Why do Americans hate Socialism/Communism?

I asked my dad the same thing OP. He basically said it was because of the propaganda spread during the war.
I still don't get it though.. it seems America prefer the politicans that are NOT 'for the people'. The whole anti-health care thing is a good example of why other countries don't understand America.

Originally posted by lewman
there is a similar structure to the berlin wall in israel and the USA Mexico border isnt exactly the same as the USA Canada border is it?

And neither do the Israelis shoot escaping Israelis trying to go over that wall, and the Americans don't shoot escaping Americans trying to get over THAT wall, either.

See the difference there?

reply to post by MikeNice81

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.

i didn't argue there was Blood, Rivers of Blood & Cruelty. but what is your point? where have you Ever seen, at least once, revolution the same magnitude w/o Blood? what Russia was in tsar Time? agriculture of non-educated people; w/o modern industry; with poor & soiled army; with f*King elite which could not have written a bit with Russian language, & abhorred own Land/People... + who maintained Whites to fight versus Reds?

Originally posted by nenothtu
I agree. The culture they came from was essentially feudalistic in nature...

Yes, we are in complete agreement. I would also like to add that monotheistic religions don't serve to help either. A people who believe that state of man is inherently corrupt is akin to a man crying alcoholism to justify his drinking. If you can see where I am going with this...

I don't just mean in the US. It was the same in all of Europe, Russia, and China...

Yes, I do not think the issue is with the inherent theory. I think the issue is with the cultural and spiritual background of the people involved.

I would like to say that China is unique (for many reasons) for having a cultural revolution and using that to erase a cultural history and instate a new identity that would divorce people from the Monarchy that they have come to understand so well... It didn't work, but we wouldn't have known if it wasn't tried. I would also argue that a lot of things that Castro and Chavez do is in defense of their country from American economic policies. If I recall correctly Jamaica was also similarly defending against America while they were a monarchy.

I find the current American situation fascinating because, I believe, Khrushchev explained that the natural progression of a Democracy was towards socialism. That the people would inevitably attempt to reform their nations economies. Considering that during the Cold War was a time of massive American economic growth and the 60's forced a massive push left politically, his assessment was accurate. However, this just proves to me that the revolution has to continue because if stopped it leads to what we have seen historically and presently.

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.

Yes, to reiterate, here is were I think Trotsky (and Jefferson for that matter) was right. The revolution can not stop. Everything has to be turned on it's head. Everything must be questioned, examined, doubted. Understandably, that's not easy to do when people need to eat. You addressed that farther down so I'll return to this issue there.

I reckon what I'm trying to say here....

I think that is a failing on the part of the revolutionaries, not the concepts they are derived from. If this is what you are getting at then I think we are saying the same thing.

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.

I think so. The enemy is something deeply ingrained on a personal level. Something that can't be fought against easily.

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.

I do agree with you to an extent. Regardless of Ideology, dog and pony shows abound. It is easy to point and say, "This is the cause of the problem!" despite the reality of things. But, if you are interested I can dig up what I know of proven cases of it actually working as intended. Regardless of that minor disagreement, I think that your point here serves to show that we are in overall agreement, the issue is the centralization of powers.

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 would also like to point out that there is no possible way for the people in a communist society to take production of their own currencies. This is another reason why I believe the Socialist Revolutions never succeeded. The very idea of currency based on speculation is counter to everything that a Communist movement works towards.

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.

Well!!!

en.wikipedia.org...

That would be a quick rundown of what I am getting at.

en.wikipedia.org...

That is a more in-depth look at one possible form of implementation.

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.

Hehe, that is why you didn't see any "running capitalist dog" rhetoric you've come to love so much . I'm so far left I touch right and I like to think most people are in the same boat in one way or another.

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 am fully aware of that. The point I'm trying to drive home is that having collective responsibility eliminates the need of the State all together thereby rectifying the problem. With no hierarchical structures that we see in Feudalism one group can not lord over another.

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

Your first comment shows exactly why Marxism is dead and how I've come to where I am at now.

Lemme attempt to alleviate some of your fears... The "means of production" is in reference to the very capability to produce. For instance, you grow your own food to get around eating Monsanto products so the government enacts a plow tariff/tax in order to force you to purchase their products.

