The House Bill Would Mean a Tax Hike for Millions of Seniors. Learn More

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 91 of 104 (86 Views)

nctarheel wrote:


I may agree on some of your points but I will take it one step further.

 

History has shown us that NO PURE form of ANY TYPE of government has ever been successful.

 

We do not have a pure form of DEMOCRACY in the United States; as part of our infrastructure is SOCIALISTIC in nature.

True - we are a Republic.

 

Russia does not have a pure form of SOCIALISM, even though that was once in its name, as they  operate as a CAPITALIST/DEMOCRATIC society on many fronts.

True. They took power in the name of Communism and you can see where that led.

 

Finally, China does not have a pure form of COMMUNISM as is evidenced by their place in the economies of the world and their use of CAPITALIST/DEMOCRATIC practices.

Same as Russia.

 

In fact, if you want something as close to a COMMUNIST society today; you just need to look at an Israeli Kibbutz.

True. However the kibbutzim are not the government of Israel any more than our communes of the '60s were our government.

 

But your analysis about the Constitution is just as flawed as your view of history.

 

Strength of government versus forms of government have nothing to do with each other.

A Democracy or a Republic cannot have total control of everything in the hands of the government.

 

Look at Singapore. It is a constitutional form of government with an Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch.

 True - China has spun off Singapore to give it internal control while China maintains it's external control.

It has a very restrictive, strong, Federal Government but its economy, schools, per capita income, cost of living, and many other factors of daily life are some of the best in the world.

 

The people there have been re-educated to trade off a somewhat restrictive government for all the benefits they have derived from it.

 

I'm not sure of your point - are you saying that Communism as described by Marx is doable and a good idea?


 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,174
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Communism

Message 92 of 104 (84 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

Some get all wrapped around the axle about the words "Communism" and "Marxism" even to the point of officially complaining and I believe that comes from a misunderstanding of the word.

 

The concepts of Communism predate Stalin and even Marx. In fact, there were "Utopian Communities" (same concept as Communism) established in the USofA as far back as the early 1800s. They all shared on thing - they all failed. They were noble ideas but impractical. 

 

Now Marx - he didn't invent Communism. It was a topic of discussion throughout Europe among the "coffee shop hippies" of the day. Marx (along with Engles) codified the coffee shop talk into his book. 

 

It, like the early "Utopian Communities" was noble but impractical. It's problem is that it totally defies human nature and to bring it about (as spelled out by Marx) required a strong government that would control every aspect of life during the "conversion period" where people were taught to accept it's principles. And then the plan was the government would disappear and the "Workers' Paradise" would result. And therein lies the basic flaw - the thought that "reeducation" can actually change human nature and - this is the big one - an all powerful government will suddenly disappear.

 

I know that some think that we can put "one toe in the water". However, they are they same who complain that our elected representatives are all corrupt. Are these the people that you want to give all that power to?

 

I believe that our Founders had seen the potential disaster of the all powerful government and our Constitution was the result - our Constitution, not a "living document" that can change at the current whims of the day.


 

As to living in a commune, does Israel still use a kibbutz system to take more land?

So it begins.
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 93 of 104 (89 Views)

Richva wrote:

I would point out that the economic system used by the United States is not part of the Constitution.  I certainly agree that some people misunderstand words like Communism and Marxism but it is most annoying when they make up their own definitions.  One poster continues to label  any cooperative economic effort as Marxism which wither shows a profound ignorance or a blatant disregard of the facts. 

 

Simply applying a label to the economic approach used to solve a problem does not make it good or bad.  It makes it possible to reduce the conversation to a bumper sticker.....an inaccurate bumper sticker at that. 


What has the economic system to do with what I posted?

 

Was there anything wrong with what I posted about Communism other than offering a launching pad for more insults?

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,645
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Communism

Message 94 of 104 (91 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

 

 

I believe that our Founders had seen the potential disaster of the all powerful government and our Constitution was the result - our Constitution, not a "living document" that can change at the current whims of the day.


It's hard for me to believe that you can be oh so wrong in your interpretation as to why the Constitution was written and what it is. 

 

The Constitution was written to form a central government, holding all states together. The articles of the Confederacy was just the opposite.

 

The Constitution includes an amendment process, making it a "living document" to enable change to adjust to the needs of society.

