Why do Americans hate Socialism/Communism?

Originally posted by johnny2127
reply to post by Rob37n

 

The answer is very simple; govt has never run anything well besides military, and even that is riddled with waste. When has a govt's control over its people and enterprise ever turned out well? What has govt ever run well?

So you hate governments? Fine. How does that relate to socialism? You can have a small government a great working social security. For how many countries can you actualy describe their size of government, effectivenes and government organisation?

Many european countries are pure socialist countries by the standard of the average Joe bashing socialism on this thread. As soon as you say mandatory social wellfare, average Joe screams "Socialism". Well the most successfull countries in the world today are socialist by that standard. And yes, that is why we say Germany, Sweden, Netherlands and so on are socialist.

Of course the term is debatable, but that debate requires a higher level of understanding history, politics and most importantly an "absence of fear of words" many folks manifest here.

Originally posted by johnny2127
Socialism, Communism, and the shades between have resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths through starvation, genocide, and outright poverty.

Like Cuba, right? Nothing to do with decades of sanctions I presume. Dear lord...

Originally posted by johnny2127
US capitalism and representative democracy may not be perfect, but it is better than any other form of govt on Earth.

Realy? By what standard? Number of homeless people? Number of healthy people? Number of well educated people? Accessibility to higher education? Quality of life? Number of vacation days? Number of infant deaths per thousand?
Reality check dude, its behind many socialist countries in all those fields.
Would you please tell me how you measured it to be better?

Originally posted by johnny2127Even with all the current corruption and problems facing the US, this is the only nation that can solve its problems without complete social disorder, violence, and an overthrow. Why? Because ultimately the govt in the US has to resemble and work for the people, not the other way around.

It has to, and has yet to. We will see about how that turns out though, when the dollar fails.

reply to post by Mikemp44

"The entire structure of captialism relies on the demand for finite resources. Were resources limitless then capitalism could not exist."

I applaud your explanation of time, and it's value as a resource. In fact, I must say Bravo!! for that.

But I also would like to point out that when there is bountiful or limitless resource, this is actually where capitalism flourishes (although unethically). Because if you can control that resource, you can mete it out as you will. You can patent it. Monsanto is good for that one. You can create an artificial shortage, oil companies are good for that. Or you can find a proprietary way of processing it, so that it has to come through you. And more. So I think capitalism does rather well with limited or limitless resources.

Just my two shillings

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I know, I glossed over the issue. Later after that post it is addressed.

I agree with many about the problems with unemployment and do not support State sanctioned robbery.

As an economic system, socialism is a system of production based on the direct production of use-values by allocating economic inputs (the means of production) and investments through planning to directly satisfy economic demand.

Socialism as an economic system does not work. We see what has happened when the government decides to plan the economy. Russia went from one of the most critical grain exporters in the world to starvation under Stalin. The economies collapsed in the Warsaw Pact nations because they let pencil pushers decided how much should be produced and how. A farmer knows better how to maximize his land than some guy with a BA in Business Administration.

In the instances where the state allows the market to decide production, money is taken to make sure all citizens live realitively "equal" lives. Anything deemed excessive profit is confiscated to be used in social programs. Eventually people realize that gaming the system is easier than working and fall out of productive society. Yet, they still recieve a cut of everybody else's work efforts.

In state-oriented forms of market socialism where state enterprises attempt to maximise profit, the profits can be used to fund government programs and services through a social dividend, eliminating or greatly diminishing the need for various forms of taxation that exist in capitalist systems.

This is a fallacy. This does not eliminate any form of taxation. If the government is taking part of what you earn it is a tax. It doesn't matter when they take it or what they call it. Just because you label it a "social dividend" doesn't change its nature. Remember the famous line from Romeo and Juliet, " that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Well is a tax by another name any less of a tax?

Socialism works by taking freedom from people. It either limits their freedom of choice through a planned economy, or their freedom of socio-economic progress through taxation and redistribution of wealth. Socialism works by placing a yoke of tyranny on the neck of the common man.

