Obama '08?

The Obama style is beginning to spill over into the general culture. I just saw a tax counselor's commercial on TV. His sales pitch: "YES WE CAN resist the IRS!"

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

The reality is that our society is not a uniform capitalistic democracy and that we benefit from elements of

Communism
Socialism
etc

It's undeniable. Honestly. The idea of redistribution of wealth is certainly unpopular, but face it, that's a part of our society too.

This is exactly what I was talking about above, signed in as Anastasia (my gf). What does your insertion of communism, specifically, into this list above even mean? Redistribution of wealth is a good social-democratic / socialist ideal, and social-democrats and socialists have succeeded in integrating it to some extent in various market economies, yes. But why you got to bring in communism here? What's it even got to do with it?

Your argument here appears to be that we now "benefit from elements of" not just socialism, social-democracy etc, but from communism, specifically as well. OK, what? What elements of communism, specifically, are now "benefiting" your economy, that wouldnt already be covered by your regular mainstream social-democratic ideals?

You say that you understand the difference between communism, socialism and social-democracy. But from the way you use the words in your argument here it seems as if you're really just using them roughly as alternate wordings for the same thing. Like, "ahh you know what I mean, that leftist stuff, it's not bad at all, it's greatly benefited us!" But communism is not just an other word for redistribution of wealth or anti-poverty programs. It's something quite specific that went a whole lot further, and became murderous whereever communists gained the power. Ask Dagmaraka, who lived under a communist regime, an actual one.

Diest TKO wrote:

OB - I DO think that it has everything with the initial depute. Labeling Obama as a Communist is just propaganda. Communist is not a bad word. However we certainly have been taught to think it is. That is the initial depute.

You're confusing me terribly. You're making two arguments here, which in my eyes seem directly contradictory with each other.

Yes, of course labeling Obama as communist is just propaganda. Stupid propaganda. But here's the point: it's stupid because communism involves a whole lot more than just the general liberal / social-democratic kind of ideas that Obama or Democrats, liberals and Greens to his left want to integrate. Communist refers to something quite specific.

If anything, calling someone like Obama a communist is a kind of propaganda that's actually disrespectful to those who have suffered under actual communism. Because comparing anything that is to the left of Lieberman with communism belittles the extremities and horrors of real communism. It's like calling anyone to the right of McCain a fascist - that's disrespectful to those who've survived real facsism.

And yet that's exactly the pattern you then reinforce yourself in your own argument, by arguing that hey, communism isn't that bad a word itself anyway, that's just what people are taught to believe. As if we should just realise that hey, "communism" doesnt necessarily need to refer to murderous regimes, it can also just be an innocuous concept referring to regular, humane leftwing ideology. Well, here's the point: it can't, and a remark like that belies your assertion that you know the difference between communism and other, regular leftist beliefs and ideologies.

I don't doubt that there are many communists with good intentions left in the remaining, dwindling communist parties of the world. But history has shown us that as soon as communists (not socialists, not social-democrats) control the government, totalitarianism follows. And this is not some sort of fluke of history. Read Lenin. The concepts of Leninism prescribe totalitarianism. And that's the very difference between communism and social-democracy etc. That's why many good leftists -- leftists who themselves sang the Internationale and waved a red flag too, yes -- have fought the totalitarian extremism that is communism throughout the 20th century, and many suffered for it.

Look: there's a rich heritage of decent, leftwing politics -- politics to the left of anything you even have in Congress. And then there is communism. There is nothing bad about claiming leftist, social-democratic, socialist etc ideals, no. And there's no reason to let some conservative propagandist try and equate anything that's somewhere from Obama leftward with communism; he's BSing. But communism itself, yes, is a category apart. Its very ideological basis (at least as far as communism has been defined since 1917) is totalitarian. Every self-respecting leftwing democrat should shun it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

The Obama style is beginning to spill over into the general culture. I just saw a tax counselor's commercial on TV. His sales pitch: "YES WE CAN resist the IRS!"

OMG

But hey, Staz and I are watching Lost now, about two or three episodes a night actually, she's torrented them. We're still in season 1, which is from what, four five years ago or something? Well, Jack the hero-doctor made this impassioned speech on the beach to his fellow plane crash survivors, and it was pure Obama. And we were still kind of giggling about that the next day, when two or three episodes on, he actually said it: "Yes, we can!"

Maybe Axelrod's been watching Lost? :wink:

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Thomas wrote:
The Obama style is beginning to spill over into the general culture. I just saw a tax counselor's commercial on TV. His sales pitch: "YES WE CAN resist the IRS!"

