12
   

Why is Communism So Opposed?

 
 
ebrown p
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 08:24 am
This is a pet peeve of mine. Communism is not the same thing as socialism. Communism has been rejected in the US and has always been a fringe.

Socialism, on the other hand, has played a constructive role in many parts of American history-- although the right has demonized the word, socialism as a concept is a part of many of our cultural and political institutions.

The right to vote for women was backed, and won, by socialists. The labor movement-- including the end of child labor was driven by socialists.

In modern America we have Medicare and social security. Our public education system drove our economy through the past century and was a unquestionable success.

In my opinion pure capitalism would be a disaster. Pure socialism would be a disaster too. The system we have now with a somewhat regulated free market-- where important services that are better run by public institutions (like the army, Medicare and the post office) are public. seems to work pretty well (although we will always be bickering around the edges).

If you like the fact women can vote, that factories can't hire 10 year olds to do dangerous jobs, or that white people can marry black people, thank a socialist.

None of this has anything to do with Communism.

Night Ripper
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 08:41 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
Communism is not the same thing as socialism.


No, but they are closely related. They both advocate government control of means of production and distribution of goods. The difference between socialism and communism is that communism has an single authoritarian government backing it. The same core flaws, violently forcing the redistribution of wealth, are still shared between them.

ebrown p wrote:
If you like the fact women can vote, that factories can't hire 10 year olds to do dangerous jobs, or that white people can marry black people, thank a socialist.


The fact that socialists did those things is about as relevant as saying that they were also Boy Scouts, neither group deserves credit. We can have equal rights without stealing from each other and giving to the poor. No Boy Scouts or socialists were required.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 09:32 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
In modern America we have Medicare and social security. Our public education system drove our economy through the past century and was a unquestionable success.


I liked how you put all three, medicare, social security and public education all into one group and then finish off by saying "unquestionable success."

I find it incredibly humorous. Not only are medicare and social security huge failures, but both will run red on funding. Social security itself is nothing more than a ponzi scheme and medicare is quickly becoming one. But even if we ignore those two and just focus on public education, it is remarkable that you would say success when clearly it is far from it. Most people if they could afford it would send their child to private schools, but since they can't they have no option but to send their child to public schools and that includes secular atheist families since most private schools are actually religiously focused. Not only is the system a huge failure but it is only getting worse every year and when ever there is a proposition to cut government wasteful spending, education is the first on the list of cuts. So in conclusion your baseless comment about being a successful social program is far from accurate.
A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 09:49 am
@Krumple,
But things like health care and education should not be used to make money. They are necessities and are not run properly because of this idea that they need to be making money instead of staying within set monetary parameters.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 10:13 am
@A Lyn Fei,
A Lyn Fei wrote:

But things like health care and education should not be used to make money. They are necessities and are not run properly because of this idea that they need to be making money instead of staying within set monetary parameters.


they are necessities? this is the fallacy. if you remove the monetary goals then you reduce the over all quality of the service. Who wants to become a doctor if you have to spend years studying and money on your education to turn around and have to spend years of work just to make your money back and still not make as much because the government has capped your salary.

The problem with the health care system is not that there are greedy corporations trying to bleed the public dry of their finances. It is 100% caused by the government interference. The government created the problem and also wants to say it has a solution which is more government. That is like a traveling doctor who carries around a bottle of disease infected water and drops some of it in the town well when he visits each town. Then when all the citizens get sick, he sells them the cure to the disease and gets branded the hero. He isn't a hero because he is the one causes the illness to start with.

A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 10:44 am
@Krumple,
If education wasn't used to make money, then people wouldn't spend a ton of money on their M.D. to turn around and make less than they deserve. Doctors are extremely coveted and therefore would make higher dollars then people of other professions, anyhow.

If there were no government restrictions on the health care system, all we would have is corporations bleeding the public dry. And the traveling doctor analogy fits pharmaceutical companies much better than government. They tell us we need one drug and then a series of other drugs due to the symptoms of the first. I am not for big government or for no private health care options, and I am not about to say people without jobs should get free health care. What I am saying is that running health care like a business breeds corruption in a matter that is literally life and death.

And yes- these things are necessities. In my experience, it is necessary to have public safety, public hospitals, and public education. Though I was fortunate to attend a secular private high school, I am currently attending a public college for much less money than many of my peers.

Actually, it has also been my experience that money has nothing to do with quality. My expensive private school education was extremely good, yes. However, despite paying a premium for private education, the teachers did not receive a premium for teaching in private education. In fact, they made much less than their public school counterparts. It was the ideals of the system that created a good learning environment and good teaching methods. Monetary gains only promotes short cuts, not excellence.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:23 am
@Mercer,
Mercer wrote:
Consensual transaction? Wittingly? Suppose one party finds out later that they got a raw deal.

