Whats wrong with Communism/socialism?

Don: A few corrections on your posting.

1) We are a Socialist Country, if not shaping up to be Communist. Capitalism hasn't been in much operation since around 1913, but certainly after the New Deal.

It makes sense since FDR was a Socialist.

2) It is hard to compare apples and oranges, so one must consider the overall systems.

While we have problems here (many in fact), but we also lead the world in many areas of medicine.

I'd say our biggest problem is the FDA and the drug companies. Our doctors have also become pimps it seems. Nevertheless, I'd take our system than Canada's, and many in Canada would too.

3) I don't know a lot about Cuba, so I can really speak to them specifically. Personally I think the trade embargo is stupid.

posted by KrazyJethro: “Don: A few corrections on your posting. 1) We are a Socialist Country, if not shaping up to be Communist. Capitalism hasn't been in much operation since around 1913, but certainly not after the New Deal . .

OK, 1913? I’m thinking you’re thinking Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The creation of pure fiat money. Our central bank. Or, you are thinking of the 16th Amendment to our Constitution, the income tax amendment which made possible the modern welfare state.

“ . . It is hard to compare apples and oranges, so one must consider the overall systems. While we have problems here we also lead the world in many areas of medicine. I'd say our biggest problem is the FDA and the drug companies.

Both of those issues could be fixed if we ever decided just what do we want from each. Then, if we’d appoint talented people to the FDA and give the drug companies their marching orders, I think this would straighten out the current log jams and failures to assure our medicine is safe.

Our doctors have also become pimps it seems. I don't know a lot about Cuba, so I can really speak to them specifically. Personally I think the trade embargo is stupid. [Edited by Don W]

It is not all the doctor’s fault. American patients expect to get a prescription when they go to the doctor. This is not true around the world. Doctor’s are also businessmen and have to more or less do what the patient wants. And, lately, you have all the heavy advertising on tv, so doctor’s want to protect themselves from suits. It is easier to give the patient the medicine he thinks he needs than to explain why he or she does not need it.

I don’t know anything about Cuba either. I also think the embargo is a failure and should be dropped. But, i doubt it will happen until Fidel dies.

Hi Don. Pleasure to be dicussing this with you.

Originally posted by donwhite
OK, 1913? I’m thinking you’re thinking Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The creation of pure fiat money. Our central bank. Or, you are thinking of the 16th Amendment to our Constitution, the income tax amendment which made possible the modern welfare state.

Well, both actually. The main thrust did not really start until FDR, but 1913 certainly paved the way.

Both of those issues could be fixed if we ever decided just what do we want from each. Then, if we’d appoint talented people to the FDA and give the drug companies their marching orders, I think this would straighten out the current log jams and failures to assure our medicine is safe.

I don't disagree. Should the Federal government be seriously limited, within reason to reflect modern needs, we could have better focus on what they are actually supposed to be doing.

It is not all the doctor’s fault. American patients expect to get a prescription when they go to the doctor. This is not true around the world. Doctor’s are also businessmen and have to more or less do what the patient wants. And, lately, you have all the heavy advertising on tv, so doctor’s want to protect themselves from suits. It is easier to give the patient the medicine he thinks he needs than to explain why he or she does not need it.

I don’t know anything about Cuba either. I also think the embargo is a failure and should be dropped. But, i doubt it will happen until Fidel dies.

The doctors are certainly not the only problem. Healthcare is a huge topic with many pitfalls and issues.

I'd suggest we leave the nitty gritty of that issue to another discussion.

posted by KrazyJethro
Hi Don. Pleasure to be discussing this with you.

OK, 1913? I’m thinking you’re thinking Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Or, you are thinking of the 16th income tax amendment which made possible the modern welfare state.

Well, both actually. The main thrust did not really start until FDR, but 1913 certainly paved the way.