OMG

But hey, Staz and I are watching Lost now, about two or three episodes a night actually, she's torrented them. We're still in season 1, which is from what, four five years ago or something? Well, Jack the hero-doctor made this impassioned speech on the beach to his fellow plane crash survivors, and it was pure Obama. And we were still kind of giggling about that the next day, when two or three episodes on, he actually said it: "Yes, we can!"

Maybe Axelrod's been watching Lost? :wink:

anastasia?

0 Replies

catch up, will ya tico?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

The Obama style is beginning to spill over into the general culture. I just saw a tax counselor's commercial on TV. His sales pitch: "YES WE CAN resist the IRS!"

Obama is going to have to get specific instead of simply cheerleading, and that's a problem for 'Present' , who has difficulty making tough decisions.

But worse, more of Obama's past associations are going to receive public attention.

Quote:

Sen. Barack Obama employed and continues to employ senior staffers who belong to the Nation of Islam, and the presidential candidate has some "worrying" ties to the controversial group headed by Louis Farrakhan, a former key Obama insider told WND.

The former insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity, expressed particular concern that Obama employed at least two Nation members in his early days as a state senator, when his office was staffed by only a handful of workers.

"When you're a state senator, you have little money given to you to hire staff. It is ironic that two of Obama's employees in those days were known Nation of Islam activists when Obama employed perhaps a total of maybe three or four staffers," said the former insider.

The former insider confirmed Obama is directly aware of the Nation of Islam members on his staff........

The former insider identified early employees of Obama as Nation of Islam members, including Jennifer Mason, who still works in Obama's Chicago Senate office as director of constituency services - a key community liaison position.

Also, Cynthia K. Miller, whom the former insider identified as a Nation of Islam activist, served Obama in his early state Senate days and later as treasurer for his U.S. senatorial campaign.......

from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66167

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, though obviously Dems will do their best to ignore it or criticize the source rather than address the issue.

(Maybe that's why Hilly/Billy simply suspended the campaign instead of folding it. Maybe they are waiting for a shelf full of shoes to drop.)

Well, summer's here. Very little time for me in the near future to play on A2K due to several very big project rollouts.

My best to all A2Kers for the summer.

0 Replies

Nimh -if you need a quick communist idea, what about labor unions? Aren't they largely communist in their influence?

OB - As for the rest, I'm sorry I'f I've only further confused things.

Bottom line: Communism is not a dirty word. End.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Nimh -if you need a quick communist idea, what about labor unions? Aren't they largely communist in their influence?

No.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Communist is not a bad word. However we certainly have been taught to think it is. That is the initial depute.
As someone pointed out above; a communist isn't necessarily bad. Communism most certainly is. Believing otherwise falls somewhere between naivety and dangerousness. The fairytale of communism that is attractive to some in theory; is an utter time bomb in practice. Human nature would never allow it to happen any other way.

Has any uniform proven itself to not be a time bomb? You seem to be judging communism on a different scale than other ideas. Do you think that capitalism is perfect? I hope you don't. Don't label me as naive.

I feel for the victims of Stalin and China. I feel for them exactly as much as I feel for the victims of any dictator or any crisis. Do you feel less for the victims of capitalism? War decisions made with commercial benefit? When do they get their museum?

Communism is only flawed in it's execution. It's the SAME flaw we stuggle with in our society.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Nimh -if you need a quick communist idea, what about labor unions? Aren't they largely communist in their influence?

No.

Come on. Give me more than that. If I'm wrong, tell me how. I think that labor unions draw a lot of influence from the "bourgeois and the proletariat" (spell?).

T
K
O

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

catch up, will ya tico?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Communist is not a bad word. However we certainly have been taught to think it is. That is the initial depute.
As someone pointed out above; a communist isn't necessarily bad. Communism most certainly is. Believing otherwise falls somewhere between naivety and dangerousness. The fairytale of communism that is attractive to some in theory; is an utter time bomb in practice. Human nature would never allow it to happen any other way.

Has any uniform proven itself to not be a time bomb?

Yes

Diest TKO wrote:

You seem to be judging communism on a different scale than other ideas. Do you think that capitalism is perfect? I hope you don't. Don't label me as naive.

I'll soon be swapping naive for ignorant if you don't stop refusing reason. As stated above, our system may not necessarily even be good. But it's a damn site better than the murderous horror show you're defending.

Diest TKO wrote:

I feel for the victims of Stalin and China. I feel for them exactly as much as I feel for the victims of any dictator or any crisis. Do you feel less for the victims of capitalism? War decisions made with commercial benefit? When do they get their museum?

