Thread: Communism

Hillary is a self-proclaimed "progressivist". She's a socialist in every sense of the term. When you give people things for "free" (or in this case, certain social programs paid for by the government) it gets almost impossible to get revert those things back to their old ways.

Don't believe me? Just bring up the topic of getting rid of social security and privatizing it (the way it should be). Or try to get rid of unions or even mandated pensions, which happen to be RUINING good companies like GM. They make money, but not enough to pay the pensions of the employees who were too lazy to save money themselves, so they demanded that GM give it to them.

But ask any of them if they'd be willing to give up these "free-to-them" programs and you'll get an earful.

Once you give something to someone, it's nearly impossible to take it away. But take away something, as many people accuse Bush of doing, and the people will reinstate those things as soon as possible.

Bush took things away. We'll get that back. I'm not worried about that.

Hillary will "give away" healthcare and things of that nature. Being someone who RELIES HEAVILY on quality healthcare, and who is willing to work hard enough to get what I need, I would be scared to death of a government funded program. You really want your healthcare taken care of by the same bureaucracies that created the DMV?

Nothing in this world is free. Somewhere, someone is paying for it.

Originally Posted by kasperitis

Hillary is a self-proclaimed "progressivist". She's a socialist in every sense of the term.

Hmm, I'm not sure I know what 'every sense of the term' is and something tells me you aren't quite sure either

Yes, giving things free is indeed hard to reverse - subsidies are my favorite example.

Just bring up the topic of getting rid of social security and privatizing it (the way it should be).

Got anything to back up 'should'?

Or try to get rid of unions or even mandated pensions, which happen to be RUINING good companies like GM. They make money, but not enough to pay the pensions of the employees who were too lazy to save money themselves, so they demanded that GM give it to them.

Shouldn't people have the right to unionize? If a company spends more than it earns then it goes bankrupt. If I agree with my employer that they ought to pay me amount X in salary and amount Y in pension, then as long as that employer is in business that's our contract. Whether I choose to have X+Y given as a salary is between me and my employer. If you don't like to be unionized, find a job that has no unions.

Bush took things away. We'll get that back. I'm not worried about that.

Took things? Like what?

Hillary will "give away" healthcare and things of that nature. Being someone who RELIES HEAVILY on quality healthcare, and who is willing to work hard enough to get what I need, I would be scared to death of a government funded program. You really want your healthcare taken care of by the same bureaucracies that created the DMV?

Nothing in this world is free. Somewhere, someone is paying for it.

Of course, nothing is free and whether your healthcare is administered by the government or by HMO it's still the same thing - risk management and it has different overhead. I can't see how one is significantly better than the other. They are just different - if the current system worked well, wouldn't everybody be all happy to just have it?
Not sure what's up with DMV though, for one as far as I know these are state based and not federal and you seem to have issues with the federal government. Or are you suggesting there should not be regulations whatsoever? The constitution does mandate that federal government establish roads, so presumably it gets to control what it establishes. Unless you think the constitution ought to be changed.

I have no idea what Hilary Clinton's health plan is about. Or anybody else's. I don't vote, though. But I think that if you're concerned with her health plan you ought to get familiar with it and bring up the specific issues you have problem with. Otherwise you're just repeating the propaganda on your favorite media.
From what you said I can only infer that you are afraid you will be forced to have healthcare administered by the government, which will be inefficient and ineffective. Is that her plan, though? I don't know, just asking if you know for sure that's her plan, or you think that must be her plan, because she's a socialist.

Originally Posted by gugi

That is true only if the sole motivation of why people do or do not do something is material reward. Obviously this is not the case in real life. Consider this forum as a proof.

Under communism there is no "reward" material or otherwise. to reward the individual with anything including recognition would be to the diminish the rest of the group and result in inequality. you can't have that!!!

My reward for being here is the pleasure of sophisticated conversation and the crude jokes that make my day brighter. Avery material benefit.

Originally Posted by gugi

And every person I've seen who has been against social security is only until they get to benefit from it, at which point they would gladly accept whatever benefits they can get - I guess the principles against a bad system are overweighted by the ones that if it exists may as well get some use of it.

