand why you're so concerned about labels and terms. When conservatives talked about trickle-down economics, they were saying "conservative fiscal policy is good for the nation's collective wealth." Do you expect everybody to be required to say "______ is good for the individual wealth of many others across the nation" or is that still what a communist would say?

And are you against antitrust laws? Do you feel that capitalism should be unchecked? You support the judicial system keeping capitalists in check, isn't that the government impeding the ability of individuals to amass wealth for themselves? Sounds like something a communist would support.

Understand that propaganda about "the nation's collective wealth" is class envy pinko word games. What me or you own is our individual wealth, not some arbitrary "share" of "the Nation's wealth". That's what I was talking about and if that truth causes boo-boo hurt feelings, sorry about that.

 

[windowdressing]

Try honesty.

Instead of all the dishonest propaganda and innuendo that constantly flies about. Instead of all the specious rationalizations, how about just saying it like it is.

You think the rich have obscene amounts of money. You think there is so much that there is no reason why anyone shouldn't have a modestly comfortable life here. You would like the government to arrange for the stripping of all that excess wealth and using it to better the lives of the common man in this country. You would like for corporations to be forced to do "the right thing" by the government and you don't think profit for shareholders is that right thing, but rather, paying all employees a very good wage and producing products at the most modest prices.

I don't think it's justifiable or practical and I don't think it would be productive to even try to go there. I think communism is an ideology that fails in practice every time. I don't think you would convince me that it would work, but you might get farther along with your agenda and ideals if it wasn't so apparent that communists are compulsive liars.

I got on this thread to see what it was about and it looks like a group masturbation thing ... the commies this, the commies that, they suck, bunch of pinkos ... so 1950s, but if you guys get off on it, go at it ... me, I think I'll move along ... laytah (WATCH IT! THERE'S A COMMIE! ... only kidding, relax ...)

 

[rathi]

Then you shouldn't say that anti-Communism is equally destructive as Communism, but rather which other forms of tyranny are equally destructive. Equating anti-Communism with Nazism is like equating anti-Nazism with Communism.

I'm not equating anti-communist with Nazism. My point is that anyone who takes anti-communism too far can end up committing equally horrible acts.

 

[Medusa]

Try honesty.

Instead of all the dishonest propaganda and innuendo that constantly flies about. Instead of all the specious rationalizations, how about just saying it like it is.

You think the rich have obscene amounts of money. You think there is so much that there is no reason why anyone shouldn't have a modestly comfortable life here. You would like the government to arrange for the stripping of all that excess wealth and using it to better the lives of the common man in this country. You would like for corporations to be forced to do "the right thing" by the government and you don't think profit for shareholders is that right thing, but rather, paying all employees a very good wage and producing products at the most modest prices.

I don't think it's justifiable or practical and I don't think it would be productive to even try to go there. I think communism is an ideology that fails in practice every time. I don't think you would convince me that it would work, but you might get farther along with your agenda and ideals if it wasn't so apparent that communists are compulsive liars.

Try social justice (remember what bible says
Instead of all the dishonest propaganda and innuendo that constantly flies about. Instead of all the specious rationalizations, how about just saying it like it is.

You think the poor dont want to work,they are lazy and so they are poor . You think there is so much that there is no reason why anyone should complain about life conditions although they all can have a rich comfortable life through american dream .You would like the government to stay out of every economic affair and private lives for the sake of all that excess wealth and using its authority to ban abortion in this country. You would like for all employees to be forced to work low wage jobs by their bosses and you don't think you look like greedy monsters , but rather, stealing money from all employees and producing products at the highest prices.

I don't think it's justifiable or practical and I don't think it would be productive to even try to go there. I think conservativism (capitalism ) is an ideology that fails in practice every time. I don't think you would convince me that it would work, but you might get farther along with your agenda and ideals if it wasn't so apparent that capiatlists are barefaced liars.[/QUOTE]


:mrgreen:

 

[Goshin]

I'm adamantly not a Communist sympathizer but those who are actually Marxists tend to have more sophisticated views and a much more comprehensive ideological framework (perhaps moreso than any other political persuasion) than that. As a general theme some of that lines up but a lot of it doesn't. A true Marxist doesn't think that the rich have too much money, he thinks that the capitalist and management classes are the oppressors of the proletariat and need to be tossed down and replaced with a revolutionary collective economic regime post haste.

What you have sounds more like an epistle to Democratic Socialists but... that's kind of what they already say. It's pretty rare to meet an actual Marxist.

Well, I'd have a lot more patience for them if they could stop using words and phrases like "proletariat", "class struggle", "bourgeoisie", and "running dog capitalist". That gets REALLY tiresome....

 

[Papa bull]

Try social justice (remember what bible says
Instead of all the dishonest propaganda and innuendo that constantly flies about. Instead of all the specious rationalizations, how about just saying it like it is.

You think the poor dont want to work,they are lazy and so they are poor . You think there is so much that there is no reason why anyone should complain about life conditions although they all can have a rich comfortable life through american dream .You would like the government to stay out of every economic affair and private lives for the sake of all that excess wealth and using its authority to ban abortion in this country. You would like for all employees to be forced to work low wage jobs by their bosses and you don't think you look like greedy monsters , but rather, stealing money from all employees and producing products at the highest prices.

