Is Communism really that bad?

Originally posted by Johnmike
And the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. Furthermore, thanks to socialist influence, it isn't completely capitalist, either. It subsidizes everything now, and that intervention in the economy is hurting us.

To bad its not subsidizing endevours that help the people, but rather, its subsidizes corporations in practically everything they do. From research and development to exporting thousands of jobs over seas.

Id hardly call that socialism when the subsidizing does ntohing to help the citizenry of the country.

Id call it Corporatism, or Unregulated Capitalism.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
To bad its not subsidizing endevours that help the people, but rather, its subsidizes corporations in practically everything they do. From research and development to exporting thousands of jobs over seas.

Id hardly call that socialism when the subsidizing does ntohing to help the citizenry of the country.

Id call it Corporatism, or Unregulated Capitalism.

A lot of it is corporatism, some of it is kind of socialistic, too, like health care programs. Even socialistic/communistic wealth redistribution programs do a ton of harm and very little good, but corporatist endeavors do the damage while making the rich unfairly richer.

Corporatism is not unregulated capitalism. In fact, capitalism with few regulations is probably the most fair and prosperous system of economy. Corporatism is a step in the socialist direction from there, but directed toward, as is obvious, corporations. Really it's just another way of applying socialism and unfairly controlling both the corporations themselves and the people.

The nanny state is killing us.

Originally posted by Johnmike
In fact, capitalism with few regulations is probably the most fair and prosperous system of economy.

You mean like the US in the 1800's? You know, child labour, no fair wages, no occupational saftey, no environmental protection laws, etc, etc, etc. That was the most fair system of economy?

I know you and I have had some other disagreemtents in the past. This just may be another point where we agree to disagree. Becuase as it stands, Id take a little socialism (real democratic socialism. Like the gains won by the American people over the Barons of industry in the 1890's and 1900's) over deregulation anyday.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
You mean like the US in the 1800's? You know, child labour, no fair wages, no occupational saftey, no environmental protection laws, etc, etc, etc. That was the most fair system of economy?

Well you named four specific things.

Child labor, what can you really do about it? You can make it illegal for a kid to work, and if their parents can't afford to raise them without it, they starve to death. You could say that the child should be in school and whatnot, but sometimes it is life or death. I'm talking vaguely, though, you'd probably have to be more specific if I was to be.

Fair wages, the question is what makes them fair. The minimum wage directly hurts two sorts of entities, one of which it is actually trying to help. Those are small businesses and the "working class". While it sounds like businesses would have to share profits or however you want to put it, what you're really doing is eliminating jobs. Like all sorts of price fixing (look what's happened with artificially deflated prices in socialist regimes), you really destroy the market. If your work doesn't warrant X dollars an hour, and it's illegal to hire someone below X dollars, there's a fairly good chance that your job would be eliminated entirely. This is especially obvious in the case of small business - many simply can't afford to pay these inflated wages and fail while the big business makes it without competition as a result.

Occupational safety is a state issue and I would support making workplaces reasonably safe. On the state level at most, though.

Environmental protection has to be done reasonably. That is, the wildlife itself is nowhere near as important as humans - but if it becomes harmful to us somehow (for example, poisoned water, food, etc.) you have to do something about it. Also a state issue in most cases unless it affects something that is taking place in one state and harming another.
Also you have to be careful not to jump on the religious global warming bandwagon.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I know you and I have had some other disagreemtents in the past. This just may be another point where we agree to disagree.

That worries me a little because I can't remember precisely when, and I can sometimes be blunt and a bit attacking.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Becuase as it stands, Id take a little socialism (real democratic socialism.

That's sort of an oxymoron in many cases.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Like the gains won by the American people over the Barons of industry in the 1890's and 1900's) over deregulation anyday.

I'd have to see examples of the policies and whatnot. I've really been wanting to study that period in terms of economic policy.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Child labor, what can you really do about it? You can make it illegal for a kid to work, and if their parents can't afford to raise them without it, they starve to death. You could say that the child should be in school and whatnot, but sometimes it is life or death. I'm talking vaguely, though, you'd probably have to be more specific if I was to be.

