Why do Americans hate Socialism/Communism?

reply to post by chiponbothshoulders


Both Socialism and Communism are fabulous concepts for a society. They work wonderfully well with insects. Unfortunately we aren't insects so their chances of success are ZERO. Both have been tried and shown as failures. Hell, democracies have been tried and shown as failures.

Neither of the aforementioned have a snowball's chance in hell of working since humans aren't wired that way. As a scientist, I could go on and on about the wonders of socialistic and communistic living and how incredible it is........for INSECTS. Throw in a dose of human intellect/free will/desire to conquer and the whole shebang craps out.

Both systems look great on paper but are impossible to implement with humans. There are those who wish to be left alone and those who refuse to leave others alone. The latter of the two is the problem. There will always be some smarmy dickhead who thinks they know better than you and will find underlings to assist them with the subversion of the wills of those who disagree. This is not something I'm pulling out of thin air, this is historical fact.

I want to work my 8 acres for me and my family. I will not bother you nor anyone associated with you. Should you or anyone in your hive decide that me or my families work would be better suited for the greater good of the hive? Be prepared to be met with deadly force.

We will not mess with your hive nor will we tolerate our system being messed with by those from your hive. This is not rocket science.

reply to post by bozzchem


I want to move my hive right in next to your hive! I'll cover the intrusions from the north and east, you cover the intrusions from the south and west.

I'll work my place, you work yours.

Seriously, what you just said is the absolute crux of the matter at the lowest level. Some want to just be left alone, and others will never allow that.

This is what makes wars at the lowest level.

Wish I could have flung more stars your way!

reply to post by nenothtu


I currently have a weak flank but wont disclose it.

The mere fact that such a point has to be brought up is ludicrous. Leave me and mine alone since I can assure you that you and yours will be left alone by me and mine.

I appreciate the fact that you see the simplicity of the situation. I can only hope more realize it and realize that we are tribal by nature and will defend our property as we see fit regardless of the tripe coming from DC.

Star for you and my appreciation for your sentiments.

reply to post by bozzchem
Yes..

A Republican form of government,...Twas once.

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by bozzchem

 

Yes..

A Republican form of government,...Twas once.

I haven't heard the fat lady sing so haven't given up hope yet on the restoration of a Republican form of government.

My fear is the watering that the Tree of Liberty may require since as Jefferson stated, it's her natural manure.

Slayer.........Neno.............Bozzchem.......
+100 more

All well stated, thank you.

reply to post by bozzchem
Somebody is going to have to get "Yoinked".

Or we become ,or is it,Osmotic Pressure,or?.

Pressure,most have no notice of it.

We'll have to wait and see.

reply to post by bozzchem


Well, honestly, I don't see it as a "communist vs, capitalist" thing, I see it more as a "centralized totalitarianism" thing, no matter which side it was initially approached from. Both sides have had their totalitarian moments, it's just that communism has never had a moment that WASN'T totalitarian.

Socialism by nature is totalitarian, since the government can't GET the "free handouts" to make the social programs work for it without first taking them from someone, which of course is going to involve bothering folks who don't want to be bothered. Captalist totalitarianism (aka fascism) goes the same route, taking what isn't rightfully theirs from folks who don't want to be bothered.

This business of "ownership of the means of production" is drivel that socialists hide behind. If I don't FULLY control MY means of production, I can't be said to "own" it by any stretch of the imagination. If it is instead "owned" by a collective, then I don't fully control it, the collective does, and that's not materially different from having Daddy Warbucks own and operate it. In either case, it's not "mine", and any benefit I get from it is still at the sole discretion of others.

Hell with that. They need to just keep off of MY place!

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
It is a weak argument. We can discuss it if you would like, feel free to start a new thread.

I have no problem discussing this here and now. I have started many threads on various topics.

And here is how I know you are not a First Nations person. You used the past tense "were". This is still ongoing.

I'm sorry but no one in my tribe or original reservation has been raped, killed or enslaved by any imperialist in over a hundred years. I can't speak for our Canadian "First Nation" cousins to the north though.

You can see here the evidence of capitalist machinery that is entrenched in American culture. He appropriates another ethnic groups suffering instead of standing in solidarity with their struggle in order to dismiss it. This is also called revisionism and is an aspect of liberalism. These left over vestiges of imperialism are a reason for American's fearing Socialism.

TO THE OP: Here we have a classic case of someone with a holier than thou opinion of themselves. Deciding how someone else thinks or views the world based on a few paragraphs written in a thread on a conspiracy site. Can we say assumptive?