Initially the idea was that plows should then be made readily available. That is only a quick fix though. The people would then also have to seize the financial instruments that could be used/created to take the plows away again. Never mind the other issue that food production itself can be used a tool of control.

That is a bureaucracy that could never be rained in and everyone would inevitably be dependent upon.

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

Exactly! Interdependence doesn't mean Codependence. The distinction is large and many fall into this trap when being sold anything from people who preach Capitalism or Communism.

To wrap this point up: You would still have your means of production, as there is no state to abrogate your commodity.

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 will U2U about this specific issue.

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.

All that is needed, in my opinion. We are in agreement.

Another facet of your quote is the implication that force social programs won't work.

Yessir.

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.

This is where I was headed with that point as well. The very concept of "wealth" itself is currently flawed.

It will never be limited to labor as long as there are pretty baubles that someone places value on.

Exactly why our current concept of wealth is flawed. It is based on scarcity.

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.

And that was supposed to be the 4th Estate. But, we see how well that worked out...

I'm all ears here, cause I have thought about this and haven't really come up with anything so far.

EZLN

I can understand where you at on this. As far as his intentions, well we'll have to wait and see. But, so far so good in my book.

Well, one step in getting the point across would be to find other, more current terms to replace those dating from the Marxist era...

I agree, the sad thing is is that there isn't any. That is why I am so pleased with this conversation and I needed this in order to help construct a more palatable way to discuss these issues.

I agree, with the caveat that one must choose his battles with what he perceives as the best interests of his People in mind.

Of course, I wasn't meaning to say that one should die needlessly.

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

Fair enough. This just goes to reinforce my belief that reform will never work.

What you describe here is the revolutionary vanguard.

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.

Over-centralization.

Looks like we have come to an agreement! And now:

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.

That's the trick isn't it. I'm hoping we can find that fish together because I can't see it from only my view of the river.

As far as the effective replacement I'm sure we can reconcile that and come up with something that others will also agree on so we can enact some actual change for once.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum

Yes, to reiterate, here is were I think Trotsky (and Jefferson for that matter) was right. The revolution can not stop. Everything has to be turned on it's head. Everything must be questioned, examined, doubted. Understandably, that's not easy to do when people need to eat. You addressed that farther down so I'll return to this issue there.

absolutely precise conception that's primest reason why most active revolutionists & Trotsky too were wasted by Stalin

reply to post by SarK0Y


How is it ever justified to kill ten year old children and starve 10 million people to maintain luxury for the ruling elite. That is what we are talking about. The second famine occured while Stalin was in power. The revolution was over. The Tsar and the aristocracy had been murdered and/or sent in to exile. This happened because the communist party wanted to redistribute the wealth to ensure they survived failed policy.

That is the exact opposite of freedom. That is the definition of tyrany by the elite.

My advance apologies if this has already been mentioned on this thread. I have learned a lot about *past* assertions made against socialism/communism.

But, I'm going to go off on a limb here and mention what is currently going on in China:

Chinese police have prevented artist Ai Weiwei from traveling to South Korea, he said on Friday, linking it to a crackdown on dissidents ahead of the formal awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a prominent rights activist.

Ai had been due to board a flight from Beijing to South Korea on Thursday evening, when police presented him with a piece of paper saying he was not allowed to leave China on grounds of endangering security.

"They said my leaving the country would threaten national security. They were very polite, and said that in accordance with the law, I could not leave ... It's really silly," Ai told Reuters by telephone.

"I think there's a direct connection with next week's Nobel Peace Prize award," he added. "The Chinese government is very upset about this."

...

This year's prize to jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo is due to be formally awarded next Friday in Norway's capital Oslo.

China, furious that the award has gone to a man it labels a criminal and a subversive, has detained a number of dissidents and prevented many others from leaving the country, apparently fearful some will try and make their way to Norway.

China stopped Liu's lawyer Mo Shaoping last month from boarding a plane to London for a conference.

www.reuters.com...