Stalin and China? How about Pol Pot's Cambodia? Poland? Vietnam? How about either Kim's North Korea? How could you be so naive? Please name the good example worth following.

Diest TKO wrote:

Communism is only flawed in it's execution. It's the SAME flaw we stuggle with in our society.

Communism is inevitably flawed in execution... and seemingly always results in horrific numbers of executions. Stop arguing for a spell and figure out how utterly and completely wrong you are.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Communist is not a bad word. However we certainly have been taught to think it is. That is the initial depute.
As someone pointed out above; a communist isn't necessarily bad. Communism most certainly is. Believing otherwise falls somewhere between naivety and dangerousness. The fairytale of communism that is attractive to some in theory; is an utter time bomb in practice. Human nature would never allow it to happen any other way.

Has any uniform proven itself to not be a time bomb?

Yes

Diest TKO wrote:
You seem to be judging communism on a different scale than other ideas. Do you think that capitalism is perfect? I hope you don't. Don't label me as naive.
I'll soon be swapping naive for ignorant if you don't stop refusing reason. As stated above, our system may not necessarily even be good. But it's a damn site better than the murderous horror show you're defending.

Diest TKO wrote:
I feel for the victims of Stalin and China. I feel for them exactly as much as I feel for the victims of any dictator or any crisis. Do you feel less for the victims of capitalism? War decisions made with commercial benefit? When do they get their museum?
Stalin and China? How about Pol Pot's Cambodia? Poland? Vietnam? How about either Kim's North Korea? How could you be so naive? Please name the good example worth following.

Diest TKO wrote:
Communism is only flawed in it's execution. It's the SAME flaw we struggle with in our society.
Communism is inevitably flawed in execution... and seemingly always results in horrific numbers of executions. Stop arguing for a spell and figure out how utterly and completely wrong you are.

OB - Calm down. You're making mountains out of mole hills. I'm not sure what you claim I'm defending. I don't know how much more clear I can be about saying Communism fails as a uniform system (with one type of distinction I'll make in a minute). I don't know why you seem to think I'm defending China, N Korea or whatever. Slow down. You're blowing this out of proportion.

As for examples of communism, the Amish and Hutterites aren't out killing people. The difference is in execution. Perhaps these examples only work because of there small size, but that alone is not enough to fail the idea. They aren't governments, but you don't seem to think that this can fit in a democracy. Can't they declare a township? What about the Native Americans. Certainly not Marxists (nor Stalanists or Maoists) but the ideas were all there. No concept of property or state. Contribute to the community. No hierarchy of wealth. Etc. Have you ever been to a reservation? I have several times. My one distinction is the tribal existence (which can actually be fairly modern) as a system of governance where it might be very successful.

You didn't answer my question about the victims of capitalism. It's foolish to say that capitalism can't or doesn't produce the same "murderous horror." We're just better at feeling self righteous. We are active participants in a system which contributes to plenty of death, and we do while smiling and waving at cameras.

I stand by what I said: Communism is not a dirty word. It's no more evil or bad than any other system. If it has any great flaw it is that is is so easily exploited. It will never work as a uniform system (BTW, your link was confusing) but it does not mean that it doesn't have elements which can be integrated (Or already are) into our society. Done.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

As for examples of communism, the Amish and Hutterites aren't out killing people. The difference is in execution.

No doubt.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
As for examples of communism, the Amish and Hutterites aren't out killing people. The difference is in execution.

No doubt.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Nimh -if you need a quick communist idea, what about labor unions? Aren't they largely communist in their influence? [..]

Bottom line: Communism is not a dirty word. End.

Oooh.. okay, now I'm just vexed. Sorry, but come on. Evil or Very Mad

I know I'm being very rude here, and I apologise for that, but you really, really need to read up on this first.

Labour unions are not communist, no. Hell, in communist countries they didnt even have the kind of labour unions you're thinking of, unions that freely argued on behalf of workers. Unions in communist countries were mere propaganda and control apparatuses, under full control of the governing regime, meant to exhort workers to work harder.

The kind of independent labour unions you're thinking of, the ones you have, well, in every Western country in the world, are almost always either social-democratic or socialist, or even christian-democratic or liberal of nature.

Their origin is arguably twofold: the main credit IMO goes to the socialist and social-democratic labour movements of the 19th and early 20th century, but some also sprang forth from guilds and more traditional, often Christian self-organisations. (Again, this is just a quicky crude categorisation, I'm sure any half an hour spent on Wikipedia will tell you more.)