Revisionist?
Appropriation?


I'm not the one running around ignoring the very real history of the world in favor of a philosophic academic perception of socialism and or Communism. We've seen it in action and the result was hundreds of millions killed in the name of it.

That's my point. Capitalism = bad, using death toll counts.

YET, You'll ignore the very real numbers of hundreds of millions killed in the name of socialism/communism and only focus on what has been done in the name of imperialism. We as Americans know all too well about imperialism. Remember we as a country fought off the crown in order to gain our independence from it. Remind me and the readers if the queens face is still plastered on some of your money....Revise that.

TO THE OP: This illustrates that the teaching of individualism helps to serve the revisionist agenda of liberalism. Because individualist thought is pressed so hard in this culture American's are unable to see how they are a collective and share collective responsibility for the shortcomings of their domestic and foreign domestic policies.

TO THE OP: Here we have a classic case of generalization. Again with the revisionist crap. You're the one who is in denial about the real history of what uncontrolled socialism has done. Say what you mean instead of reediting your reply with after thoughts. And who the hell is a liberal here. Shortcomings of domestic and foreign policies? By whose standards? Yours?

Hell, you cant even admit that hundreds of millions were murdered in the name of communism.

Why should I or anyone else for that matter trust your opinions?

So you agree that capitalism doesn't work?

Batista was a crook. Is he or Cuba the best example you can come up with? I'm sorry, but out of 195 countries Cuba's history in the long run will amount to a hill of beans and will have a negligible impact on global affairs.

TO THE OP: Here you can see that while it seems completely rational to juxtapose a communist with Stalinism it is utterly baffling to make the same comparison with capitalism and it's leaders. Instead of arriving at the logical conclusion, totalitarian dictatorships are terrible, the conclusion is drawn that all communism means mass murder and death.

TO THE OP: Showing real world examples of what has happened in the name of Socialism and or Communism is nothing more than showing the truth. However, having said that on paper socialism works grand but in the real REAL world, GREED, CORRUPTION and Human ego have shown it will not work. Academically it's all great but again in the real world people die and by the millions.

Sure, right after you answer my question.

Again, is Batista your example?
He was a crook. So? and? Your point?

TO THE OP: This reply illustrates the reactionary thinking that is also to blame for the lack of discourse in this nation. Please notice how the replier is unable to answer my question and instead launches into a diatribe about more deaths that all of communism is supposedly solely responsible for. Yet, when making the same comparison about capitalism the nations stand alone.

TO THE OP: Obviously his reply is lacking in any and all facts pertaining to the discussion instead comes off with his obvious higher opinion of himself and stance. I have provided sources and links that show the numbers which have demonstrated the cost communism has had on humankind and it's history. But he continues to bounce back and forth between Capitalism and Imperialism confusing the distinction between the two all based on opinions and innuendo.

TO THE OP: Can we potentially ban slogans and catchphrases like "Bourgeoise". "reactionary", "counter-revolutionary" and "proletariat" from this discussion?

No?

That's ok. Those phrase let us know who and what is talking, and more importantly WHERE THEY GET THEIR TALKING POINTS FROM.

Good lord, I feel like I'm back in the 60's again. Anybody got any beads, bells, incense, or Flower Power?

When is the next Committee meeting?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

So you agree that capitalism doesn't work?

Batista was a crook. Is he or Cuba the only example you can come up with? I'm sorry but out of the 195 countries Cuba's history in the long run will amount to a hill of beans and will have a negligible impact on global affairs.

Sure, right after you answer my question.

Again is Batista your example?

He was a crook. So? and? Your point?

Somoza was a crook, too, but I can tell you right off that the Nicaraguan campesinos and the Miskitos, Rama, etc. were a damn sight better off under him than the Sandinistas. See, crook though he was, he let the campesinos and the indians alone to do their thing for the most part. They weren't what he was getting rich from, so he let 'em be.

That all changed under the Sandinistas.

I heard the promises made about a grand and glorious worker's paradise, the dictatorship of the proletariat, all that BS. Then I saw what was delivered in place of all those flowery promises.

Collectivizing the farms, displacing the campesinos.

"Relocating" the Miskitos and Ramas, and utterly destroying their villages. I mean UTTERLY destroying them. Razing them right to the ground, so that the indians had nothing to go back to.

Hell, it got to the point where, in that "worker's paradise", families were rationed one roll of toilet paper per week. ONE ROLL.

Naw, these folks can keep their God-damned "collective".

They can make me all the pretty promises they like, but do it from over there, in their own corner.