While this may be likened to a US terrorist "no fly" lister, I don't believe that the US has reached this level...yet...and I hope/pray not ever

reply to post by MikeNice81

i already enlisted most reasons why Revolution was run. + every revolution leaves many persons who cannot come out of the war to peaceful life that induces long-lasting process to mend society. + hard situation in Russia for entire 20th century was orchestrated by foreign govts, + CCCP was sacred pillar to support almighty buckie Justice??? we have lived in too complex World to try everything to measure in single way. Freedom??? in nowhere, someone would give Freedom to You because human only can take Freedom with own efforts, by own choice

Originally posted by estar
I honestly am astounded by the attitudes by a large group of people within America, how is socialised healthcare a bad thing?

I can only give you my own opinion on the matter. The government sponsored "health care" recently delivered to us should more properly be called "the enforced insurance corporation support act". The fact that they intend to force my participation when I want no part of it it what grates on me. That simply isn't going to happen. I will quite literally die first. If I want to buy a product or service, I do so. Being forced to do business with the insurance corporation run ponzi schemes, and having that enforced by the IRS, is the strangest form of taxation I've ever seen, and I'm not going to comply. I've managed to take care of my own health this far, and when the time comes that something comes up that I can't take care of, I'll die, and that will be it. I strongly suspect I won't quite make it that far, though. Depends on how many rounds those pretty new shotguns recently issued to the IRS hold, and how many they bring to bear, and whether or not they can manage to get behind me. I expect they'll be pretty efficient - probably more efficient than the rest of the IRS sections.

I paid into the insurance scam for years, and all it did was make someone else richer. Not. Gonna. Do it. Again. Last time I went to the doctor at all, much less a hospital, was over 20 years ago. Boss caught me cutting off my wedding band from a mangled finger with a pair of tin snips, and made me go. I was just gonna cut the ring off, throw my own stitches, and go back to work, because that's what I do. As it was, I went back to work the same day anyhow. Just had the finger in a prettier, more expensive packaging is all. Not gonna see the inside of a hospital any more, either, unless I'm working there. You know folks die in the hospitals, right?

No, I don't care what the government does about health care, I only care that I'm being forced to participate and interact with corporations that I detest. They can set up any cute little system they like, as long as they aren't forcing participation in it.

That's what's wrong with it.

Insurance companies don’t give a damn about people they only care about profit.

Exactly. Now with Obamacare they have been handed a government-enforced windfall profit. Nice, huh?

What is the point of having a government in the first place if they aren’t providing for its citizens?

Government is not there to provide, it's there to govern - mediate disputes, punish crimes, that sort of thing. That's why it's called "Government", and not "Provisioning".

If you want to live in this American Wild West dream of no tax and pure freedom, feel free to go in to anarchy and have the rich/poor gap grow even further. I suggest that you wake up from this dream and get in the real world where people look out for each other.

There is no "rich/poor" gap in anarchy. No one can co-operate long enough for any to get rich, so all stay poor. In order for that gap to develop, a government of some sort has to be instituted for command and control, to direct efforts for anyone to get rich.

What you mention at the last not the real world. The real world is dog-eat-dog, and government is the biggest dog on the block, so it's eating all the rest of us. Some just fail to see the anesthesia of dependency administered before they get eaten.

reply to post by RRokkyy

You are confusing Socialism and Communism. America is a socialist country.

No I am not.

Socialism and Communism fail.

The USA has been destroyed by the naive socialists who helped the bankers fleece the poor The socialists fall for the smoke and mirrors that cover the steady draining of this country's wealth by the Banking Vampires. (I got sick of typing this info so my defense of that statement is at the link, I strongly suggest you read it)

The USA has gone the route that every other country has that follows banker directed socialism. The USA is now bankrupt with its wealth transferred into the hands of the banker/corporate cartel. The last steps, the theft of our farmland, is almost complete (Again, I got sick of typing this info so my defense of that statement is at the link)

I am not the only one who sees that the USA has been destroyed AND that the direction of the wealth transfer is FROM the poor TO the rich. Do you really think John Dewey would have been allowed to influence US education if the elite were not in favor of socialism? Do you think the elite propaganda machine - the US media, controlled for nearly a century would be so pro-socialism if that was not what the bankers wanted? After all J.P Morgan took control of the media in 1917 and today it is controlled by five mega corporations.

Either the people in power in Washington and the financial community are total dimwits or they are manipulating an opportunity to redistribute wealth from taxpayers, equity owners and pension funds to the financial sector. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury www.countercurrents.org...