It's fair enough to say that usually, depending on the country, unions were traditionally associated with the "reds", yes; with the socialist ideals that drove the emancipatory movements of workers in those dark days of the 19th and early 20th century, and with the various leftwing parties and movement since. But note, "reds" does not equate with communism.

There have been many socialist and social-democratic parties, movements and unions that strove for a change in society that would see redistribution of wealth and power, and more say for workers in factories. And barring a couple of exceptions like France and Italy, they were far larger than their extremist communist counterparts too. You dont need communists for any of that, that's your regular social-democratic program.

There have been more radical socialists (and socialist unions) too, that pleaded outright for either the nationalisation of key industries or for cooperative ownership of factories. But even then you're still not necessarily talking about communism.

You say that you know the difference between social-democracy and communism. And yet you come up with this stuff like -- if I'm paraphrasing this right - unions are communist, and because of such benefitial elements like unions that we've borrowed from communism, communist is not a bad word. That suggests to me that you dont know what the difference between regular leftwing social-democratic or socialist ideals and communism, specifically, is.

Unions are not a communist thing. A redistributive tax system is not a communist thing. Curbs on corporate excess are not a communist thing. Making sure workers can protest without being fired is not a communist thing. Secure and generous unemployment and disability benefits and pensions are not a communist thing. None of those things are proof that "communism is not a bad word" because they are household social-democratic ideals that you dont need any communists for and that communists have arguably harmed more than helped.

It's true that up through the 19th century, terms like communist, socialist and social-democratic were much more interchangable. But communist parties as we knew them through the 20th century and up till today have their origin very specifically in the Russian revolution, in Marxism/Leninism (as opposed to your household Marxism), and to the Bolshevik takeover of power and establishment of the Soviet Union. It was in and after 1917 that radical socialists across Europe split off from the regular, mainstream socialist/social-democratic parties and founded communist parties.

They were inspired by the Soviet revolution/coup d'etat, and that was exactly where the difference between the communist parties and socialist or social-democratic parties came to lie henceforth. Social-democrats and mainstream socialists went on to pursue change within the system of democracy. Through unions yes, and through redistributive tax systems, and through all the trappings of the welfare states, and through introducing elements of public ownership and mixed economies. Through opposing the conservative and "wild capitalist" politics of the right within the democratic system.

Communists, on the other hand, believed that the current system needed to be overthrown altogether, and a Soviet-style government needed to be introduced.

There was no communist party in the West between 1918 and the mid-fifties that did not swear allegiance to Lenin's Soviet Union. Barring a few wayward minute Trotskyite factions, they collectively cheered on Stalin too, denying the mass murder that was going on. Social-democrats didn't do that, they spoke up loud and clear about the dangers of this extremist, totalitarian system and ideology.

Even as some communist parties started to distance themselves from the Soviet Union, specifically, from the 1960s onward, it was Lenin and Marxism/Leninism that remained the lede star of communist parties worldwide. It's that which distinguished them from regular socialists or social-democrats. And again, Lenin explicitly rejected parliamentary democracy.

I think only the dwindling communists themselves will still disagree that you can find the reasons for how communist countries invariably yielded the violent oppression of dissent and opposition in the very fundamentals of Marxism/Leninism. Through concepts like "the dictatorship of the proletariat," Lenin's ideology justifies the violent oppression of dissent and opposition, and through concepts like the communist party as "avant garde of the proletariat", it justifies violently imposing a communist system even against the will of the majority of the population.

Hell, until its dying days the Soviet Union itself saw free elections exactly once, in 1918. Lenin's Bolsheviks lost them (they were won by a party called the Socialist Revolutionaries), so Lenin simply had Parliament surrounded by the army the very first time it met, and the opposition leaders arrested. That's communism for you -- as opposed to regular social-democracy, as opposed to the beliefs of various other socialists.

You keep saying communism is not a bad word. But your certainty in your assertion ("bottom line"!) is contrasted by the confusion in what you think communism actually is. What is it that is good about communism, then? Specifically about communism, as opposed to just socialism, social-democracy and everything that comes with those politics, from free unions to the welfare state etc?

Moreover, what is so good about communism, specifically, that would keep it from being a bad word even after communist systems killed 60+ million people worldwide, from Lenin and Stalin through Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, etc?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

As for examples of communism, the Amish and Hutterites aren't out killing people. The difference is in execution.

Now the Amish are communists? Oh jesus christ.

Diest - no, the Amish are not communists. Communism Not Equal

some sort of amorphous synonym for any kind of social values or system that is egalitarian and where stuff is shared.

Communism stands for something quite specific, and something quite apart from a range of other egalitarian, communitarian models and beliefs.