Have you ever noticed that in socialist societies the elites rarely seem to balk at redistribution of wealth? Yet the politicians, the bankers, and the intelligentsia always appear in Gucci suits and riding in limos. While the average person struggles to afford a mid size car and keep decent food on the table.

Sorry, but socialism works by eliminating freedom. So, does corporatism. That is why Americans need to fight for a return to a balanced form of capitalism.

reply to post by MikeNice81

Socialism as an economic system does not work. We see what has happened when the government decides to plan the economy. Russia went from one of the most critical grain exporters in the world to starvation under Stalin.

stop there to feed yourself upon ludicrous & useless fairy tales Just learn Roots of Matter en.wikipedia.org...
Planned Economy was really useful instrument for CCCP to overcome sh!t in the 20th century! Great Legacy of PE has allowed to live Russia so far! Deny ignorance

reply to post by Klassified

But I also would like to point out that when there is bountiful or limitless resource, this is actually where capitalism flourishes (although unethically). Because if you can control that resource, you can mete it out as you will. You can patent it. Monsanto is good for that one.

yes, Amicus, your two shillings were laid nicely. however, a little addition to your words: capitalism can run with endless or restricted resources as well because its prime goal is to be f*King of the Mountain that Game rises Helliciously the grave wave of ardour, but in the case of endlessness, ardour is Infinite to the Inferno

reply to post by SarK0Y


According to your own link the famine of 1921 -23 was caused by government confiscation of grain.Lenin was in the process of turning Russia in to a socialist state at that time.

The first famine in the USSR happened in 1921-1923 and garnered wide international attention. It was mostly due to forceful confiscation of grain and other policies of the Soviet government

Then the second Soviet famine came along and effected 40 million people. It is estimated that as many as 10 million people starved to death.

The second Soviet famine happened during the collectivisation in the USSR. In 1932-1933 confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities[2] caused a famine which affected more than 40 million people, especially in the south on the Don and Kuban areas and in Ukraine, where by various estimates from 5 to 10 million may have starved to death

I seriously hope your post was supposed to be a joke. Otherwise you just shot yourself in the foot.

reply to post by MikeNice81

confiscation was because of Civil War which had been started in Russia after dreadful losses of WWI. f*King Tsar really ruined Russia at those times.

America wasn't always anti socialist;communist... IN FACT, during the 1930's USA was very radical! 'Joe Hill', he of the same song, was executed by the American State for being perceived as being a threat! He was a Trade Unionist who only wanted justice and equal rights for his people! Paul Robeson, a fantastic baritone; sung at the Labour Party conference in GB in the 1930's and was blacklisted by the American political establishment... McCarthy, etc! So many fantastic artists/filmmakers/actors and other creative individuals were scapegoated for their (pretty benign) beliefs! People like Arthur Millar exposed the fraud of the 'American Dream! John Steinbeck showed injustice and discrimination amongs't the poor white trash... competing with the Mexican migrants in the Californian Fruit Orchards! America has always had a social conscience! You only have to look for it... It's there! Dont let the B......s get you down!

Americans seemingly hate socialism and communism, just they don't realize they're living in the very same.

2nd line.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Soviet russia under lenin and stalin was neither socialist nor communist, it was a dictatorship were stalin and his trusted few controlled everything, and if you didn't like it then you could take it up with the couple of hundred thousand dudes with guns that would show up at your door. They just called themselves communist's or socialist's, and he who has all the money's and firepower and law on there side, can call themselves whatever they want. All ism's are just power groups or factions out for total control of the land and state, the only real difference in between the whole stalin communist thing and american elite class system at those times the robber barons or whatever they called themselves then, is that lenin and stalin succeeded in becoming the only power around in russia at the times, were as the american robber barons just capitalized on world events and the trend of the times. But like I said all ism's are pretty much all the same, you can even think of them like huge gangs out for power control and money, there was the communist gang, the socialist gang, and the capitalist gang. And of course even in our more technical time that we live in, the more things change the more they stay the same.

reply to post by SarK0Y

Capitalism: Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect.

I believe you are attributing character flaws to a system, rather than an individual. Capitalism is what it is. It has no malice or favoritism. However, humans have both of these, and therefore, some will find a way to be king of the hill, at the expense of others.