They move towards mine, there's gonna be huge trouble, and yeah, once they start it, they'll have to kill me and folks like me to stop it.

This is OUR turf.

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by bozzchem

 

Somebody is going to have to get "Yoinked".

Or we become ,or is it,Osmotic Pressure,or?.

Pressure,most have no notice of it.

We'll have to wait and see.

I'm not quite following you. Osmotic pressure has to do with liquids and the permeability of the membranes with which said liquids can move. Kind of like when you get a cramp while playing sports and they give you salt pills. There is a delicate mechanism in the muscle known as the Sodium/Potassium ATPase pump. While osmotic pressure is important and can be used for things such as food storage, etc....it tends to be a bit more complicated than just tossing some "salt" in the mix and expecting the osmotic pressure to work in your favor.

I'll apologize since it's been many, many years since I've studied this so if I'm in error, please understand that. I typically found that giving someone potassium would get them going far more quickly than sodium...but again that was decades ago.

Have a read and let me know your thoughts: en.wikipedia.org...

Regardless of how many years as it has been, I keep KCl on hand at all times should the need arise to balance a high level of sodium.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by bozzchem

 

Hell with that. They need to just keep off of MY place!

I've got your six if you have mine. This is precisely where we are heading in a short period of time. Neighbor looking out for neighbor without giving an FFFF about the BS being laid down upon us. I don't want to tell you what to do and it's obvious that you don't want to tell me what to do.

It's also obvious that should some slick MF come rolling in either of our yards telling either of us how they are going to show us what needs to be done as "authorized" we will have fertilizer.

Man, I really just want to be left the hell alone. If that isn't possible, then so be it.

I will never draw first blood but will respond should mine be drawn.

reply to post by bozzchem
attempt to reaize the term "bBallAnce"

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I have no problem discussing this here and now.

I have started many threads on various topics.

I just thought it would be off topic.

I'm sorry but no one in my tribe or original reservation has been raped, killed or enslaved by any imperialist in over a hundred years. I can't speak for our Canadian "First Nation" cousins to the north though.

Siksika. I apologize for jumping all over you but you know as well as I do that the situation of your people isn't standard across the board even in America.

TO THE OP: Here we have a classic case of someone with a holier than thou opinion of themselves. Deciding how someone else thinks or views the world based on a few paragraphs written in a thread on a conspiracy site. Can we say assumptive?

I'm not making any assumptions, your post illustrates exactly why we can't have this discourse in America. I was answering the OP's question.

I'm not the one running around ignoring the very real history of the world in favor of a philosophic academic perception of socialism and or Communism. We've seen it in action and the result was hundreds of millions killed in the name of it.

Yet, oddly enough my people did just fine with a form of it before capitalism showed up.

YET, You'll ignore the very real numbers of hundreds of millions killed in the name of socialism/communism and only focus on what has been done in the name of imperialism. We as Americans know all too well about imperialism. Remember we as a country fought off the crown in order to gain our independence from it. Remind me and the readers if the queens face is still plastered on some of your money....Revise that.

I acknowledge those numbers. You are right; however, what I meant to say was colonialism, and I meant that in an economical sense not a cultural one. I said Imperialism and I misspoke and made a mistake.

TO THE OP: Here we have a classic case of generalization. Again with the revisionist crap. You're the one who is in denial about the real history of what uncontrolled socialism has done. Say what you mean instead of reediting your reply with after thoughts. And who the hell is a liberal here.

Shortcomings of domestic and foreign policies? By whose standards? Yours?

I'm not in denial. People died under Stalin, Mao, etc. My point is that people died under the capitalist system as well and so it's a weak argument.

Not liberal as in Democrat but Economic Liberalism.

Not historical revisionism but revision of communist thought.

Why should I or anyone else for that matter trust your opinions?

What? Trust my opinions to be true opinions? I genuinely don't know why someone would ask this...

Batista was a crook. Is he or Cuba the best example you can come up with? I'm sorry, but out of 195 countries Cuba's history in the long run will amount to a hill of beans and will have a negligible impact on global affairs.

We are more or less in agreement here.

TO THE OP: Showing real world examples of what has happened in the name of Socialism and or Communism is nothing more than showing the truth. However, having said that on paper socialism works grand but in the real REAL world, GREED, CORRUPTION and Human ego have shown it will not work. Academically it's all great but again in the real world people die and by the millions.

They do. Just like they do under capitalist economies. Again, this same argument can be made about current capitalist countries and their failings.

Again, is Batista your example?

He was a crook. So? and? Your point?

