RE: Can't call them communists now. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Zonie63 -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (10/8/2014 8:14:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
What this OP has rendered is the academic acquiescence in the term socialism as no longer being held to any true definition other than to suggest that to the extent that any economy asserted by govt. requiring a minimum service (return) to society at large, is thus automatically termed...socialistic.

Govt. requiring the economy as a whole to contribute to a national healthcare, or 4 weeks vacation or a minimum wage are thus 'socialists' measures. Which historically is not true, those requirements not representing any govt. ownership of any means of production.


This is why I hardly ever take these terms seriously when used in political rhetoric. In the mindsets of many Americans, "socialism" is commonly associated with "communism" and all the baggage which comes with that term. Similarly, terms like "fascist" or "nazi" might be used from the other end of the spectrum to blacken the opposition. Whether or not they're used accurately is another matter.

Another poisonous element in the debate is the lingering legacy of McCarthyism which projected the idea that national loyalty and patriotism should be equated with devotion to an economic system. So, calling someone a "socialist" carries the connotation of being "un-American" or possibly even "treasonous." As a result, whatever was once known as "capitalism" has since morphed into rabid "anti-communism," which can be whatever we want it to be.

quote:


So the ideology that you suggest is 'out there' becomes extremely malleable in that there is no true free market capitalism either (and for 80 years) as we (the US) and most in the west have state capitalism where govt. functions first to assume marketplace risk rather than and as a priority... over and above social risks.


I think the main priority for the US government from about 1940-1970 was national security more than ideological purity or devotion to free market capitalism. Anti-communism was the prime mover in politics, and that seemingly became more important than being ideologically pro-capitalist. Some concessions had to be made to the labor unions and the working classes, as well as greater attention paid to the plight of the poor and disadvantaged. Our geopolitical focus was global at that point, which would have been a strong incentive for the powers that be to "keep the home folks content." Our economy grew by leaps and bounds, along with similar jumps in standard of living. Life was getting better and better for large segments of the population. The Civil Rights Movement also flourished and made great strides.

At some point, the priority shifted more towards global financial security (often dubbed "national interests"). "National security," as such, doesn't really exist anymore, except in name only. Just like "capitalism" and "communism." The ideology is more symbolic than anything else.



MrRodgers -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (10/8/2014 3:12:00 PM)

Political rhetoric or academic debate both, they are malleable for the purpose of denigrating any move for economy to actually serve society at all.

The capitalist presumption is that no matter who gets fucked or burned by the vultures, that's just the way it is. So if you say for example, pay twice as much for health care that results in dying 3-4 years younger...tough titty said the kitty. YOU are to be a profit-center in life...and death. The worse thing about Medicare is it can't provide windfall profits for 3 or 4 MORE years.

If it means Americans don't take vacations nearly as much as other western nations for reasons among which are that employees can't afford it or for job security, well that's just...the way it is. Look how much worse off you are for the price you pay. Inspiring isn't it ?

Americans have worn out their boot straps having to pull themselves out of poverty so much and maxed-out their credit cards and home equity for any remaining spending power.

If it means society is not to benefit in any way from and in many cases pay more than twice the tax then the speculative paper traders the risks of such financial gambling they themselves are to assume, let them eat cake. In capitalism's predominant paper economy, it's always heads they win...tails you lose.

So mention the very idea of such national values that reflect a concern for society at all. you are a socialist at best...a communist at worst.

Be a Democratic Black Kenyan Muslim president that in fact passes nothing more or less than a multi-billion dollar windfall for health insurance carriers and medical practitioners, then you are not only ALL of the above but you are bent on destroying the country and deserving of a '2nd amendment solution.'

Wait until the repubs if they do...take the senate and then get the white house...IF they do. Unless there's still enough debt and poverty and unemployment to go around, it may be time for the bankers to send their CIA hit-men in a new direction.

The problem for the right today and their worship of power, money and profits is that Hillary is just another financial whore.




Edwynn -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (10/8/2014 10:09:23 PM)


The OP title said "communism," not "Socialism".

I made the distinction, so please don't now try to tell us that you were talking about socialism all along. The two are worlds apart and always have been. Even academia knows this. All you did was to go along with the righters in falsely equating the two, then tried to blame it on academia, instead of the properly guilty media.

N Korea is not an aberration, it is every bit 'purist' as pre-Stalinist Russia or pre-cultural revolution China were.
The whole communist system is -anti socialist- from the start, if the political scientists actually knew squat.