BTW. I like the Amicus part. Funny.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird

Soviet russia under lenin and stalin was neither socialist nor communist, it was a dictatorship were stalin and his trusted few controlled everything,

there was no another way to consolidate Russia which was torn apart by absolute different ideologies.

reply to post by Klassified

Capitalism: Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market

heh, Amicus, some Time ago, i said why capitalism provides monopoly. but, yeah, Matter of Fact is all Social Systems stumble down at the human Nature

BTW. I like the Amicus part. Funny.

that's from Great Latin Ancient Langs are more powerful than modern ones

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

That was more or less the idea... but the problem is that they don't come from collectivist cultures. They appropriated the idea and it didn't work for them because I think they failed to understand the mechanism behind it.

I agree. The culture they came from was essentially feudalistic in nature. That's what they knew, and all they had known for generations and generations, and I believe that it had become ingrained, permeated the entire structure and infected any subsequent products. The basis for that system was greed and power at it's basic level, and the same motivations are at play to this day.

I don't just mean in the US. It was the same in all of Europe, Russia, and China. I believe that's why any form of government instituted by a people of that background will eventually devolve in to totalitarianism. It's s reversion back to the feudalism that the culture has allowed itself to become most comfortable with. It matter nary a bit whether it starts from the left or the right, it always seems to end at the same place, and the only difference is the length of the journey. The same sort of underlying rationale that applies to the US, with it's imported ideologies, applies equally to Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Venezuela... all of the "New World" countries. Whichever side they approach governance from, they always arrive at the same place eventually - totalitarianism and centralized command and control. That aspect is inherent in the feudalistic system. It happened in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and a host of other western hemisphere countries, and we see it happening right now, as we watch, in the US. No place is immune, regardless of what pseudo-patriots may say.

The same thing happened with the Russian Revolution, Mao's Revolution - anywhere that started out as a feudalistic society with a monarchy, OR that got it's start from a people used to that sort of government, which includes all of the former colonial areas. What you arrive at then is two separate camps, both of which are feudalistic in nature and totalitarian in character, opposed to one anther, and at each other's throats based solely on the end of the spectrum their individual "revolutions" proceeded from.

I reckon what I'm trying to say here, and not saying very well, is that all of these "revolutions" start claiming the best intentions for the people, and always devolve backward to feudalism by anther name, not evolve forward to what the stated intent was. It so far has seemed to matter not a bit whether it was a "socialist" revolution or whether it was approached from the other side. The end results so far have been in a feudalistic society by another name.

I will return to this halting attempt at an explanation of my thoughts later, when I attempt to identify the enemy, but you may be able to see where it's going already.

Let me pitch you my idea....

The over all goal is the decentralization of power. Removing the control of our destinies from the state and putting that back into the hands of the people. This is impossible in Capitalism as you will just a have a new "Corporate State" arise in place of a Federal Entity. The struggle is against two masters.

I submit that so far it has also always turned out to be the case in all implementations of socialism, with the exception that the "Corporate State" is replaced by the "Central Committee" or it's equivalent. I don't see the enemy as either socialism, communism, or capitalism. It's more insidious than any of those. Those are just economic systems used as labels meant to distract the attention of the people away from the culprits, and direct their hatred towards one end of the political spectrum or the other - but always away from where it's due.

My idea continued...

And so the issue here is how labor is intrinsic to one's own capabilities. One can not lay claim to what doesn't belong to them or else it is theft. I believe that we would still have to have a monetary system. That system instead of being a fiat currency should be a Labor Dollar. The cost of production is based on the amount of labor required to produce a commodity.

I'm against fiat currency as well, and most definitely against allowing a private interest to regulate public finances, as is the case with the Federal Reserve. Regulation of the medium of exchange used by all should never be in the hands of the one, or the one again controls the all thereby - not much difference in my mind between that and allowing the State to manage social programs that they attempt to make the people dependent upon. In both cases, it's a power grab - controlling that which they make the people dependent upon, and so controlling the people made dependent thereby.

I'm not familiar with the "Labor Dollar" concept. It seems to me that the cost of raw materials also needs to be factored in to the cost of production, though.