This was referring to the collectivists in South America post Spanish-American war.

TO THE OP: Obviously his reply is lacking in any and all facts pertaining to the discussion instead comes off with his obvious higher opinion of himself and stance. I have provided sources and links that show the numbers which have demonstrated the cost communism has had on humankind and it's history. But he continues to bounce back and forth with between Capitalism and Imperialism confusing the distinction between the two all based on opinions and innuendo.

How I feel about myself is irrelevant. I illustrated why we can't have this conversation in America and you have helped to answer the OP's question. And yes, I confused Imperialism with Colonialism as I was meaning to refer to the economic practices of it and how the are still utilized today.

Now, I for one would like to have this discussion about capitalism and communism. See where we differ and attempt to find a compromise or perhaps to find some sort of reconciliation.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


Fair enough.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Can't speak for Slayer, but I ain't "First nations" either, I'm just a plain old NDN. As far as I know, all the "First Nations" are in Canada, and I'm not Canadian. Don't think Slayer is either. He' probably just a plain old NDN too. Mescalero, as I recall.

I don't feel comfortable using the terms NDN, inidian, etc. I couldn't think of an overarching term to refer to all the various tribal and their affiliations.

You might wanna check up on folks before you get to jumping them and telling them what they are in contravention to what they already know that they are.

As far as I am concerned blood line has little to do with tribal identity. I stand by my reasoning.

The State is all, isn't it?

Not at all. I believe all forms of state run government are inherently corrupt.

That whole post was nearly word for word what I've been hearing since I can recall hearing communist rhetoric and catch phrases, like "bourgeoise". The only thing you left out was "capitalist running dogs". Nothing new there, or "revolutionary".

Revolution comes through action not theory. Nice word play.

NO government can "give" you anything that they haven't first TAKEN away from you. Your own example shows that socialism, in this case in the form of social programs, is nothing more than robbery, brute force, and control of the masses.

We are in agreement about unemployment. I glossed over it quickly because I didn't want to make a long post longer than it had to be. The problem here is not the social program but the fact that there is a need for one.

From where I stand, looks to me like it was YOU who "appropriated another ethnic groups suffering" to attempt to advance your argument.

I can understand how it appears that way.

So... ARE you? Can you lay claim to the heritage to legitimize your quest for the perfect collective? If not, it's transparent of you to USE our heritage to promote YOUR foreign philosophy, and you use it badly.

I don't think I'm one of you... Unless you are also Siksika. So, yes I can lay claim to a communal heritage.

No difference AT ALL from the English, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese. Oddly, I give the French a pass. I don't like 'em much, but at least they DID treat the natives right, for the most part.

I too give the French a pass. From what I've been told they at least bothered.

Someone like you once asked a Shawnee how he could fight for the country that had so "ill used his people". This happened not so long ago. The warrior looked at him like a bug under glass for a minute, then said "you're forgetting just WHOSE county this is!"

Yes, I would ask that question. His enlisting doesn't defend the Nation of the Shawnee in my opinion and I don't see his Nation having control of the American processes.

Because Americans don't care about those less off. The majority white middle class of America are happy for the rest of the world to starve while they drive around with 9 family cars and live in quasi-Mansions.

It's an absolute greed that's washed into their brains for most their life. Anyone who visits America will understand immediately that the people value materialism more than the health and happiness of their fellow man. It's a greedy place for greedy people. Of course this is never accepted, their greed is hidden under the veil of 'freedom'.

The American people are oblivious to the harm Capitalism does. They have no understanding that their great lifestyle is directly harming many people. That it comes at the expense of others freedoms and health. It doesn't even enter their head. Out of sight, out of mind.

The biggest stumbling block is that they equate Socialism with Totalitarian government. And Capitalism with freedom. Which is a fallacy.

Originally posted by bozzchem

Really? Then how could it possibly work? If I refuse to allow myself to be used by the hive as it sees fit, the only option to rein me in to fulfill my relegated duties by "those in the know" is control.

What hive? What are you talking about?

You seem to have this pre-conceived notion of what a socialist society would be like but it has no basis in reality whatsoever.

I don't go to work for you or your family. I go to work for mine. If you or anyone wishes to take from me for your utopian society, don't be surprised when I respond in a less than cordial manner.

And no one is asking you to. What drives this anger? What Utopian society? Cliches.

Socialism simply puts the power into the hands of the people and more fairly distributes the wealth we all create.
This notion that socialism is the welfare state is simply garbage. The welfare state is a result of capitalism and the unfair distribution of wealth it creates. The problems that you all keep blaming on socialism, a system that doesn't exist, are the result of the present system that hasn't changed much since feudalism, capitalism.