Stewart Dougherty, a specialist in inferential analysis, agrees.

It is now "statistically impossible for the United States to pay its obligations".

www.silverbearcafe.com...

The Department of Homeland Security says 80% of our ports are operated by Foreigners and they are buying and running US bridges and toll roads. www.alabamaeagle.org...

Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. www.fame.org...

America has been quietly sold off piece by piece. This is a sampling of the industries with over 50% foreign ownership, according to Source Watch www.sourcewatch.org...

* Sound recording industries - 97%
* Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%
* Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%
* Metal ore mining - 65%
* Wineries and distilleries - 64%
* Database, directory, Book and other publishers - 63%
* Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%
* Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57%
* Rubber product - 53%
* Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53%
* Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52%
* Other insurance related activities - 51%
* Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%
* Glass and glass product - 48%
* Coal mining – 48%

As I said Socialism and Communism fail and the USA is no exception to that rule.

Originally posted by JonoEnglish

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by estar

 

"universal" healthcare is unconstitutional.

k thanks bye.

edit on 2-12-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)

So you'd be happy for your local police force to be ran by a private Company?

That would be unconstitutional as well. Maintaining law and order is the provenance of government. Forcing me to buy insurance or accept their handouts is not.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


Ok, sorry I got the form of government/economic system thing messed up. Don't know why I did it. Maybe it's because all our government tries to do is screw around with the economic system and the two become one in some monstrous, unnatural hybrid?

Anyway, the poor may have the freedom to improve their condition, and I completely agree that it is not the governments job to make everything even/fair, but it does not change the fact that the poor are exploited because of their condition. Exploiting the poor is just as wrong as exploiting the rich (aka redistribution of wealth).

Personally, I'm more concerned with the lazy exploiting the hard-working, regardless of socio-economic positions. The lazy-poor and lazy-rich are both parasites on the backs of those carrying the load.

reply to post by Mykahel


I think I get lazy-poor. But what is lazy-rich? If someone happens to be born into wealth, are they automatically a lazy-rich parasite?

reply to post by MikeNice81

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

Communism never existed in the very definition of the name. I't was just the past systems with a new name, basically say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.

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.

Communism is an idealistic ideal that world can not exist because there is no such thing as equal among humanity especially if you force it upon humanity. Socialism just means trade, or a balanced structure for function in any society, its not really a ideal or even a political party, if you ever have done business and traded or sold your skills to another group you were socializing to achieve that goal, the ism in socialism off course denotes ism people need there idols. Capitalism is the most honest of the ism at the time and the most truthful therefore it came out on top, because it didn't claim any ideal or utopia it just said it wanted money and ownership of all that one can achieve within his or her power, but it to is not a new concept it just was the most logical concept at the time, but its nothing special and it does lead to fascism and feudalism like all other ism's if given total power over the people.

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.

Well whatever works. But ya I don't think it's gonna be any one thing or system, Even when they say they are one thing or following one ism, there lying, and in most cases anything that works well, is a combination of many things in a balance beneficial for all involved, if it were not so then it wouldn't work, as you can see from history and just by looking at the world in general, so easier said then done.

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.

Personally I don't think any government is needed period, but that would be in a more ideal world. And since we live in a not very ideal world, it is necessary to a degree but not a total degree, that would just make it another central power structure that could be used for control of the masses, and like your quote said, it would be used to take your definition of freedom away if it was big enough. In a better world or more efficient system the less fortunate should be at a minimum, and withing the commune or states power to help. A big central power for some reason always turns corrupt and against its host states or systems, go figure huh big mystery why that happens.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Yes, we are in complete agreement. I would also like to add that monotheistic religions don't serve to help either. A people who believe that state of man is inherently corrupt is akin to a man crying alcoholism to justify his drinking. If you can see where I am going with this...

That can be fairly said. Another viewpoint is that it gives them a goal to strive for, the quest for improvement of that condition or overcoming it, but all too often it is, as you say, used as an excuse for failure and weakness - in those cases, perhaps the great majority, improvement isn't on the agenda. Excuses are. To use a religion - any religion - as an excuse for bad deeds is despicable.

I would like to say that China is unique (for many reasons) for having a cultural revolution and using that to erase a cultural history and instate a new identity that would divorce people from the Monarchy that they have come to understand so well... It didn't work, but we wouldn't have known if it wasn't tried.