There is, of course, a corollary problem in the corporatism we have right now.

We are in agreement. I would like to add that I see America as a Corporate run state and the USSR as a State run Corporation. Both concepts are flawed since we will always see the revolutionary vanguard stalled and stamped out by the state in it's attempts to reclaim centralized power structures. It is there that the fallibility of the human condition come to light.

Sounds reasonable to me. Furthermore, it seems to me that you identify the same enemy that I do there, regardless of the differing vectors we approach the problem from. As I said above, I don't see it as socialism, communism, OR capitalism.

One absolute master is as bad as the next to my mind...

Hence why not only the means of production must be seized by our collective interests but also the deconstruction of the centralized power structures into a more decentralized communal system of stronger checks and balances.

To be honest, I don't much care WHO claims ownership of the means of production. I guarantee those means will be misused to produce artificial dependencies no matter who lays claim to ownership. In all cases that I'm aware of where it's claimed that "the people" or more usually "the workers" own the means of production, they do not. In all those cases, the State has actual ownership, and "the people" or "the workers" are left holding nothing. Since the State owns all, the State maintains an iron grip on the people.

I'm all for the state and the "workers" keeping their furry mitts off of MY means of production, and they can hash out the rest amongst themselves. As long as I have the means to care for me and mine, they can fight over the rest until the planet melts down. I don't suppose everyone can say that, though. My own means of production CAN'T be taken away from me and still leave me standing and breathing, so I may be a special case here. My own well-being isn't reliant on factories and such (which I generally assume is what is meant by "the means of production"). Sure, those things make my life slightly more convenient - I won't lie about that - but I'm not DEPENDENT upon them. They are luxuries, not necessities.

Even a that, I indulge in fewer of those luxuries than most, because I don't want to BECOME dependent upon them.

That's why I prefer to stand and fight for my own land, and try to minimize interference by the State in my own affairs. I can leave the "Corporation" with the turn of a car key.

I disagree. The rise of a Corporate State is well under way and is far more overreaching than any thing we've seen so far.

That particular portion of my philosophy is still under construction. It took a massive hit when Obamacare was passed, essentially a power grab by the State to force me to interact with a corporation and force me to financially support that corporation. From where I stand, that is all the evidence that I need that you are right here, and that the Corporate State is gathering steam, and becoming far more overreaching than is necessary or healthy. It's also part of what I meant when I said I'd stand and fight for my own land, and try to minimize interference by the State. Obamacare is where I draw the line, and where I will make my final stand. If and when they come to enforce that, that is the precise time and place all hell will break loose in my little world, and it will doubtless be the end of me.

I guess that's one way for them to "take care of my health" against my wishes.

Collectivist in nature, perhaps, but it's a matter of scale and control...

"You can not legislate morality."

Nope, and it should never be attempted. I have a really basic view of what constitutes "justice", and were I to expound upon it here, I'd surely draw fire. Suffice it to say that if one doesn't injure another, I don't much care what they do. Doesn't matter what I think of it personally, because I'm not the one doing it. If no one else is injured, no real harm is done, and if someone else IS injured, it should be dealt with summarily. That is all the basis of "morality" that I recognize.

Another facet of your quote is the implication that force social programs won't work. You can't legislate the morality that forces folks to take care of other folks they don't want to take care of. Well, you CAN legislate that, but trouble won't be far behind when you do, if the people thus subjugated have an ounce of backbone in them.

We would have no need for wealth redistribution if the only thing traded as value was labor. You can not take one's labor and give it to another. Just to be sure we would decentralize state powers and put that into the hands of the people.

I personally don't see a need for "wealth redistribution" any way. I don't want any one else's wealth. I don't even want to build up too much "wealth" of my own, because that would just be more to worry about and lose sleep over. I'd prefer to leave the headaches of wealth to the wealthy, and sleep easy.

Part of my problem, I suppose, is that I don't measure real wealth in dollars or ounces of gold. REAL "wealth" in my mind is somewhat more intangible than it seems to be to others. That's a whole 'nother subject as well, though.