Diest TKO wrote:

What about the Native Americans. Certainly not Marxists (nor Stalanists or Maoists) but the ideas were all there. No concept of property or state. Contribute to the community. No hierarchy of wealth. Etc.

And what would be specifically communist about that? Why not just call it socialist? Instead of referring to a system that, at least as it's been understood and implemented for the past century, prescribed a lengthy stage of totalitarian state oppression? You dont find that in Native American society, after all.

Diest TKO wrote:

I stand by what I said: Communism is not a dirty word. It's no more evil or bad than any other system. [..] It will never work as a uniform system [..] but it does not mean that it doesn't have elements which can be integrated (Or already are) into our society. Done.

"Done". Done by pure assertion. No evidence, not even any sign that you're actually talking about communism, rather than about egalitarianism in general. No sense of how, for Pete's sake, one would integrate elements of communism as we know it into a functioning democracy. Just, "I stand by what I said, I assert this is true, Done." Gack.

Yeah, if I believed that unions, for example, were a communist thing, I'd probably also believe that elements of communism can be integrated, and already have been, in our society. But unions arent a communist thing.

You know what is the most frustrating part of this conversation? Your heart obviously beats left, and good on you -- but your reasoning here is straight from the conservative playbook. Everything that is not capitalist is defined as a form of communism. Every attempt to counter wild capitalism and build a society that is more egalitarian, more redistributive, more communitarian, is considered a derivation of communism. You use the very same manichean terminology as them, the only difference is that you just turn it around. You declare that if their form of wild capitalism is bad, then communism must not be so bad.

But the Reaganites and McCarthyites were wrong. Not every alternative to capitalism is "communist". Not every system that looks different from our materialist market system where the richest 1% holds half of the country's wealth is "communism". That's just what the McCarthyites wanted you to believe, in order to heap a rich heritage, even in America, of socialists and social-democrats and progressives all on one pile with the communist followers of Moscow.

But if you could travel back in time and ask Norman Thomas, the long-time leader of the Socialist Party in America, about his beliefs and tell him that they were "communist", he would give you an earful, you can be sure of that.

0 Replies

Nimh writes

Quote:

You know what is the most frustrating part of this conversation? Your heart obviously beats left, and good on you -- but your reasoning here is straight from the conservative playbook. Everything that is not capitalist is defined as a form of communism. Every attempt to counter wild capitalism and build a society that is more egalitarian, more redistributive, more communitarian, is considered a derivation of communism. You use the very same manichean terminology as them, the only difference is that you just turn it around. You declare that if their form of wild capitalism is bad, then communism must not be so bad.

But the Reaganites and McCarthyites were wrong. Not every alternative to capitalism is "communist". Not every system that looks different from our materialist market system where the richest 1% holds half of the country's wealth is "communism". That's just what the McCarthyites wanted you to believe, in order to heap a rich heritage, even in America, of socialists and social-democrats and progressives all on one pile with the communist followers of Moscow.

And, while TKO is obviously waaaaaaaay out in left field and/or off base in his definitions and analogies of communism, here you could be seen as the pot calling the kettle black. I am certainly more conservative than liberal and do not see as communism everything that is not capitalism nor do I believe any other conservatives on the thread see it that way. For that matter, whatever their shortcomings and sins might have been, neither did Reagan or McCarthy. There are of course many differences between what conservatives see as the best way to build a nation, economy, value system, and common goals but conservatives are no more intractable, dogmatic, extremist, excessive, unreasonable, or insulting in their point of view than the liberals/Leftists are in theirs.

Just reread your comments here and I think you will see what I mean. (Acknowledging that I at times have also failed to qualify my opinions that therefore looked more all encompassing than I intended.)

0 Replies

I believe we're arguing about the word communism, because there have been so many interpretations of this one word. Communism is an economic system; doesn't necessarily mean the same as communist. It's a socialized system of government that has been practiced by most democratic systems of government. It isn't a) total control of the means of production, or b) communes practiced in Russia or China.

Social democrat comes pretty close to the correct definition; it's a form of government that provides its citizens with the necessary services in the interest of their own country. It includes universal health care, public schools, public libraries, public parks, and all forms of tax funded services to the masses - no matter what their income level.

It's about the economic system that combines capitalism and socialism.

0 Replies

CI, you have that backwards. Please read what Nimh has written here. Or read any authoritive source on the subject for that matter. It seems clear here the entire problem is definitional in nature, and I can't imagine how it could be made any clearer than what Nimh has done. You've mixed up socialism and communism and Deist for some reason wants to believe it's cool to say communism isn't bad. The simple, ugly, truth is; it is.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know