Yes, 1933 was a sea change year. History. After the Dem’s sweep in the 1932 election, Congress convened on January 6, 1933. The president was not sworn in until March 4, 1933. (Changed by Amendment XX in time for the 1936 election.) The Dem controlled Congress passed many New Deal acts including TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority - which Pres. Hoover vetoed.

The famous “100 Days” started in March, 1933. The NRA “Blue Eagle” Act, National Recovery Act, was passed as was the first AAA, Agricultural Adjustment Act. Both of these crucial New Deal measures were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. These and other enactments disallowed by the Court led to the famous “court packing” scheme.

FDR was losing 6 to 3 on most of the controversial measures. There happened to be 4 men over age 70 on the Court. FDR proposed a law to allow him (and any president to follow) to appoint a justice to the Court for any member over age 70, which would have given FDR 4 appointments. He expected that would change the vote in the Court to 7 to 6, his way. The public did not react well to this proposal which is generally said to be the first rejection of FDR by the voters.

The New Deal was called “government by alphabet.” AAA, NRA, TVA, REA, CCC, FHA, FDA, FCC, FPC, NLRB, CAB, WPA, PWA, FDIC, are only a few I can recall from reading and etc. I think it is fair to say the New Deal ushered in modern government to Ameirca.


[edit on 5/6/2006 by donwhite]

Don: True. I would propose to remove practically everything FDR did.

Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Subsidies, grants, Federal Loans, Anything regarding the Federal government and public education, and a host of government agencies.

Gone. Remove them and we can remove the Income tax without replacement.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Don: True. I would propose to remove practically everything FDR did.

Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Subsidies, grants, Federal Loans, Anything regarding the Federal government and public education, and a host of government agencies.

Gone. Remove them and we can remove the Income tax without replacement.

That is well put..

What a lot of people in this country don't understand, is how rights work and how the various forms of government affect those rights.

The most basic tenet is that rights are derived from property and under the Constitutional Republic that our country was intended to be (no, not a democracy), we would have unalienable rights based on the ownership of our property (including your own body). As citizens, we then give the government priveledges to do certain things for us. Unfortunately, our previous generations were asleep at the wheel and used their right to give up their rights, and that is essentially why we live in a facist police state today. Socialist FDR had a big hand in making this happen.

In a Socialist society, you immediately forfeit your rights and give them to the government. So no matter what utopia the government promises you at the beginning, that is not what you will end up with in the end. When you become miserable, there isn't much that you can do to realize change. It is a form of slavery.

A government will ALWAYS seize more power when ALLOWED to. That is why our forefathers understood that a government should only have priveledges that can be revoked by the will of the people, rather than rights that cannot.

As a footnote, you might be asking what is wrong with democracy? Democracy is mob rule and allows the majority to vote away the rights of the minority. A democracy cannot protect unalienable rights because it allows the people to determine what those rights are and who should have them. An analogy I like is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Unalienable means that there is no higher power to determine the nature or existence of said rights, therefore, they cannot be voted on.

jsprague:

Right, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Are you Libertarian? I am.

Good to meet you.

I'll tell u whats wrong with communism it's not my opinion but i agree with it. As a great man called Homer Simpson once "In theory communism works......in theory"

Whats wrong with socialism/communism?

It encourages mediocrity. It dampens ambition, improvement, and progress. Its unatural. All men are NOT created equal. Those who contribute more to the progress of humanity should certainly reap bigger rewards for their efforts. Those who simply sustain life and society should certainly be allowed to live in peace and health, such as farm workers or factory laborers, in decent conditions. They should also have the same legal and political rights as the wealthy and educated. However, they should not be given the same economic or social status level as those who are the thinkers, creators, planners, and doers.

Because communism/socialism promotes the idea that everyone is equal to the point of taking away the wealth from some and spreading it out to everyone regardless of contribution, it lowers standards in everything and creates a stagnant, medicore society that will not florish or advance. Look at what happened to the former Warsaw Pact countries.

Why I dont believe the rich should be able to rule and form policy on everyone else, I certainly do not believe that the poorest elements of society should be able to rule and take from those whop have money.