I don't think it's justifiable or practical and I don't think it would be productive to even try to go there. I think conservativism (capitalism ) is an ideology that fails in practice every time. I don't think you would convince me that it would work, but you might get farther along with your agenda and ideals if it wasn't so apparent that capiatlists are barefaced liars.

That's the problem with you guys.... you just say stuff. It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to even get within a stone's throw of reality. It doesn't have to have any value to any rational person or even make sense in the context of a discussion. You just say stuff.

 

[Medusa]

That's the problem with you guys.... you just say stuff. It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to even get within a stone's throw of reality. It doesn't have to have any value to any rational person or even make sense in the context of a discussion. You just say stuff.

like your comments suck more than sponge:lol:

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Income inequality is the highest it's been since the 1920s. Like it or not, high rates of income inequality corrode the social fabric, and tilt the political system heavily in favor of the wealthy.

The problem with this claim is that you (and those of like mind) give total, and unconditional free passes to the citizens of this country who are able-bodied, but choose NOT to work. Regardless of how many, or what percentage, there still are many people who'd rather live off the government in some form of welfare, than actually work. Typically, I could say that these are unmotivated individuals, with little to no marketable skills. For instance, I've got a family member who's been unemployed for three years. Why? Because he's one of these raving liberal "I ain't gonna go work for 'The Man'" idiots, who'd rather take unemployment than get an office job. He's got a degree...but in what, you ask? Archeology. The retard has spent three years just waiting to be the next "Alan Grant from Jurrasic Park." Ain't gonna happen, so on welfare he gladly sits. THESE people also contribute to the inequality.

Many nations have done a better job at addressing this problem than the US [...]. Most of them balance incomes out with progressive taxes, stronger entitlements and poverty protection, and maintain both electoral systems and predominantly capitalistic economies.

And as my first point shows, it's these entitlements that do not "help" the lower class. They "encourage" it.

In practice, it likely didn't work because it concentrated too much power in the hands of the politicians, who didn't know how to run businesses, how to price goods, and had no external oversight.

Well, you'll never get me to argue against an over-powerful government, so good on you.

It's also fairly obvious that corporations can't be trusted to police themselves.

Unfortunately, there's a big difference between regulation (partial government control) and fascism (total government control). Right now, our government leans towards the latter....oh, but don't worry citizen...it's allllllllll for "your" benefit. Trust us.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

As Andy Griffith once quipped, "There was a smart fella named Shakespeare. And he said that you can call a rose sumthin else but you can't do nothing about the smell."

Uhhh that didnt address anything that i said.

 

[Papa bull]

Uhhh that didnt address anything that i said.

It did if you think about what you were trying to say.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

It did if you think about what you were trying to say.

No it doesnt. You talk about communism as if its social democracy and a welfare state. Communism is not that. You dont seem to know what communism is.

 

[Papa bull]

No it doesnt. You talk about communism as if its social democracy and a welfare state. Communism is not that. You dont seem to know what communism is.

Which is why I shared that Andy Griffith quip with you. It was very pertinent.

 

[Visbek]

Essentially, you want the government to control the means of production. Not directly, but through onerous taxation and "regulation".

Uh, no.

Making that claim, based on my comments, is beyond ridiculous.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Which is why I shared that Andy Griffith quip with you. It was very pertinent.

You trying to say social democracy and communism are the same?

 

[Artevelde]

I'm not equating anti-communist with Nazism. My point is that anyone who takes anti-communism too far can end up committing equally horrible acts.

Then you'll agree that everybody who takes anti-racism or anti-Nazism too far can end up committing equally horrible acts?

Pretty meaningless really.

 

[Papa bull]

You trying to say social democracy and communism are the same?

Absolutely not. But your preference for the word "force" tells me which side of the fence you fall on between democratic socialist and communist.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Absolutely not. But your preference for the word "force" tells me which side of the fence you fall on between democratic socialist and communist.

What does the word "force" have to do with anything?

 

[Penderyn]

Try honesty.

Instead of all the dishonest propaganda and innuendo that constantly flies about. Instead of all the specious rationalizations, how about just saying it like it is.

You think the rich have obscene amounts of money. You think there is so much that there is no reason why anyone shouldn't have a modestly comfortable life here. You would like the government to arrange for the stripping of all that excess wealth and using it to better the lives of the common man in this country. You would like for corporations to be forced to do "the right thing" by the government and you don't think profit for shareholders is that right thing, but rather, paying all employees a very good wage and producing products at the most modest prices.

I don't think it's justifiable or practical and I don't think it would be productive to even try to go there. I think communism is an ideology that fails in practice every time. I don't think you would convince me that it would work, but you might get farther along with your agenda and ideals if it wasn't so apparent that communists are compulsive liars.

Why should anyone care what you think then?

 

[Papa bull]

What does the word "force" have to do with anything?

democratic socialism:

Democratic socialism is a variant of socialism that rejects centralized, elitist, or authoritarian methods of transitioning from capitalism to socialism in favor of grassroots-level movements aiming for the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy.

One wants to establish socialism at the point of the gun, the other wants to establish it through "democratic" means. One by force. One by choice. You seem to like force.

 

[Papa bull]

Why should anyone care what you think then?

Why, indeed? I don't give a rustyphuck what you think and if the feeling is mutual, it's all fair and good.