The point is, people place "value" on all sorts of things, regardless of the official medium of exchange. It's true enough that one's labor can't be taken and given to another, which is why early on that is what I decided my only "product" would ever be - or, more properly, my knowledge of how to properly apply my labor. People don't really pay me for what I do, they pay me for knowing how to do it. Trade will be established using anything that has a perceived value, and is transportable, regardless of the official means of exchange. It will never be limited to labor as long as there are pretty baubles that someone places value on.

I'm all for decentralizing State powers. That was the original intent of the US government, I believe. It so happens that greedy people will always work their way into the system, whichever "side" that system is on, and move it back towards feudalism and centralization. That was the whole problem with implementations of communism, and it's rapidly becoming the whole problem with out current implementations of capitalism - and it's accelerating. What we REALLY need is a mechanism emplaced to weed out and eliminate those people from ever gaining power in the first place. Then, either economic system would be workable - as long as the proper steps were taken to eliminate economic powers from seizing governing powers. One would think it ought to be the other way around - governing powers actually GOVERNING economic powers. Preventing monopolies (including State product-based monopolies), and punishing actual harm done, that sort of thing in addition to regulating commerce and issuing money - whatever the money was based upon or backed by.

I have a slight grin as I'm typing this...

I would recommend reading into it. Subcommander Marcos has written extensively and has been nothing more than a tool of the people. I believe that teh EZLN stands as a perfect model to accomplish what I am talking about here.

I realize, though, that it's a personal problem on my part, and a bias. I don't know that the EZLN is of the same character. If their people are happy with their performance, then so am I. So long as they confine their control to Chiapas, and their own people, I have no beef with them.

Well, the "control" they exhibit is a function of the people. Marcos is SubCommander because the People are the commander. He takes no military action with out the people coming to a decision first. Because this is an Indigenous Resistance movement they are only interested in Chiapas for them personally but still seek to counter and deny the tools of the State that seek to further deprive them of Liberty.

I have issues with "commanders", "subcommanders" etc. I still have nightmares every now and then concerning Commandante Cero (Eden Pastora for those who have forgotten) and his boys. It's a personal problem though, something that I'll have to fight my own way through, if I ever get through it. In all fairness, I don't think Pastora was a communist per se, but he did ally himself with the FSLN, and fought common cause during the Sandinista War. Later, when he saw what the communist leaders were doing with the victory, he turned against them and Ortega, and created ARDE. He's still alive, I hear, and I have often wondered if he ever regrets throwing in his lot with the FSLN considering the way they fulfilled their promises.

With the EZLN, I see virtually the same posters, hear the same catchphrases, the same sort of "re-education" of the campesinos, all that sort of thing, which brings it all immediately back to mind. That's something I'll have to get past before I can really objectively assess the EZLN. If they confine themselves to Chiapas, that makes it easier. The Pastora and Ortega gang immediately set about exporting their revolution, and that never sat at all well with me.

You may not know it, but in that revolution, the majority of the revolutionaries weren't communists. The communists there were only core cadre who gathered up followers with promises of improving life for all. The vast majority of the followers and the actual fighters weren't communists. After they achieved a victory, the communists immediately turned on their former followers, and eliminated enough of them to insure power to the communists. They "took over" the revolution, co-opted it after it was already a success by the efforts of others, and life was improved for NONE but that cadre. For them, life improved lavishly. Most others were considerably more inconvenienced than they were before the revolution. That's what caused Pastora to turn against them.

We are in agreement. Marxism is dead. I don't know of any communist to date who would disagree. I can understand how the words take on different meanings than the ones I intend, that is the nature of this language.

Well, one step in getting the point across would be to find other, more current terms to replace those dating from the Marxist era, like "bourgeois", "revolutionary vanguard", "proletariat" and "dictatorship of the proletariat", "reactionary", "counter-revolutionary", etc. Those terms, and others like them, tend to either turn people off or set people off - not because of their actual meanings, but because of the overtones imparted to them courtesy of the Marixst era. Christians tend to run into the same problems with their use of certain catchphrases peculiar to christianity. It immediately identifies them, and sets a tone where people start expecting a pitch that may not be forthcoming in reality. In any event, it tends to make folks tune out and get defensive - the very folks they seek to influence. I've never understood why christians can't figure out that simple fact, and persist as they always have.