 

It's that simple and that clear.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Communism

Message 95 of 104 (107 Views)

gruffstuff wrote:

My point was that the Constitution does not address our economic system. Period.

 

No question about it, it does not.

 

Though I will say slavery is an example of a free market mentality, and slavery is in the Constitution.

 

I will also say we fought a war to correct that injustice, and amended the Constitution to correct the bad judgement and greed that allowed slavery.

 

Thank the wisdom of the founding fathers for allowing an amendment process, it's almost like they anticipated that conflict and tried to avoid it by freeing slaves on their deaths.

 

Still slavery was always wrong, the drive to reduce the cost of labor was to much,  even for the founding fathers.

 

 


There is no doubt that the founding fathers referred to the existing economic pillars when they wrote the Constitution. How could they not? To your point, the Constitution was changed to address both slavery and women's suffrage.  However, if we want to have the government handle the remittances for our health care or the maintenance of the roads upon which we drive, there is nothing in the Constitution addressing that. 

 

Referring to  "sticking the toe in the water" as if there was some God written set of economic ten commandments is just poor economics.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 5,343
Registered: ‎02-16-2008

Re: Communism

Message 96 of 104 (113 Views)

My point was that the Constitution does not address our economic system. Period.

 

No question about it, it does not.

 

Though I will say slavery is an example of a free market mentality, and slavery is in the Constitution.

 

I will also say we fought a war to correct that injustice, and amended the Constitution to correct the bad judgement and greed that allowed slavery.

 

Thank the wisdom of the founding fathers for allowing an amendment process, it's almost like they anticipated that conflict and tried to avoid it by freeing slaves on their deaths.

 

Still slavery was always wrong, the drive to reduce the cost of labor was to much,  even for the founding fathers.

 

 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Communism

Message 97 of 104 (113 Views)

alferdpacker wrote:




I wasn't addressing anything in your post - but was addressing the rightwing crackpot completely erroneous allegation that the Constitution is not a living document.  

Sure a bunch of not particularly rational nutters keep trying to say it's not - but the evidence of the existence of Article 5 has always proved them wrong.

 

 Thanks for the clarification.  The amount of misunderstanding I hear from the conservatives about the constitution as well as the basics of ANY economic theory is staggering to me.


 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,306
Registered: ‎07-11-2013

Re: Communism

Message 98 of 104 (114 Views)

Richva wrote:

gruffstuff wrote:

Point in fact - if the founding fathers did not believe that the Constitution should be modified when and as necessary, and intendthat it be modified by future generations, they would not have provided a mechanism for amending it.

 

I am not sure who's post you are addressing but my comment about it not being in the constitution was a simple response to RK's seemingly attribution of the free enterprise system being codified by the Constitution. My point was that the Constitution does not address our economic system. Period.



I wasn't addressing anything in your post - but was addressing the rightwing crackpot completely erroneous allegation that the Constitution is not a living document.  

Sure a bunch of not particularly rational nutters keep trying to say it's not - but the evidence of the existence of Article 5 has always proved them wrong.

 

 

Have pity for Melania - she wakes up with a jerk every morning
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Communism

Message 99 of 104 (109 Views)

gruffstuff wrote:

Point in fact - if the founding fathers did not believe that the Constitution should be modified when and as necessary, and intendthat it be modified by future generations, they would not have provided a mechanism for amending it.

 

I am not sure who's post you are addressing but my comment about it not being in the constitution was a simple response to RK's seemingly attribution of the free enterprise system being codified by the Constitution. My point was that the Constitution does not address our economic system. Period.


Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 5,343
Registered: ‎02-16-2008

Re: Communism

[ Edited ]
Message 100 of 104 (122 Views)

Point in fact - if the founding fathers did not believe that the Constitution should be modified when and as necessary, and intendthat it be modified by future generations, they would not have provided a mechanism for amending it.

 

Also there is the ninth amendment.

 

Article [IX] (Amendment 9 - Unenumerated Rights)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

The rights of the people are not limited to the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

 

The whole " it's not in the Constitution " argument is baloney. In fact the Constitution itself says the Constitution "  shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

The rights of the people don't have to be in the Constitution and those who claim they must be are actually attacking the Constitution and the ideals behind it.