No---because the legal system does not protect the buyers of drugs against fraud. It does protect the buyers from legal merchandise against fraud. So, once again, you're trying to illustrate the workings of capitalism with a departure from the normal workings of capitalism.

Mercer wrote:
Willingly? Do both parties in this consensual transaction begin on equal footing?

Typically, yes. And even in cases where it wasn't, their footing is certainly more nearly equal than the alternative in this thread. If the encounter happens in North Korea, between a communist party official and an ordinary citizen, the footing is most certainly less equal.

Mercer wrote:
Suppose one party has the upper hand; this would be a "crucial difference" between the two parties.

That's true---but the difference wouldn't be nearly big enough to bring you anywhere near the North Korea scenario.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:29 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
Not only are medicare and social security huge failures,

Compared to which alternatives? Are you saying that America was better off with the private annuities and the private old-age health insurance it had before? If so, I'd like to see evidence for that.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:43 am
@A Lyn Fei,
A Lyn Fei wrote:
If there were no government restrictions on the health care system, all we would have is corporations bleeding the public dry.


You are only looking at it from the current mind set. I am talking about standard free market system which would include having absolutely no governmental interference. But the problem is, everyone is sold on the idea that you HAVE to have government involved in health care or else it becomes dangerous. It is a lie that has been sold for a long time and everyone is buying it. The free market will always correct itself, and the only time there is ever a problem within the free market is when government tries to interfere.

It also has to do with how the current law system works. The US has gone down a horrible path. We no longer uphold any contracts at all, so it's always a matter of who ever wants to put together a lawsuit even after being warned for dangers or the possibility of failure can and usually win. This was and is a horrible system. It gives no incentive to anyone to actually be responsible for themselves because there is always someone else to blame if something goes wrong.

The cost of health care is so high because the government has forced all competitors out of the market. You have to be certified, and all the equipment needs to be certified and all the people working on the maintained of the equipment need to be certified and all the people who maintain those people need to be certified. Yet all these things that are required do absolutely nothing other than create high levels of over head and operating costs which inevitably get passed down to the consumer.

Making health care in America government run will not bring costs down at all, in fact typically what happens is that it will only increase costs. Companies who deal in medical equipment knowing that the government is paying will ultimately try to cash in on the governments lack of ability to monitor it's spending. You'll get crazy things like ten thousand dollar boxes of tissue paper which would normally only go for a few dollars. It happens all the time and there is no way for government to control these things. They could try to add another level of checks in place but they become corruptible as all the other levels within the system and that will only add to the costs again.

The only way to solve the problem is to cut government out completely.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:54 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
This is a pet peeve of mine. Communism is not the same thing as socialism.
Communism has been rejected in the US and has always been a fringe.
ALL communism is socialism; all socialism is not communism.
There are other socialists e.g. the National Socialists and the Fabians.





David
0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:55 am
@Thomas,
Compared to what is easy to answer: would you invest in Medicare or Medicaid if they were private companies? Read today's news on their sister organizations:
Quote:
The federal agency in charge of FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC declared
that the mortgage pair would no longer trade on the New York Stock
Exchange. Fannie and Freddie have received $145 billion in government
bail-outs; Fannie's share price, which was worth around $70 in 2007,
has recently been trading on the NYSE for less than $1
.


The "right to cheap housing finance" was guaranteed by the same government now "guaranteeing" "affordable health-care". What are you waiting for, the US to go bankrupt or for the suspension of the rules of arithmetic, whichever comes first? Support fiscal sanity and the Tea Party candidates. Let's get our country back!
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:58 am
@Krumple,
Mr. Krumple:
please note my agreement
with your sound premises and clear reasoning processes.





David
xris
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 12:01 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Oink oink ...thats creeping not debating.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 12:01 pm
@electronicmail,
electronicmail wrote:
Compared to what is easy to answer: would you invest in Medicare or Medicaid if they were private companies? Read today's news on their sister organizations:
Quote:
The federal agency in charge of FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC declared
that the mortgage pair would no longer trade on the New York Stock
Exchange. Fannie and Freddie have received $145 billion in government
bail-outs; Fannie's share price, which was worth around $70 in 2007,
has recently been trading on the NYSE for less than $1
.


The "right to cheap housing finance" was guaranteed by the same government now "guaranteeing" "affordable health-care". What are you waiting for, the US to go bankrupt or for the suspension of the rules of arithmetic, whichever comes first?


Support fiscal sanity and the Tea Party candidates. Let's get our country back!
I pledge to vote for them !