Fair wages, the question is what makes them fair. The minimum wage directly hurts two sorts of entities, one of which it is actually trying to help. Those are small businesses and the "working class". While it sounds like businesses would have to share profits or however you want to put it, what you're really doing is eliminating jobs. Like all sorts of price fixing (look what's happened with artificially deflated prices in socialist regimes), you really destroy the market. If your work doesn't warrant X dollars an hour, and it's illegal to hire someone below X dollars, there's a fairly good chance that your job would be eliminated entirely. This is especially obvious in the case of small business - many simply can't afford to pay these inflated wages and fail while the big business makes it without competition as a result.

IM going to over simplfy the issue only because my boss is walking around right now and I lack the proper resources at work to adress these issues.

To sum it up, if your paying your workers a fair (livable) wage, there is no need for their children to work.

Occupational safety is a state issue and I would support making workplaces reasonably safe. On the state level at most, though.

I believe everyone working has the right to the same safe practises, regardless of state border.

Environmental protection has to be done reasonably. That is, the wildlife itself is nowhere near as important as humans - but if it becomes harmful to us somehow (for example, poisoned water, food, etc.) you have to do something about it. Also a state issue in most cases unless it affects something that is taking place in one state and harming another.

I understand your position. I just believe that seeing as we are part of the global ecology and depend on that ecology running as smoothly as possible, we should do our part to help it along.

Also you have to be careful not to jump on the religious global warming bandwagon.

I agree and do not take part in such foolish blame games. Im on the fence when it comes to AGW. Regardless if we are the cause or not, poisoning our water, land, and air only serves to hurt us and our children in the future.

That worries me a little because I can't remember precisely when, and I can sometimes be blunt and a bit attacking.

It was nothing serious to worry about, though I do have you marked as a foe. I of course have a lot of respect for you and your position.

That's sort of an oxymoron in many cases.

Is it? What would you call it when the people of a country agitate and demonstrate for social improvements funded by the public treasury?

I'd have to see examples of the policies and whatnot. I've really been wanting to study that period in terms of economic policy.

Again I dont have my resources on hand, but I suggest you check out any material related to the democratic struggle of the average US citizen in that era to get a feel for the economic situation. I also suggest a critical look at the who, why and how, of the formation of the US consitution. I believe it was Charles Beard who once said: "Nevertheless, whoever leaves economic pressures out of history or out of the discussion of public questions is in mortal peril of substituting mythology for reality and confusing issues instead of clarifying them." ("An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" by Charles A. Beard)

Edit to add: I think it was acutally after this thread that I put you on my foe list. (I really hope you dont take it personally, as its not ment as an insult.)

[edit on 21-11-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Yes!!!!!!! Communism is that bad. It takes away individuality. It takes from the rich and gives to the poor just to make things fair & equal. But by doing that it also takes away peoples desires to dream big and to become rich, knowing it will only be taken away. And all the high class government officials get to enjoy their corrupt lives and have all the luxary while we slave to give it all to them. Brainwashing, controlling, dictating, no freedoms, no rights and on and on.

" I don't want to be the same as everybody else."
" I want to work the hours I want to work."
" I want to drink, have sex and flip off government officials."
" I want to enjoy luxury, because I worked my ass off to pay for it."
" I want to post on this forum with my freedom of speech."
" I want to have a choice in religions, doctors, medications and tv stations."
" I want the right to read anything I want and be able to find the books."
" I want to vote for our representatives and disagree with them if I want."
" I want to run my business my way and hire whoever I want legally."
" I want to own my land and not give it to someone who has no land."
" I want to inherit what was given to me by my loved ones."
" I want to drive any vehicle I like whether it be a SUV or a pinto."

Communism is not what a human was born to do. We were born free and should always have the choice to be human.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
IM going to over simplfy the issue only because my boss is walking around right now and I lack the proper resources at work to adress these issues.