As one who thinks there may be some merit in those "ludicrous" theories of ancestral memory, I'd say it was doomed to failure. However those memories are propagated, it would likely take more than two generations to erase the memory of an entire cultural history. People get used to things being a certain way, and it goes onward from generation to generation, regardless of the mechanism. It seems to me to only get displaced as a gradual process, with new ideas occasionally entering and displacing the old ways over time. The sudden shock of the Chinese experiment wouldn't have a permanent effect if that's the case.

I would also argue that a lot of things that Castro and Chavez do is in defense of their country from American economic policies.

Yes, especially now that there is no more USSR in the mix to keep it stirred up.

I find the current American situation fascinating because, I believe, Khrushchev explained that the natural progression of a Democracy was towards socialism.

Agreed. It wasn't so much an issue before the notion that America was a "democracy" got a toehold in the early 20th century. Ever since then, the progression towards socialism seems to have been accelerating, especially after the turmoil of the 60's as you observe.

Yes, to reiterate, here is were I think Trotsky (and Jefferson for that matter) was right. The revolution can not stop. Everything has to be turned on it's head. Everything must be questioned, examined, doubted. Understandably, that's not easy to do when people need to eat. You addressed that farther down so I'll return to this issue there.
...

I think that is a failing on the part of the revolutionaries, not the concepts they are derived from. If this is what you are getting at then I think we are saying the same thing.

I don't see it so much as a continuation of the revolution as I do maintaining ground gained against those elements that would take it towards feudalism. There comes a time for the revolution to come to an end, but that doesn't obviate the necessity for eternal vigilance. Yes, I was getting at it being a failing of the revolutionaries up to a point. In the case of our revolution in America, the revolutionaries had the foresight to emplace safeguards, but the subsequent generations failed to maintain the ground gained, and began allowing those safeguards to be ignored and overrun. In that case, the revolutionaries can't be faulted, their heirs are at fault.

I think so. The enemy is something deeply ingrained on a personal level. Something that can't be fought against easily.

Right, that's a large part of it, the cultural conditioning that is so ingrained and hard to fight. That is what causes the people to allow the feudalists to gain a foothold and exploit it, thereby moving towards centralization and eventually totalitarianism. That ingrained conditioning seems to lead them to expect a lord in the manor house to direct their lives. In America, the more urban the country becomes, the worse that sort of expectation seems to get.

I do agree with you to an extent. Regardless of Ideology, dog and pony shows abound. It is easy to point and say, "This is the cause of the problem!" despite the reality of things. But, if you are interested I can dig up what I know of proven cases of it actually working as intended. Regardless of that minor disagreement, I think that your point here serves to show that we are in overall agreement, the issue is the centralization of powers.

You can dig those cases up if you like, but I think you'll find that all of them are on a small scale (such as the EZLN example, confined to Chiapas), which goes back to something about scale that I said earlier. There seems to be a certain class of person that, when they see all that wealth for the picking as the scale increases, feels a need to accelerate and strengthen the centralization, so they can take advantage of it. It looks to me like that's the way it worked in the communist examples, and I can see the same thing working right now in the American Experiment.

I would also like to point out that there is no possible way for the people in a communist society to take production of their own currencies. This is another reason why I believe the Socialist Revolutions never succeeded. The very idea of currency based on speculation is counter to everything that a Communist movement works towards.

I'm at loss. If all of the means of production are owned by the people, through the State, what is there to keep them from producing their own currency? Did you mean "creation of wealth out of nothingness" as is the American case now, instead of "currency"? As seen in America before the advent of the Federal Reserve, it seems likely that they could produce currency as a convenient medium of exchange, but would just have to have a real wealth standard to back it.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for those. I'll read and educate myself in the matter.

Hehe, that is why you didn't see any "running capitalist dog" rhetoric you've come to love so much

. I'm so far left I touch right and I like to think most people are in the same boat in one way or another.

Eh. I probably need that rhetoric from time to time, just to let me know that my blood is still circulating. When my face turns redder and my head swells preparatory to explosion, I reckon I've had enough then. Interesting - and spooky - turn of phrase you use there. I've always told folks that "I'm so far to the right I practically wrap back around to the left". maybe that's why this hasn't come to blows - too close proximity to get a good swing in! Oddly, I had a very good friend years ago who was just to the left of Mao, while I was just to the right of Atilla the Hun, and we got along famously. Takes all kinds, I reckon.