Capitalism only becomes totalitarian when a bunch of "do gooders" who know more than the actual entrepreneurial folks adding value to the system decide to dictate terms....um, also known as CONTROL.

Value to the system? Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, it has nothing to do with entrepreneurs. There is no reason entrepreneurs cannot exist in a socialist system. In fact in a socialist system it will be easier for entrepreneurs to be successful. Again the point of socialism is to put the power in the hands of the people, not just those already owners of capital who control the economy through artificial scarcity of jobs and resources.

China is the perfect example of a totalitarian capitalist dictatorship, and I don't think it has anything to do with "do-gooders" [sic].

Since my political beliefs fall into the realm of an anarcho-capitalist, I refuse to be told what to do by those who think they know better than I what is good for me or my family.

Oh I get it now, another person confused about what capitalism and anarchism really mean, and the fact the term 'anarcho-capitalism' was a purposely created contradiction to explain away another contradiction.

Socialism would relegate us to worker bees making sure the hive stays colonized properly regardless of how hard we work.

No it wouldn't. Why don't you read something about real Anarchism and socialism...

flag.blackened.net...

In regards to the acceptance of "authority", who will accept such without staring down the barrel of a gun...assuming they are intelligent enough to realize they are being used like a cheap blanket??

I think you've watched too many movies or something?

There is no chance whatsoever to be truly free in a socialistic system. I am given my expectations and should I not meet them, it's up to my neighbor to make up for my shortfall.

Again where are you getting this from? What expectations? What quota?

No argument here but your statement defies the premise of socialism and supports my premise of anarcho-capatialism. I have no authorities. I have no officials

You fail to realise that by supporting capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production, you are excepting an authority. This is why anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron and was meant to be. This is why the true Anarchists were socialist.

"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"..Bakunin, the guy known as the father of Anarchism.

Instead of getting angry think about what that means.

It's easy to follow a leader if you are not one yourself. It's exceptionally painful to have a gun stuck to your temple and be forced to follow "leaders" who are inept, corrupt and lacking in any semblance of skill other than lording their position over others thanks to the slow witted men they can call in carrying automatic weapons.

Again more ranting, based on what?

The Chinese may accept their "authorities" but I believe I've made it clear I don't see that I have any. All I have is a criminal government that has dim witted fools with automatic weapons that will carry out whatever orders they are handed as long as they are taken care of...for the children...the greater good...and whatever the term du jour is for the use of such FORCE.

I see you're angry at the government, great I think everyone is. But capitalism is the system of those in control which includes the government, the same system that has conditioned you to believe their system is freedom.
The government is controlled by capitalists for their own benefit, not ours. The people will never have power under capitalism regardless of who the government is, or if there is none.

Governments are formed, and wars are fought, to protect capital, not the people. True capitalists would never agree to not having a government, because it is part of the state system they need to keep the masses exploited and learning the truth. The only way for anarchism to work is when the power is from the bottom, not the top as it is for capitalism.

Libertarian Socialism, even though you will refuse to except it (such is state conditioning), gives you the things you want. You just need to understand it.

reply to post by Rob37n





First of all "hate" is a terribly strong word which is so often used to refer to someone who does not like something. We should leave it to those in question to say whether or not they "hate" something/one. No other person should assume to know the mind of others.

Regarding liberals it is born of two things. First the liberals were all too often the socially conscious thinkers who could be found in universities. By nature these will often set themselves against the wishes of those who seek power in the financial or political realms. So the two should balance each other nicely. But the powerful are not content with balance. They will eliminate any and all opposing forces. Since the powerful are just that it follows that they have the means the will and the money to destroy those voices which seek to moderate them. This is most easily done by saturation reeducation of the ignorant masses of citizens. Want proof? Go to any small town and ask around about liberals and listen to what you hear. It will be almost verbatim remarks; repeats from adverts and other sources.

On socialism we are told that it is evil. Then we invest money in the market or buy into a cooperative or save in a credit union or join in church group activities or purchase any kind of insurance ....... etc. All of these are socialist in nature because they represent group participation by the many which occasionally benefit the few. So you see when we hear "socialism" from right wing sources they are really saying, "be afraid to vote democratic. Vote for us or some mysterious monster from the darkness of eastern Europe will come to America and consume us all. It's all bull# and there are so many stupid people in America who love to hear it.

The thinkers among us know better but we are so few....

There it is kids.