Doesn't matter to me.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
To sum it up, if your paying your workers a fair (livable) wage, there is no need for their children to work.

That's how it always is, how it should be, all that idealistic stuff. But that's like saying, "if no one was hungry..."

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I believe everyone working has the right to the same safe practises, regardless of state border.

Same with countries (human rights, etc), but I hate the idea of a global government. But the thing is that when done locally it can better cater to the needs of that specific area instead of some blanket law. I think that the court system should be checked federally as it is now (Supreme Court), but through legislation it seems that it would be easier to regulate on a smaller scale.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I understand your position. I just believe that seeing as we are part of the global ecology and depend on that ecology running as smoothly as possible, we should do our part to help it along.

That's true, I love nature and whatnot. But what it often boils down to is choosing between a bunch of trout and giving starving children food (even if it's done indirectly through economics, producing jobs, supplying resources, etc).

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I agree and do not take part in such foolish blame games. Im on the fence when it comes to AGW. Regardless if we are the cause or not, poisoning our water, land, and air only serves to hurt us and our children in the future.

Thing is that all of the "solutions" do so much economic damage that it does more harm than good regardless.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Is it? What would you call it when the people of a country agitate and demonstrate for social improvements funded by the public treasury?

It's rarely that perfect. Social improvements can mean a few things, and they exist, but you have to remember that a public monopoly is still a monopoly and one that can exist in ways so inefficient that any company that runs it would collapse. Really, privately owned anything is almost always better than something run by the government.

Only example I'm unsure about is things that have a forced monopoly, such as utilities. I'm studying economics a bit to search (well, was, I haven't had the time...I need to finish).

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Again I dont have my resources on hand, but I suggest you check out any material related to the democratic struggle of the average US citizen in that era to get a feel for the economic situation. I also suggest a critical look at the who, why and how, of the formation of the US consitution. I believe it was Charles Beard who once said: "Nevertheless, whoever leaves economic pressures out of history or out of the discussion of public questions is in mortal peril of substituting mythology for reality and confusing issues instead of clarifying them." ("An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" by Charles A. Beard)

My question is basically whether or not these hardships are the fault of unregulated big business. We're taught it in school (we're taught a lot of things in school...) at least implicitly, but I'm not sure. A lot of conditions were just as bad before industrialization, and maybe were worse. Perhaps knowledge of how horrible it was had just become widespread, maybe it was urbanization, a combination... I'm not sure.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Edit to add: I think it was acutally after this thread that I put you on my foe list. (I really hope you dont take it personally, as its not ment as an insult.)

It's actually nice to see someone who uses it in a way other than to mean "I hate you."

That's how it always is, how it should be, all that idealistic stuff. But that's like saying, "if no one was hungry..."

Maybe so but there is no need to be making huge record profits while your workers and your workers children make 10 cents an hour.

Same with countries (human rights, etc), but I hate the idea of a global government. But the thing is that when done locally it can better cater to the needs of that specific area instead of some blanket law. I think that the court system should be checked federally as it is now (Supreme Court), but through legislation it seems that it would be easier to regulate on a smaller scale.

You make an excellent point. But I still think you need some set of standards to protect those that are vulnerable to the abuses of wealth and power. I concede that a blanket set of laws may not be the answer, but I still believe that some measure of protection is necessary, further, I believe the only people qualified are those taking the risks.

Thing is that all of the "solutions" do so much economic damage that it does more harm than good regardless.

Maybe so, but sacrfices will have to be made. We simply cannot consume with such careless abandon and blindly believe everything is going to be alright.

My question is basically whether or not these hardships are the fault of unregulated big business. We're taught it in school (we're taught a lot of things in school...) at least implicitly, but I'm not sure. A lot of conditions were just as bad before industrialization, and maybe were worse. Perhaps knowledge of how horrible it was had just become widespread, maybe it was urbanization, a combination... I'm not sure.