I am fully aware of that. The point I'm trying to drive home is that having collective responsibility eliminates the need of the State all together thereby rectifying the problem. With no hierarchical structures that we see in Feudalism one group can not lord over another.

With the State eliminated altogether, who do you see doing the administrative work? How is it to run smoothly with no upper level coordination between factions, co-ops, communes, or whatever you want to call them?

Lemme attempt to alleviate some of your fears... The "means of production" is in reference to the very capability to produce. For instance, you grow your own food to get around eating Monsanto products so the government enacts a plow tariff/tax in order to force you to purchase their products.

Initially the idea was that plows should then be made readily available. That is only a quick fix though. The people would then also have to seize the financial instruments that could be used/created to take the plows away again. Never mind the other issue that food production itself can be used a tool of control.

That is a bureaucracy that could never be rained in and everyone would inevitably be dependent upon.

I'm an evil cuss. I'd ignore the tax and wait for them to come enforce it. Make my own plow if I have to. I've done it before (iron pipe or wood for the frame, sheet steel for the feet), and plowed behind a horse instead of on a tractor. For that matter, I've been known to forego plows altogether and use a spading fork. I don't recommend it except in emergencies, though. That's a LOT of work that can generally be avoided. Still, they throw out an unreasonable tax, I'm going to get around it if I can, ignore it if I can't, and deal with the chips when they fall. Reference my stand on the insurance tax coming.

To wrap this point up: You would still have your means of production, as there is no state to abrogate your commodity.

The whole "Stateless" thing is where my understanding of your concept breaks down. Are you talking about a "tribal" organization, say, at maybe what is now he US State level with "intertribal councils" at a higher level (maybe comparable to the current Federal level), but limited to mediation between lower level units rather than the regulation we have now?

...(my rant about Obamacare)...

I will U2U about this specific issue.

I'll be looking for that.

This is where I was headed with that point as well. The very concept of "wealth" itself is currently flawed.

It will never be limited to labor as long as there are pretty baubles that someone places value on.

Exactly why our current concept of wealth is flawed. It is based on scarcity.

I'm not sure that most can get beyond that concept of wealth. For a lot of people, it's the security blanket that holds their entire "reality" together. For example, I've had a couple of wives who decided money was more important than me, so I let them go, so they cold pursue it. No harm, no foul. It wasn't up to me to hold them down if that was their preference. There seem to be a LOT of folks like that around.

I personally place more value on the ability to do as I please, assuming that I'm not injuring anyone else, than money or comfort. That's just me though, and I can sort of understand the attraction that creature comforts hold for others. I'm just not willing to give up liberty in exchange for them. If others are, that's their prerogative, but why should I have to conform to their ideals? Likewise, I have no desire to force them to conform to mine - until they cross that line and step on MY toes.

What we REALLY need is a mechanism emplaced to weed out and eliminate those people from ever gaining power in the first place...

And that was supposed to be the 4th Estate. But, we see how well that worked out...

I'm all ears here, cause I have thought about this and haven't really come up with anything so far.

That's a real problem. Unfortunately, the job draws power seekers like a slop jar draws flies, and the people most suited to governing in that manner want no part of the job they want neither the headaches nor the power. The American revolutionaries partially solved the problem with part time congressmen, who met for the session, then went back to their usual pursuits, rather than career congressmen as full-time employees of the State, just as a council would meet to discuss the issues at hand, then head back to the fields and woods. Term limits on governing officials helped insure that neither the burden of government nor time for corruption weighed to heavily upon them. The system that has evolved into now, with career politicians, makes a mockery of that intent, and allows the corruption to fester and grow. It actually draws the power hungry and fosters them, in a self-feeding cycle.

That cycle needs to be broken, and effective stops put in place, in order to defeat and prevent the centralization.

That's the trick isn't it. I'm hoping we can find that fish together because I can't see it from only my view of the river.

