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

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,638
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: Communism

[ Edited ]
Message 81 of 104 (122 Views)

Aside from the early Christian Community (Acts 2:32-47 et al) and a couple of religion based "coops" (e.g., Amana Colonies) Communism has never existed. What has been called Communism since the early 1900's is Totalitarianism - Stalin and Mao were NOT "Communists", they were tyrants who used the logical appeal of the equality found in Marx writings to murder millions and enslave many more millions.

 

Since the 1920's the American Fascists have used the bogeyman of Communism to stifle any attempt by the people to improve their condition through working together, and they're still at it.

 

There are NO "Communist" governments anywhere in the European Union and yet every one has Universal health care, guaranteed retirements, very limited working hours and excellent affordable education.

 

We can do the same, all we need is fewer neoRepublicans in office and Progressives in their place. The tax structure we had from the 1930's until 1981 would provide a fantastically better life for ALL Americans and NOT diminish the lifestyle of a single high income individual or family. No more losing everything if your child gets sick, no more working longer for lower pay, no more college debt that keeps you from leaving home or buying a car, no more delayed retirements because you can't afford to stop working when you're 65, and most of all NO COMMUNISM ANYWHERE. Just the American Dream to replace the Oligarchy Republicans have been building for the last 30 years.

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

Re: Communism

Message 82 of 104 (108 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

Richva wrote:

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.


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.


if you think the govt and wall st arent controlling the economy you are sadly mistaken. its the biggest wealth redistribution in history to the top.

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

Re: Communism

Message 83 of 104 (100 Views)

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?

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

Re: Communism

Message 84 of 104 (87 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

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.

Yes, hold them together so as to be able to operate as a unit in a dangerous world - but not to be controlled by the Central government.

 

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

Agreed - by the amendment process only.

 

It's that simple and that clear.

 


 

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

Re: Communism

[ Edited ]
Message 85 of 104 (87 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?


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.

 

 

Have pity for Melania - she wakes up with a jerk every morning
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 86 of 104 (86 Views)

Richva wrote:

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.


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.

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

Re: Communism

Message 87 of 104 (77 Views)
anyway, Im more of a democratc socialist. Nothing in the constitution prevent us from a european style socialism
So it begins.
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 88 of 104 (82 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.

 

 


True - the Constitution does not address the economy, only the freedom of the people. On the other hand Communism does address the economy in that the State controls it. 

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

Re: Communism

Message 89 of 104 (86 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.

 

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?

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

Re: Communism

Message 90 of 104 (77 Views)

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." ????


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"