I believe it is the fault of big business and the government collision it purchased. When Corporations are able to call upon state troopers, militia men, and the military to bust strikes and arrest dissenters that are fighting uphill battles for a livable wage and decent work conditions, Id say such harsh conditions are the fault of unregulated big business. Such business did not want to surrender to agitation, it would cut into profits. One dollar going to a livable wage is one less dollar for them.

It's actually nice to see someone who uses it in a way other than to mean "I hate you."

No problem. I like your posts, you challenge me and my views and make me take a second look at things. We stand on different sides of the political spectrum, but I respect you and your views.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Maybe so but there is no need to be making huge record profits while your workers and your workers children make 10 cents an hour.

But the question is, why? I suspect that maybe it's because there were simply too many workers - you could fire one and thee were ten other people who would work in many cases (yet I don't know how many). If you raise the wage you limit the growth of jobs to meet the demand (demand in this case lowers wages, as demand with products raises prices but stimulates an increase in supply).

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
You make an excellent point. But I still think you need some set of standards to protect those that are vulnerable to the abuses of wealth and power. I concede that a blanket set of laws may not be the answer, but I still believe that some measure of protection is necessary, further, I believe the only people qualified are those taking the risks.

Then I'd encourage the states to adopt regulations, but I really fear giving such a central authority the ability to make such a sweeping regulation.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Maybe so, but sacrfices will have to be made. We simply cannot consume with such careless abandon and blindly believe everything is going to be alright.

My complaint is that the "solutions" don't really solve anything, they only make it worse. The only thing that I could see helping is the research of new technologies. We need more nuclear fission reactors, which is as far as we can go at the moment (since cold fusion isn't really going too well). Maybe we'll get to the point of being able to harness fusion as a power source, I hope it's possible.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I believe it is the fault of big business and the government collision it purchased.

Do you mean corruption?

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
When Corporations are able to call upon state troopers, militia men, and the military to bust strikes and arrest dissenters that are fighting uphill battles for a livable wage and decent work conditions, Id say such harsh conditions are the fault of unregulated big business.

So I have to wonder, why? Why would the police and the military do that? I remember asking my high school U.S. History teacher that when learning about strikes in that time, but he wasn't the most well-read guy (a good one, though) and didn't have an answer.

Originally posted by Johnmike
But the question is, why? I suspect that maybe it's because there were simply too many workers - you could fire one and thee were ten other people who would work in many cases (yet I don't know how many). If you raise the wage you limit the growth of jobs to meet the demand (demand in this case lowers wages, as demand with products raises prices but stimulates an increase in supply).

That is certainly one possibility. The way I see it, a businesses main function, the purpose of its existance, is to make a profit. Futher, its dedication is to those that hold stake in the company, and those that hold stake in the company want as much profit as possible. Why pay your workers 5 bucks an hour when theres 20 more out there willing to work for 4? I highly doubt big business was concered about how many jobs they were creating.

Then I'd encourage the states to adopt regulations, but I really fear giving such a central authority the ability to make such a sweeping regulation.

I think you and I agree on this.

My complaint is that the "solutions" don't really solve anything, they only make it worse. The only thing that I could see helping is the research of new technologies. We need more nuclear fission reactors, which is as far as we can go at the moment (since cold fusion isn't really going too well). Maybe we'll get to the point of being able to harness fusion as a power source, I hope it's possible.

Another point I agree with, investment into new energy technology should be the number one spending priority in all first world nations ( I say this because first world nations are more likely to have the income to spend on such risky investments)

Do you mean corruption?

Yep

So I have to wonder, why? Why would the police and the military do that? I remember asking my high school U.S. History teacher that when learning about strikes in that time, but he wasn't the most well-read guy (a good one, though) and didn't have an answer.

I believe its strickly a numbers issue. Strikes, sit-ins, takeovers, and ralleys cut into profits, just as much as the issues the people agitated for, would have. Better to crush a rebel before the revolution then after.