Two eyes are better than one, how much more so two sets of eyes? It takes a minimum of two viewpoints to attain 3D, binocular vision.

reply to post by StlSteve


Not automatically, no. I understand that some people are born into wealth and others into poverty. Nothing is ever going to change that. It may not seem fair, but since when has life been fair? Some people are just lucky. I guess I'm more concerned though with the lazy-rich that get their money by manipulating people, depriving them of proper wages, or simply stealing it via unconstitutional taxes, etc.

But anyway, I suppose lazy-rich could even be divided into 2 categories. The ones that are just born into it and never have to work a day in their life, and the lazy rich who find ways to get their fortunes off of other peoples labor.

Think I'm getting a little off topic here. I still maintain that no economic system will be fair so long as greedy/lazy people are involved.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Nice, Now that everyone has said their piece.
How about we look at the very real history of Eastern Europe, Soviet Union/Russia under full blown Socialism/Communism and red China under Mao?

How many were murdered under their watch in the name of Communism?

Stalin - 20,000,000 to 61,911,000 murdered by the Soviet Union 1917-1987

Mao -Red China 49-78,000,000 China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)

Everyone said their piece but did you actually read any of them?

You still insist that Eastern Europe was communist, actual true communism that communists want?

Just because a totalitarian government calls itself communist it doesn't mean that they actually are. It's the actions that make it what it is, not what it decided to call itself many years ago. If you understood European history, pre-WWII, you would understand how powerful the working class, and socialism, was. There was basically a fight between the establishment, right wing fascists, and the working class socialist left. Governments do what they need to appease the population and garner their support, government cannot succeed without the peoples support, so the terms socialism and communism were adopted to make the people believe they had the peoples interest at heart. WE KNOW BETTER. Don't we?

Neither socialism nor communism killed anyone, egomaniac dictators did. Blaming socialism or communism for what those evil people did is like blaming pencils for misspelled words.

It wasn't done in the name of communism, it was done for the same reason your government controls you, power.
It's simply culture that dictates what governments call themselves, they all act the same way.

And while we're talking about killing in the name of...How many people do you suppose have been killed over the centuries in the name of capitalism (as in the private ownership of the means of production for the terminology challenged)?

Also, why should I work if I get no more than the person that doesn't work. In that situation, more and more people see this and abadon the challenges of day to day life and accept the free hand out.

Not true at all I live in the Netherlands and we all help out if your mentality is like that then you will not make it in the world I rather work then stay at home because I want a better car, house, etc..etc..
If you don't work in my country yes you do receive money from the government but just enough to live but that does not mean you can purchase a car or a house with it.

Gr.
Richie

One of the things people need to realise is when those in power talk about freedom, they don't mean your freedom, they mean their own freedom which comes from their position of power and the wealth it brings.

Take this story for example...

Michele Bachmann has become well known for her anti-government tea-bagger antics, protesting health care reform and every other government “handout” as socialism. What her followers probably don’t know is that Rep. Bachmann is, to use that anti-government slur, something of a welfare queen. That’s right, the anti-government insurrectionist has taken more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts thanks to corrupt farming subsidies she has been collecting for at least a decade.

And she’s not the only one who has been padding her bank account with taxpayer money.

Bachmann, of Minnesota, has spent much of this year agitating against health care reform, whipping up the so-called tea-baggers with stories of death panels and rationed health care. She has called for a revolution against what she sees as Barack Obama’s attempted socialist takeover of America, saying presidential policy is “reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom.”...

www.truthdig.com...

It is those in power who are confusing the people as to what is good for them, because those in power want to maintain and increase that power. This is the problem with government and career politicians, it's all about their own careers, not the good of the people. They are using you to better their own careers. They have no problem taking handouts for themselves, because they are egocentric, and believe what they are doing is more important than you.

These people don't care about you, they are against socialism because they are only concerned with themselves, and do not care that the system does not benefit the people, as long as it benefits them.

This is the problem of a system with top down authority, corruption is inevitable when it's full of conflicts of interest.
Those in power do not want to lose that power, and to do that they control us economically. Socialism would take away their power to control our economy.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
How is it ever justified to kill ten year old children and starve 10 million people to maintain luxury for the ruling elite.

Interesting point....

That is the sort of thing that is taking place due to globalism nowadays. It's a gulag with invisible walls and if people can't see it than they can pretend it isn't there.

I'm glad you brought this up. It shows where we are currently headed.