I believe in a merticracy. Where you climb as high as you are worth, and earn rewards.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

I believe in a merticracy. Where you climb as high as you are worth, and earn rewards.

I don't think this is a word but I love it! I also believe we have the closest system reality will permit.

We've all seen the problems with communism - as practiced so far.

The problem with with socialism is that it removes the incentive for individuals and/or groups to invent and excel, which is how a society advances. How? If you have the drive to work harder than the average and earn more because of it, you are taxed (up to 70% in some socialist countries!) back to the same level of income as the ones that didn't try so hard. It's the smartest people in a society that figure it out first. Why bother working hard? I'll just put in my time. Can you really say that you want to see your highly skilled positions (physicians, for example) with that kind of "punch the clock" attitude? Would you want a cutting-edge surgeon to take care of a medical problem or a doctor the views you simply as a patient on an assembly line? That, BTW, is called socialized medicine.

Imagine a society composed of DMV-type workers ...


[edit on 6/13/2006 by centurion1211]

centurion1211
which is how a society advances. How?

Ave Centurion! Glad to see you back.

You make a good point, and I think that part of the explanation might be that communism doesn't look to advance society. In a sense, the ideology is a futurism, that there is a 'future situation' that is perfection and that has to be strived for, and that it is the 'end goal'. So once they've established the communist state, thats it, game over, further advancement is irrelevant. Marx, apparently, saw history in very sweeping terms, and as a struggle between classes. The culmination of history and of this struggle was, for him, inevitable, and his movement was 'just' getting on the side of the 'winner' or the inevitable future communist state.

WOW my thread went way farther then i thought it would...and you all have made some TRULLY awesome points, specifically Don and KJ....you all defintally gave me something to think about.


That being said I started this thread because I was really at a point where I wanted to better understand how PEOPLE not books thought about Communism and Socialism...and over the past few weeks I have seen both thoughtful posts and government word-vomit.

That being said, my views on Socialism (communism is a dead issue) is that just like Deomcracy or Capitalism it does not work in its pure form because of a variety of reasons ranging from Greed(Capitlism), lack of motivation and innovation(Socialism), and corruption(either). I am an advocate of Social Democracy. I.e Property rights are still in tact.....limited government on the individual(The individual to me is the most important facet of society). Natural reasources remain the property of the entire population, and ALL tax monies are derived from that source. I.E Natural gas, oil, diamonds, ore, etc all of the above are taxed so as to support social services and NECCESARY government services. No property tax, income tax,or sales tax. But thats just some of my ideas regarding social democracy.

In regards to what either Don or KJ said in regards to removal of all government subsidies....I totally understand where you are coming from and in many cases absolutely agree with you. As a student of 17+ schools(military brat) i have gotten a chance to observe many different schooling systems here in the States. Our Education system is severlly flawed and part of it is because the Fed is in charge...we dont have a National Curriculum(many teachers are trying to get this)...and we dont have an offical SCHOOL language. I have been to numerous schools where the primary language spoiken by both teacher and students is not english....These are the primary problems with our education system...oo that and we dont pay our teachers enough(My mom is teacher her father was his father was so on and so forth) which is evidenced by having sexual problems between teachers and students...the people we are hiring are not proffesional because we can't afford to hire proffesionals.

Also, I am/was a welfare baby....yet because of welfare my mom was able to get back on her feet and off of wellfare. I think a solution we can all agree on is more oversight on programs such as Welfare and Social Security....caps and contracts etc...not something i have given lots of thought to so i dont want to talk out of my arse.

I think that completely removing all government programs is not the way, however many need to be curtailed and regulated. But our biggest money syphon is the DOD, DEA, DOJ, and Pentagon....between those four agenices you have more tha 50% of the federal budget(not exactly sure on the current estimates and I didnt want to over estimate).

Thankyou for reading all my ramblings and I hope to continue this discussion...once again mad props to Don and KJ you all really put out some amazing points....