It seems after this line of conversation, we both want change (and I mean globally, not just locally). It just seems to me, we think the change should take a different economic avenue. It turns out we share the same passion and desire for improvement.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
That is certainly one possibility. The way I see it, a businesses main function, the purpose of its existance, is to make a profit. Futher, its dedication is to those that hold stake in the company, and those that hold stake in the company want as much profit as possible. Why pay your workers 5 bucks an hour when theres 20 more out there willing to work for 4? I highly doubt big business was concered about how many jobs they were creating.

Well it does become a concern when no one wants to work for you because another company is hiring at better rates. If there was a lack of labor, they'd have to increase wages to get workers, but they didn't. That's why I suspect, perhaps, that there was an overabundance of workers at that time. Perhaps businesses didn't grow yet.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Another point I agree with, investment into new energy technology should be the number one spending priority in all first world nations ( I say this because first world nations are more likely to have the income to spend on such risky investments)

A lot of it can be done well by the private sector, actually. But I would support research done by the government under, perhaps, under the reasoning that it could be adapted for military use. Anything could, from communications to energy to, of course, weaponry.

Do you mean corruption?

Yep

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I believe its strickly a numbers issue. Strikes, sit-ins, takeovers, and ralleys cut into profits, just as much as the issues the people agitated for, would have. Better to crush a rebel before the revolution then after.

Yes, but my question is regarding what the excuse the government had to intervene like that. Were they violent, rioting?

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
It seems after this line of conversation, we both want change (and I mean globally, not just locally). It just seems to me, we think the change should take a different economic avenue. It turns out we share the same passion and desire for improvement.

Yes, and you can think logically, it's really a breath of fresh air. I'm just hoping you're not a full-blown socialist or something. But however you think, you, unlike a huge portion of this forum, can support a point civilly and without resorting to misleading rhetoric. Meaning instead of making me want to jump out of a window, it's enjoyable.

Originally posted by Johnmike
A lot of it can be done well by the private sector, actually. But I would support research done by the government under, perhaps, under the reasoning that it could be adapted for military use. Anything could, from communications to energy to, of course, weaponry.

Im sure it can and I would have no problem with the private sector doing the research. But then again, I have no problem with the government doing the leg work either, so long as after those billions of tax dollars are spent, they dont just hand over the new tech to the private sector at rock bottom prices (much like the Nuclear industry)

Yes, but my question is regarding what the excuse the government had to intervene like that. Were they violent, rioting?

I couldnt really elaborate on the cirumstances of all the strikes. Im sure a some of them, violence was an issue, but certainly not all of them. At this stage, I dont think the government really needed to answer to the people.

Yes, and you can think logically, it's really a breath of fresh air. I'm just hoping you're not a full-blown socialist or something.

But however you think, you, unlike a huge portion of this forum, can support a point civilly and without resorting to misleading rhetoric. Meaning instead of making me want to jump out of a window, it's enjoyable.

I dont consider myself a socialist. I dont really know which political Ideology encompasses what I would consider right or just. I believe the purpose of government should be to support its people. If the people want social healthcare it should be available, if the people want welfare, it should be available, etc. Of course such workings are in the realm of fantasy. As for civility, I think this world has too much hate, I'd rather have a productive conversation with some I disagree with than ram my ideology down his or her throat.

Cheers for the both of us

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Im sure it can and I would have no problem with the private sector doing the research. But then again, I have no problem with the government doing the leg work either, so long as after those billions of tax dollars are spent, they dont just hand over the new tech to the private sector at rock bottom prices (much like the Nuclear industry)

Charging huge fees to use government-produced technologies would give tremendous power to big business and quite often monopolies at the expense of big business and almost invariably the people. It's almost like corporatism for a price, really. You end up with big business paying hefty fees to use these technologies while the little guys (and the rest of us) suffer. Imagine a cheap and effective power source that cost a fortune to get permission to produce - that would drive up the price like nothing else.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I dont consider myself a socialist. I dont really know which political Ideology encompasses what I would consider right or just. I believe the purpose of government should be to support its people. If the people want social healthcare it should be available, if the people want welfare, it should be available, etc. Of course such workings are in the realm of fantasy. As for civility, I think this world has too much hate, I'd rather have a productive conversation with some I disagree with than ram my ideology down his or her throat.