A command economy (required by 'twue' communism) is slavery by definition. But there again, this relies on knowledge of how things actually work, which no ideology, capitalist, communist, or otherwise can tell you.

As for the number of billionaires in Russia and China, here's some news you can use; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_US_dollar_billionaires

Note that the 152 billionaires in 'China' do not count the other 45 billionaires in Hong Kong, which in any case amount to more than the 111 at this accounting in Russia.

It is a sad fact that the Chinese will overtake the US' ~ 500 billionaires long before they overtake the US in total GDP, and much longer before than per-capita GDP. That's to their inability to regulate industry and especially finance and properly allocate capital, like the third world country that the US media and most of the politicians are trying so desperately for us to be, at the behest of whomever.

It doesn't matter what ideology China or the US claim to have, or however the politico dimwits want to play with it. What matters is that China is trying to move away from being a third world country and the US is making great strides in moving towards being one, and ideology has nothing more than strategical convenience to do with it.



There's more here than you can grasp, and it's right in front, no conspiracy or ideology needed.







MrRodgers -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (10/8/2014 10:47:23 PM)

I said that you can't call the Chinese communists now as they themselves have described their system at least through having a communist party.

The Chinese still hold that the CPC (Chinese Communist Party) as the sole ruling authority of the country. The central committee still actually ruling over the national congress despite any protestations to the contrary.

My comment on academia is that the argument against socialism is expressed as what leads to the ideal communism and [its] goal, at least so Chinese will still tell you and the world. (Leninism)

The similarities of both are govt. ownership of production however the distinction is, that a country could have not only a democratic socialism but one that also protects private property where there is no such political need or aspect to communism. The difference in the number of billionaires only reflects the depths to which each has devolved into a kleptocratic corruption.

China has a much broader labor force from which to steal wealth which is...the real value of production. (the west knew during the cold war that Russian labor wouldn't compete with 300 million Chinese farmers turned assemblers) That huge labor force is that golden brick road to its GDP surpassing the US.

What China is in fact perfecting as we write, is the ultimate state (fascist) capitalism where profits are the domain of the elites (hence the billionaires) as well as political and thus...military power.

I mention no conspiracy or ideology at all except the ruse that state capitalism is 'free-market capitalism'...the great oxymoron of the 20th and now 21st century. The US will get there but these things take time.




Zonie63 -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (10/9/2014 8:50:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Political rhetoric or academic debate both, they are malleable for the purpose of denigrating any move for economy to actually serve society at all.

The capitalist presumption is that no matter who gets fucked or burned by the vultures, that's just the way it is.


Yes, that's pretty much how it is in the dog-eat-dog world we live in. Of course, the problem with this presumption is that it typically fails to realize that there are consequences for everything. In effect, the capitalist presumptions of the 19th century brought about dissent, discord, and revolution which would later turn into this thing called "communism" which capitalists detest and fear so much. It's really the fault of this and many other capitalist presumptions that communism was created at all. It's probably what created many other reactions and ideologies which might be deemed malignant in Western eyes.

But if we embrace a dog-eat-dog philosophy and say "that's just the way it is," then it's as much as saying "only the strong should survive." That's a philosophy that carries a lot of baggage. To be sure, the West has exercised some restraint, or else we probably wouldn't be here right now. But there seems to be a growing air of recklessness which is troubling.




NorthernGent -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (10/9/2014 1:47:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Some of you are old enough to remember Phil Donahue. He was Oprah before Oprah.

He did a show (mid 80's maybe?) where he connected via satellite to his Russian counterpart (they actually have toilet paper and road signs....just like ours).

What was amazing was....they are JUST like us, but, their government is vastly different.

They own homes (just like us), own and buy cars (just like us), obey (and disobey) traffic laws (just like us), pay traffic tickets, and don't (just like us), have divorce laws (just like us): 10/20 and 30 (walk away/get half or everything/pay the woman some support...and in all cases.....just like us.....{in most cases} the man pays support).

Communists have billionaires (just like us), they have poor people (just like us) and they have a middle class (just like us).

The world is not so different than us.

Those that believe otherwise are not at all.....just like us.



Not the case at all.

Of course they go to the shop and buy a loaf of bread as Americans do. But, who doesn't eat these days?

If you really think that the United States is no different to Russia, then you're monumentally underselling your own history, culture and way of life.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125