Originally posted by iori_komei

the only way that a socialist state would work was if the rest of the surrounding countries also turned socialist. basically the world would have to turn socialist, but that would never happen and plus humans are greedy, just down-right plain greedy. we like stuff.

And it's that reason that Venezuela is doing so well, alot of S. America is turning Socialist.


Also, Cuba is not a communist country, it is more Fascist Marxist country.

There has actually never been a communist country, Russia was Marxist, than turned Lennonist.

China is Maoist.


I personally think Socialism is a good thing, and advocate/promote it.

Oh please, don't say what you DON'T KNOW.
Venezuela is doing so well that they have the biggest slum in the world.
Venezuelans are getting tired of chavez tirany, he rules that country without realy thinking what's good for those citizens.

What else can I say?

Bolívia: It might be the worst socialist country in Latin America. People are STARVING but Evil (Evo) Morales can only think how to screw ours economic relations. I don't know what american television told about brazilians gas refinery STOLEN by bolivian army, but I can say that Brazil lost over 1.5 BILLION dollars over there.

Oh, sure, I almost forgot to say how bad socialism works here in Brazil. Here in São Paulo (3rd biggest city in world), violence is EVERYWHERE. You, americans, think that Bronx or Queens were violent (hehehehe). I can only tell that our safest neighborhood looks the same as these I mentioned before.

PCC (Primeiro Comando da Capital - First Capital Command), a DECLARED LEFTIST (criminal) organization overtaken our policemans and killed, 3 months ago, more than 70 of then. Also, they made more than 700 (!!!) terrorist attacks in less than a week.

There's only ONE country, here in South America, that is comming close to be the first one to reach 1st world standarts, I mean, 1st world GDI (IDH). It's Chile!

I don't know what you guys know about General Augusto Pinochet, but he's the responsible of these achievments. During his dictator government, he adopted ECONOMIC liberal "ideology" with some people who studied at US. Those people were called as the "Chicago Boys".
Even now, with a leftist in charge of presidency, she (michele bacelar) kept Pinochet's economy.

I also need to tell you that military dictatures in South America over the last century were great because we SMASHED the communism threat. Unfortunately, this threat is back and we need a new military intervention. Fast as possible.

I'm sorry for my horrible english but I've only joined this forum after reading this wrong comment above. It's not his fault because the true history is always hidden. Even the most of brazilians doesn't know our country's recent politics (geo politics)history.

If anyone of you have any question, it would be better and faster to add my MSN: joao_campos_8@hotmail

"What's wrong with communism/socialism?"

I'll be simply and direct:

Leftists can't blame "stalinism" to save marxists ideas because "stalinism" is what happens when marx ideas comes to real world.

An analogy:

You can calculate, in a LABORATORY, gravity acelleration over one body without considering air resistence. BUT, that's only half part of the theory. You CAN NOT do the same in real world because it would be a mess. Air resistence DOES count.


I could say a lot but my english not allow me to. Just one more thing: Try reading Mises or Hayek books.


PS: Let's not forget that more than 100 MILLION people were killed in the name of the "revolution".

reply to post by Earlybird


It's not, what they meant was meritocracy. Thomas Jefferson actually was a big proponent of it and believed it was superior to all other forms of government.

wow old thread. the thing is, in order for communisim or socialism to work the government has to able to administer it. this is always where the bloody thing falls down even in the partial socialism of europe. the politicians and civil servants are always far more interested in looking after their own interests than sorting the country out.

if you are asking what is wrong w/ in terms of america, what is wrong w/ it is that is not what the country was founded on. i am a patriot through and through (and some of the stubborness in that could be bc of the irish blood that runs through me). i believe in what this country stood for and communism/socialism is soooo far off that track it is insulting to even be considering such a question (in regards to america that is).

study history and what has come from countries that have lived under these two systems. look at the countries living under these systems even today. don't look at it from the higher ups points of view, but rather, look at it from the commoners points of view. then it will become clear what is really wrong w/ it.