Words have power all their own. The first step in getting your message out to a wider audience is to replace those loaded terms with more innocuous ones that don't put people on an immediate defensive. Makes it easier to scale the walls when the walls aren't purposely built up for an expected assault.

I find myself in agreement with Zapata, "I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

I have thought about this question for years and I have come to the conclusion that it is better to fight with no improvements and die on your own terms than to die as tool of the State in hopes of improvements that will never come.

I agree, with the caveat that one must choose his battles with what he perceives as the best interests of his People in mind. It's better to die as a free man than live as a slave, regardless. A free man can never be conquered, he can only be killed, and there are things in this world far worse than dying. Whether I die as a tool of the state or otherwise is entirely up to me, and what's in my heart at that time. A hammer, as a tool of the carpenter, doesn't know whether it hammers a nail solely for the carpenter, or for the family that will inhabit the house. A man, on the other hand, knows his own motivations. He knows WHY he does what he does. That allows him to decide for himself whether he is a tool of the State or a tool of his People in any given action.

In some cases, it can be fairly said that the State is the tool of the man, rather than the other way around. It's his vehicle to get where he feels he needs to be to do what he believe to be the right thing. I suppose it's a hard thing to get across without going into too much detail. For what it's worth, I don't believe that the warrior under discussion was looking to make any improvements in conditions at that point, he was seeking to prevent further erosion, in the hopes that there would be less in need of repair when time for improvements rolled around.

In retrospect, I think he may have failed in that goal, but he gave it his all, nonetheless.

The entire purpose for a warrior is to protect his People. That, and nothing more. It's not to defend a government or a flag or a philosophy, it's always for the People. What is in the heart determines why one does what he does, it doesn't determine the route he takes to do it. That is often determined by expediency

What you describe here is the revolutionary vanguard.

It serves to protect the people from their collective enemies. What has to be done on our end is coming to an agreement as to what/who these enemies are. I don't think that would be all that difficult.

I don't think it would be all that difficult, either. It seems, and I may be off here, but it SEEMS that we are pointing in the same direction, the only difference is we are on different vectors to get there. I believe that the basic "enemy" is over-centralization of command and control, exemplified by a feudalistic system whatever the modern label that one cares to hang upon it to mask the feudalism. In any system where everything is centralized like that, you will have masters and slaves, lords and serfs. It doesn't matter whether you call it "communism" as exemplified by the former USSR, or "corporatism" as exemplified by the current US, or "national socialism" as exemplified by WWII Germany or "colonialism" as exemplified by the 17th and 18th century "New World" or more recently Africa. The core is always the same. Feudalism in disguise.

Over-centralization.

The good news is that, just like a wheel, if you take out the hub out of a centralized system, the whole thing crashes. It worked in the USSR, it worked in Germany, it worked in America 240 odd years ago, and it would work again. The key is to find the most effective means of taking out the hub, and having another, better, replacement in the wings when you do, ready to go. What we're disputing over here is what the most effective replacement would be. Whatever that turns out to be, it won't work at all without safeguards to keep the greedy feudalists from seizing the reins again.

reply to post by SarK0Y


I guess you could blame the Tsar for the "Law of Spikelets" as well. For those that don't understand the law of Spikelets, or have never heard of it.

The "Decree About the Protection of Socialist Property" - nicknamed by the farmers the Law of Spikelets - was enacted on August 7, 1932. Under the Decree, political police and party officials were allowed to confiscate unlimited amounts of grain from peasant households. Thus, taking food - even a handful of rotting grain or produce - was considered theft of "socialist property" and could be punished by death or a ten-year prison sentence. Even children could be shot for picking up leftover grain in the fields.

Yeah that sounds like the planned economy was working well. They had to give party members permission to strip farms just to keep them alive. It lead to local "activist" raiding home after home looking for hidden stashes of grain. Tons of seed corn were confiscated. That lead to the continuation of the famine because farmers had nothing to plant.