SS is a bad example. It is designed to be a forced savings plan. Thats why it is a bad idea it robs us of the freedom to choose what we want to do with out money. In favor of allowing the government to keep it for us, something they suck at.

Old thread, sure, but people may read still read this.

I didn't see any mention anarchism in the debate.

The prime complaint against both communism and capitalism is that there is too much concentration of power, typically in both cases, in the hands of those that run the state.

It takes incredible human resources to do things like slaughter hundreds of thousands of people. In an anarchist society it would be extremely difficult to pay or force people to do it. Sure, some scientist would work on new ways of killing people, but there would be no massive government purchase of the new technology because there would be no massive government. Kropotkin and Russell and others all foresaw the negatives of communism before its implementation in Russia, China and elsewhere.

Smith's Wealth of Nations also makes capitalism, as it is practiced in the large scale, a thing supported by nationhood. The problem is that the large state governments can make drastic decisions that benefit large producers, thus creating an executive class with privilege. This is dangerous because then the producers influence the lawmakers who wield such massive control. The best example of where this goes so wrong is in the form of subsidies and price controls. These are antithetical to laissez-faire free markets. Capitalism, thus, is nowhere practiced, because then we would have accurate pricing.

If we were to have accurate pricing, pricing that took into account the future damage the product might cause (i.e. car pollution affecting children's lungs), then we would have a better form of capitalism. So we need to separate the common link between capitalism and free markets, but we also would need to separate government from sharing the interests of the producers.

Anarchism or Anarcho-Syndicalism have been fought by governments in the past due to the inherent threat it poses. Producers are also against it because it puts power in the hands of the little people, not wealth in the hands of those who enslave us. (Can you tell I'm poor?)

It's nice that this forum is global. Probably some of you know about anarchist movements in your countries.

In America, we have the holiday May Day (not government supported), that arose over the Haymarket Riot in 1886. The newspapers said an anarchist threw a bomb...

It's time for some Polish Jokes ..., i.e., jokes from Poland under Soviet domination:

What is the difference between capitalism and socialism?

Capitalism is an evil system in which a man betters himself at the expense of his neighbors. Socialism is exactly the opposite.

What is the difference between the Soviet Constitution and the US Constitution?

The Soviet Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, while the US Constitution guarantees freedom after the speech and after the assembly.

And like a corpse from the grave the unthinking rhetoric returns. Booga-booga.

Lick the frog- The world started out as anrchism. Lets not forget human nature, one man dominates another until he has subdued enough to institute a clan,tribe or gang and then others must band together to protect/then promote themselves from the first dominator. Capitalism, communism, anarchy, all livable philosophies if it werent for one thing...human nature.

I suppose it is not natural for humans to cooperate. Certainly they don't do it when there's a flooded river in the midwest.

What's human nature?

Hobbes said a long time ago that we would all kill each other if we could. But that denies education. He died like two hundred years before we learned that all humans share nearly identical DNA and that monkeys and higher primates have extremely similar DNA.

Surely, we can move past his awful definition of human nature.

In light of interpersonal conflict, almost all of it can be traced to defensiveness on the part of the rich. It may be the gang in your neighbourhood fighting to control the local drug trade, or it may the dictator in Iraq partnering up with the military might of the US two or three decades ago. Poor people attack rich people because they are rich.

Lose inheritance (and privatized wealth accumulation) and you lose a whole lot of issues. I'm not saying people shouldn't have luxuries in life. I work harder than most others would. I do it to live better, not to have a bigger bank account. My kids will surely hate me for not being rich, but they won't be lazy, spoiled brats.

I just can't get over what to do about crimes of passion...love and lust probably would ruin anarchism...unless we could all learn to set free the things we love.

Oh, now I better go cut myself.

Originally Posted by lickthefrog

Surely, we can move past his awful definition of human nature.

Thank-you for saying so. Yes we can. Many of us have already. More are coming soon. The only thing which can impede the raising of consciousness is ignorance.

X