Obviously a government has to work for its people. Things like socialized medicine and many welfare programs tend to do much more harm than good, though. A lot of why we pay what we do now in the United States is because of the indirect (and direct) subsidization of the industry.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Charging huge fees to use government-produced technologies would give tremendous power to big business and quite often monopolies at the expense of big business and almost invariably the people. It's almost like corporatism for a price, really. You end up with big business paying hefty fees to use these technologies while the little guys (and the rest of us) suffer. Imagine a cheap and effective power source that cost a fortune to get permission to produce - that would drive up the price like nothing else.

I agree but handing over energy concerns (again the Nuclear industry as an example) at less than what was put into the project, only serves to hurt the public coffers too. If we come to such a time, I would at least like to see the treasury get back what it put in, leave the profiteering to the companies.

Obviously a government has to work for its people. Things like socialized medicine and many welfare programs tend to do much more harm than good, though.

Speaking as someone who has needed socialized medicine to save a family member, im damn glad I have it. Without it, my family could not afford the life saving surgery, chemo, and time in hospital my mother needed to recover. On top of that, the nurse visits she so desperately needs would be out of pocket as well. My family would have been bankrupt long ago and she still would have died.

Im not saying its difficult and will solve all problems, but I believe there are more people that need it than dont.

A lot of why we pay what we do now in the United States is because of the indirect (and direct) subsidization of the industry.

Id question that. I believe corporate welfarism and handouts number (dollar figures) substancially higher than any social spending.

I have a book at home that deals with some specific figures, ill have to find it and check it out and post some of those figures.

Ok, like hell am I going to read eight pages on this, so forgive me if this has all been said.
But speaking as a follower of the subject at hand, Communism is a lovely idea; unfortunately it has a very strong weak point: it is not Democracy. This made it a really spiffy tool for the U.S. govornment to use to incite the people to start wars, raise revenue, and vote for republicans.
Now people are bored of that, so the gov't switched to terrorism.
The only people who say communism is bad are old people who were alive under the McCarthyist regieme.
Old people don't like communism because they had to watch those horrendous 'Duck and Cover' videos in school.

Originally posted by KTK
Death poet,


Number 12 is one of the best ideas I have ever seen written on ATS.

actually, gorillas are poorly hung.
i say let the dolphins do it. they most certainly wood.

Originally posted by Tony Pro
But speaking as a follower of the subject at hand, Communism is a lovely idea; unfortunately it has a very strong weak point: it is not Democracy. This made it a really spiffy tool for the U.S. govornment to use to incite the people to start wars, raise revenue, and vote for republicans.
Now people are bored of that, so the gov't switched to terrorism.
The only people who say communism is bad are old people who were alive under the McCarthyist regieme.
Old people don't like communism because they had to watch those horrendous 'Duck and Cover' videos in school.

Communism, a lovely idea? What the hell are you talking about?

I see your sweeping, idiotic assumption about the only people saying communism bad being "old people who were alive under the McCarthyist regime." I question whether or not you even understand anything at all about Communism itself and am rather certain that you don't about economics, politics, or history.

Communism is one of the most destructive, idiotic economic ideas known to man.

errr...Yes.
Communism IS really that bad. Look at Russia!?

Originally posted by Johnmike
Communism is one of the most destructive, idiotic economic ideas known to man.

heh, only problem is, I think the same about Capitalism.

Though i do agree with you on one part, there are a lot more people that dislike communism than those remenants of the McCarthy era.



[edit on 23-11-2007 by InSpiteOf]

reply to post by InSpiteOf

You know, if you read your avatar clockwise, it reads; Not expendable is Government People Are.