Refugees fled to the cities in such numbers that the government passed a law requiring passports to pass between republics. Peasants in effect could not leave their village with out fear of being sent to a gulag. Basicaly if you weren't a member of the party, living on a collective farm, you were screwed. You had no right to a passport and no right to travel on the railroad. You could not move to where things were better. You could do nothing but pray the party didn't come and take your meager amount of food and seeds. In addition you had to worry you might be killed for harvesting your own field.

Sounds like a great system that liberated the workers and created a sound economy to me.

Originally posted by JonoEnglish

If Jesus were alive, he'd be an outright socialist. Capitalism creates personal wealth. Didn't that rich man on a doney ask Jesus what he could do to be a better person? Jesus, told him to spread his wealth.

I find it incredibly presumptuous to assume that you know the mind of a man from 2000 years ago.

Furthermore, the issue in that episode appeared to be that the worries inherent in the man's possession of wealth was pre-occupying his mind and holding him back, preventing him from dwelling on spiritual matters.

The issue was not the fact that others didn't have that wealth, nor was it the fact that this particular individual DID have it. The issue was where the man's heart was at, and what would have to be done to rectify that. He could as well have thrown it into the sea and accomplished the same goal for himself, but then again, why waste it? Kill two bird with one stone.

It goes back to two underlying quotes: "the love of money is the root of all evil" (note that it's the LOVE of money that is the problem here, not the possession of it) and "render unto Caesar those things which are Caesars, and unto God those things which belong to God." By ridding himself of the money (which, after all, had Caesars picture on it as a stamp of ownership) the man's heart would be freed of those concerns surround the hoarding of it, and free to pursue spiritual matters.

Why do you think that most spiritual types, from whatever religion, keep themselves as poor as churchmice?

It wasn't a core matter of the necessity to "redistribute his wealth", the core matter was freeing his own heart from greed.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird

Soviet russia under lenin and stalin was neither socialist nor communist, it was a dictatorship were stalin and his trusted few controlled everything, and if you didn't like it then you could take it up with the couple of hundred thousand dudes with guns that would show up at your door.

Has communism ever lead to anything else? Did Mao, Castro, or any other communist leader do it differently?

communist gang, the socialist gang, and the capitalist gang.

They are all the same it doesn't matter. Why is this the reasoning that so many people resort to. Yes all systems can be corrupted by humans. However, some systems are better than others and some hybrids are even better. I don't believe any system is perfect alone. I don't think they are all equal in their opportunity for freedom either.

I think capitalism with some social programs is probabbly the best answer. However, I think that social programs should be small with limitted benifits and life time caps in most cases. I also think that some programs should be turned in to loans.

We should help the less fortunate, but it should not be at the expense of freedom or small governments. Because, as others have said, a government big enough to give you all you desire is big enough to take all you have.

I think it's the result of massive brainwashing. Maybe some genetic altering. And the abuse of psychedelic substances for over 50 years.

Today's democracy mainly means enjoying some liberties at the expense of others.

Funny fact is americans are socialists even if they don't want to admit it. It's like an implanted psychosis, akin to the revulsion anal sex can cause in some, mainly due to other kinds of brainwashing.

They couldn't live without the 911, CIA, FBI... The military budget in the states surpasses even Hitler's wildest dreams.
You can't live without the state or it would be anarchy, so, some part of the resources have to be put in common.
It's basically the definition of socialism.

Get real.

Originally posted by Chrysalis
It's like an implanted psychosis, akin to the revulsion anal sex can cause in some, mainly due to other kinds of brainwashing.

So because I have an aversion to being butt plowed it's the result of brainwashing and or an implanted psychosis?

Here I thought all these years it was because I'm heterosexual.


ON TOPIC Different strokes for different folks [Pun intended]

Originally posted by JonoEnglish

Originally posted by Twainfan
Socialism in the modern age will never work. Those "workers" that own the means of production end up becoming a "ruling class". Forcing people to give up their money to pay for social programs will never work. Which is why Americans don't like or want Socialism or universal healthcare.

It's the American people that would be in control by their vote and through dialogue with their government representatives.

Can you show me where it has ever worked that way?

It's a pretty promise and a nice theory, but where has it ever worked that way?