Tell Congress to Oppose Any Tax Bill That Would Increase Taxes for Seniors! Take Action Now

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 5,645
Registered: ‎05-16-2009

Re: Communism

Message 71 of 104 (116 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

nctarheel wrote:

 

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?


 


Man oh man....... Your ability to re-write history has no bounds.

 

China spun off Singapore???

 

In what history book did you read that?

 

The fact that you are so far OFF-BASE on that point calls into question all the points that you attempted to make about Communism, Republics, Democracies, and Socialism.

 

It is obvious that you are reading faux historical versions that have an overt agenda possibly from ALT-RIGHT sites.

 

It is also obvious that you have an affinity of putting words in other's mouths. I never intimated that Marxism/Communism/Socialism was either doable or a good idea.

 

My point had nothing to do with COMMUNISM/MARXISM/SOCIALISM; it was to prove the point that a strong FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does work for some countries.... like Singapore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,071
Registered: ‎12-05-2009

Re: Communism

[ Edited ]
Message 72 of 104 (138 Views)

rk9152:  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.

 

 

 

Here's what Thomas Jefferson thought about that. Lol

 

 

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/94629-i-am-not-an-advocate-for-frequent-changes-in-laws

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,673
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: Communism

[ Edited ]
Message 73 of 104 (143 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.

 

communism.  1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all properly in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.  2.  a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state designated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.  3. the principles and practices of the Communist party.  4.  communalism.

 

communalism.  1.  a theory or system of social organization according to which each commune is virtually an independent state and the nation is merely a federation of such states.  2.  the principles or practices of communal ownership.  3.  strong allegiance to one's own ethnic group rather than to society as a whole.

 

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.

 

So far....nothing seriously 'out of whack'.  Not absolutely accurate, but close enough.  This space is, after all, limited and there are volumes upon volumes written about this 'theory'.  For example...one problem....of the precise definitions I gave, which is the entire understanding of all who enter the discussion?  Does anyone know with certitude?  That does need agreement.

 

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.

 

And now we depart from a discussion about Communism or Communalism into the preferred derivative of the stated topic the proponent for discussion actually has. 

 

Now Included are the invalid presumptions and pre-ordained conclusions necessary to begin discussion without first agreeing about very important matters.  NOW if you now choose to engage without contention of that stuff, you begin ON THE TERMS SET BY THE PERSON OPENING THE DISCUSSION.

 

Classic Sophistry?  You bet.

 


 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,383
Registered: ‎07-11-2013

Re: Communism

[ Edited ]
Message 74 of 104 (155 Views)

umbarch64 wrote:

alferdpacker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

gruffstuff wrote:

Communism, just like republicanism and conservatism tends to appeal to and exacerbate the worst of the dishonest and corrupt aspects of human beings and is thus functionally among the very worst and ill-suited for use as political models for humanity to attempt to utilize...

Each of the three sounds good on paper, but are absolutely **bleeped** in actual application.

 

 


Why alferd, you grumpy old curmudgeon, you.  Have you no confidence that those folks out there only have your well being in mind?  Just ask them...they'll tell you!


The vast majority of them lie - have been doing so since they supported the crackpot Goldwater and later - equally unsuccessfully - tried to defend the criminal Nixon - much as their spiritual antecedents unsuccessfully tried to glorify the hopelessly corrupt and degenerate "lost cause" of the confederacy...

 

 

Have pity for Melania - she wakes up with a jerk every morning
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,780
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Communism

[ Edited ]
Message 75 of 104 (140 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 


How is it an insult to point out (very accurately) that a poster  "continues to label  any cooperative economic effort as Marxism which wither shows a profound ignorance or a blatant disregard of the facts." ????


1) If you have to ask, you are suffering the maladies described in that post;

2) Do you have no interest in the topic beyond something to fight about?


Any one who continually labels any cooperative economic effort as Marxism or "neo-Marxism" truly does display either ignorance or a blatant disregard for facts. This is simply factual and if someone takes offense, so be it.

 

As far as the topic:  Communism has the same end result as unbridled and unregulated capitalism - - - - - - - - a very small percentage of society ends up with 90% or more of the total wealth and income.

 

What is with your apparent obsession with Marxism and Communism?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,568
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Communism

Message 76 of 104 (135 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 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.

 

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.


Agreed. The Constitution can be changed via the amendment process - only.

 

Any thoughts on the viability of Communism as laid out by Marx?


You claimed that the Constitution was not a living document, so now you have changed your mind?

 

Marxism has been talked to death and my outlook hasn't changed. Same with communism.


I am never sure what this poster means by communism or Marxism since we get very few details and comments that seem to approach the issue from different meanings with each discussion.  I really don't understand why it keeps coming up in these posts.  The only people who have ever installed price controls in the U.S. (other than WWII) were Republicans.  The only people who advocate the near complete dissolution of governments as Marx did are Republicans.  The only person  currently arguing against free trade  is Trump.  

 

Liberals want to use our educational systems and build our infrastructure to the point where every American has an equal opportunity for success. Republicans seem to want to restrict access to education, healthcare, and safe streets as if they were running a third rate banana republic. 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,673
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: Communism

Message 77 of 104 (128 Views)

alferdpacker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

gruffstuff wrote:

Communism, just like republicanism and conservatism tends to appeal to and exacerbate the worst of the dishonest and corrupt aspects of human beings and is thus functionally among the very worst and ill-suited for use as political models for humanity to attempt to utilize...

Each of the three sounds good on paper, but are absolutely **bleeped** in actual application.

 

 


Why alferd, you grumpy old curmudgeon, you.  Have you no confidence that those folks out there only have your well being in mind?  Just ask them...they'll tell you!

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,780
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Communism

Message 78 of 104 (124 Views)

rk9152 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.

 

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.


Agreed. The Constitution can be changed via the amendment process - only.

 

Any thoughts on the viability of Communism as laid out by Marx?


You claimed that the Constitution was not a living document, so now you have changed your mind?

 

Marxism has been talked to death and my outlook hasn't changed. Same with communism.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,568
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Communism

Message 79 of 104 (125 Views)

rk9152 wrote:


Not "God written" but "logic written" the more power you grant to the State, the less freedom the people have. Great care is needed particularly when you get into the area of (as one poster thinks) the government owns all the money and decides who gets what.

 

Once again, ceding power to the government is ceding it to those people that no one trusts and are supposedly selling their offices.


The Constitution does point out that "the state" is "of the people, by the people, and for the people " so your argument is that giving power to the people is giving them less freedom. I would also point out that paying the bills in the most efficient way in a representative democracy is not taking power from anyone except the the companies.  

 

As a political campaigner workng to improve our democracy,  I have met many of our public servants and your statement about them selling their offices is inaccurate, offensive, and ill informed. 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,258
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Communism

Message 80 of 104 (125 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

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?


How is it an insult to point out (very accurately) that a poster  "continues to label  any cooperative economic effort as Marxism which wither shows a profound ignorance or a blatant disregard of the facts." ????


1) If you have to ask, you are suffering the maladies described in that post;

2) Do you have no interest in the topic beyond something to fight about?


maybe. but your starting point of COMMUNISM doesnt apply to anyone here, even me. the world truly is divided between fascist and antifa, but antifa comes in many stripes. fascists label everything left of fascism marxist or communist.

 

Im a huge fan of Debs, but, AT THE TIME, in hindsight, embracing the russian revolution was wrong ONLY IN HOW IT TURNED OUT, but NOT the concept of that REVOLUTION. we are ALL, world wide, STILL fighting WWI, and the russian revolution was born from that.

So it begins.