David
0 Replies
 
Pemerson
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 12:16 pm
In order to convert the populace of a country to communism everybody who disagrees with the new assuming regime must be imprisoned or murdered. This is a "bully" concept and always will be.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 12:18 pm
@Pemerson,
Pemerson wrote:
In order to convert the populace of a country to communism everybody who disagrees with the new assuming regime must be imprisoned or murdered. This is a "bully" concept and always will be.
100% predatory.
0 Replies
 
A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 12:38 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:


You are only looking at it from the current mind set. I am talking about standard free market system which would include having absolutely no governmental interference. But the problem is, everyone is sold on the idea that you HAVE to have government involved in health care or else it becomes dangerous. It is a lie that has been sold for a long time and everyone is buying it. The free market will always correct itself, and the only time there is ever a problem within the free market is when government tries to interfere.
[quote/]

I think the current mindset is that government should not be part of health care, unless you are talking about those within families who have several jobs and still can't get a physical. Because those people need better health options.

[quote/]
It also has to do with how the current law system works. The US has gone down a horrible path. We no longer uphold any contracts at all, so it's always a matter of who ever wants to put together a lawsuit even after being warned for dangers or the possibility of failure can and usually win. This was and is a horrible system. It gives no incentive to anyone to actually be responsible for themselves because there is always someone else to blame if something goes wrong.
[quote/]

I feel responsible for myself because if I do something wrong, the law is there to punish me. It may not always be fair, and it may not always work well, but to claim that government doesn't work is ludicrous, because you can walk down safe streets and voice your opinion without being thrown in jail. You can change government policy if you work at it, and yes, the change will be slow but that's the point. Our Founding Fathers didn't want change to be swift in policy because they wanted all voices to be heard and the conclusions to be sound.

[quote/]
The cost of health care is so high because the government has forced all competitors out of the market. You have to be certified, and all the equipment needs to be certified and all the people working on the maintained of the equipment need to be certified and all the people who maintain those people need to be certified. Yet all these things that are required do absolutely nothing other than create high levels of over head and operating costs which inevitably get passed down to the consumer.
[quote/]

There are competitors in health care. I have private health care. They compete, and they cost big bucks because they can. There's no one stopping them. Actually, I really do think that government policy in Medicaid needs to be changed, but via the government not via... well, I don't know who would change it other than the government unless you are advocating for complete revolution.

[quote/]
Making health care in America government run will not bring costs down at all, in fact typically what happens is that it will only increase costs. Companies who deal in medical equipment knowing that the government is paying will ultimately try to cash in on the governments lack of ability to monitor it's spending. You'll get crazy things like ten thousand dollar boxes of tissue paper which would normally only go for a few dollars. It happens all the time and there is no way for government to control these things. They could try to add another level of checks in place but they become corruptible as all the other levels within the system and that will only add to the costs again.

The only way to solve the problem is to cut government out completely.


Just because government isn't doing things the exact way it should, doesn't mean it should be eliminated. Again, the system was made to be changed. Furthermore, the current system is suffering because of greed, not government. I feel the same way about financial aid- if it did not exist than colleges couldn't charge so much for an education. But, these colleges are the ones who are greedy. The government is just trying to help this problem. If you can think of a better way than financial aid, please please tell me for I am all ears.
A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 12:45 pm
Sorry about the quoting issues in the last post.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 12:59 pm
@A Lyn Fei,
A Lyn Fei wrote:
Just because government isn't doing things the exact way it should, doesn't mean it should be eliminated. Again, the system was made to be changed. Furthermore, the current system is suffering because of greed, not government.


I can probably safely assume you have never taken any economic courses. One key thing i think you are neglecting in your reasoning is that the root of the problem with "greediness" is that the government cuts out competitors. What happens is a company will lobby congress to impose some sort of restrictions on a type of business. The reason this company wants to do it is so that new competitors entering the market will have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get established. Most would just give up before starting so it actually allows the company to thrive without worry for competition. However; if the government did not get involved nor impose these types of regulations then competitors would enter the market and greediness could not happen because you have an alternative. Companies can't gouge consumers if they have to compete for business. But time and time again the government is the cause for monopolies to arise which forces out competitive markets, ending with one company at the top which then gouges consumers with a low quality product. When there is no alternative to buy, you are forced to go with one product. This is what happens in the medical industry and why it becomes increasingly more expensive. Lack of competitors because the government has closed the doors on new companies being able to enter into the market.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I feel the same way about financial aid- if it did not exist than colleges couldn't charge so much for an education. But, these colleges are the ones who are greedy. The government is just trying to help this problem. If you can think of a better way than financial aid, please please tell me for I am all ears.


Once again it has to do with competitive market. For example during the Bush administration, bush tried to push his no child left behind policy which would force teachers to obtain masters degrees. This does not solve the education problem at all, in fact it makes it even worse. Who is going to go to college to get a master's degree to turn around and make 20k a year? If you were going to spend your time getting a masters, you could easily make more than that doing something else. So what happens is, you get fewer teacher turn outs because of the new restrictions and the teachers that do end up there teaching are probably there because they couldn't do anything else with their degree. So you get an even lower quality teacher out of it. This is just one example to try to point out how the system breaks down when government gets involved.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 01:03 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Oink oink ...thats creeping not debating.
Counter-oink; how do u define "creeping" ?





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 11:20:31