Communism is not just another ideology

[Paul Fannin]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently displayed an eery photograph to reporters. It was an image taken from space of the Korean Peninsula.

Showing in the lower half of it were lights covering the photographed landscape. The top half was dark, no lights showing.

Obviously, the bustle of human activity lit up the night sky in free South Korea. The pall of darkness showed enslaved North Korea as lifeless, moribund.

You needn't look to History (but it doesn't hurt), but those images said it all. To say that Communism is merely an alternate political theory that hasn't been correctly implemented, is to deny that which is evident. To say otherwise is to look at the noon-day sun and then say there is no sun.

Communism has been correctly implemented. As such, it has been responsible for more hopelessness, degradation, starvation, and slaughter than any political form ever known to Man. Tyranny is as tyranny does.

In it's most docile selling point, it promises mutually assured commonality: no one gets ahead (except the State), no one falls behind. Therein is the lie. In reality, it delivers commonality of misery.

Communism cannot work because it subjugates Man's inherent desire: freedom. To be implemented, the right to speak, to read, to assemble, to worship, to maintain privacy, must be crushed. But freedom is much more than those rights just enumerated. Without the freedom to pursue one's own livelihood wherever it may take him, renders meaningless all other freedoms.

The Cold Warriors of the 20th Century: Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Goldwater, Humphrey, Rusk, Marshall, MacArthur, Kissinger, Schulz, and more importantly, people like our parents, were right in committing time, talent, and resources to it's defeat. To merely pontificate that it was failed idea that was never properly instrumented is balderdash.

But Communism is just another cousin of ancient tyrannical regimes and current barbarous ones. They must be defeated, and defeat must be total. For this reason, the war on terror must be fought, must be fought viciously, and annihilation of the threat is the only alternative. As the lone economic and military superpower, we must accept the responsibility. We must realize who we are and what we stand for. We are not simply another nation among the family of nations. As Stan Lee said, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Then let us carry on! Let us not fall to the war waged by the enemies of freedom that challenges our will and our resolve.

Quibble if we must, but let us hang together. If we do not hang together, we will most certainly hang seperately.

I am Paul Fannin

[Jay West Coast]

Ahh. North Korea. Marxist ideals to the T.

[1300 Class]

Putting aside the foaming Macarthyism for just a moment, communism can't/hasn't been made to work, whether its flawed or whether humans who impliment it are flawed. However North Korea is a hermit kingdom ruled by a nut surrounded by a personality cult that makes Stalins look like a club.

Perhaps if you injected some pragmatism into your argument and came to the sense that reality is somewhat different to what you claim in regards to the United States, it might sound more realistic.

[Turin]

Communism, as an ideal, may be plausible to some and if a noble goal. However, given humans innate sense of greed and entitlement, Communism can never be a practical solution. At some point, someone(s) tries to grab more than the fair share as doled out by the collective. SOmeone gets too much power and resdistributes to the collective everything it does not want.

[MissToodles]

But politics don't live inside a bubble. perhaps communism could have worked if the rest of the world had the same mode of government. there is some modicum of truth in your postings, but do you really think capitalism is a success? there are whole cities that are turning into slums, our world is turning to crap because of pollution/global warming. Is that the fault of communism or industry at large?

and wasn't it bolkeshivism/stalinism that failed?

[sunandshadow]

If one wanted to be ecologically friendly, it might make sense to conserve electricity by doing business in the day and using a minimal amount of lights at night. Not saying this necessarily applies to North Korea, just that it would produce the same result.

[The Kid]

You needn't look to History (but it doesn't hurt), but those images said it all. To say that Communism is merely an alternate political theory that hasn't been correctly implemented, is to deny that which is evident. To say otherwise is to look at the noon-day sun and then say there is no sun.


Communism is merely an alternate political theory that hasn't been correctly implemented. What we have in North Korea, as we did with Russia, China, and so on, is Socialism, the middle step in a true communist society.

"In Marxist theory, socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism, in which "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" and the stateless, classless society of communism has not yet been achieved."

Marx's dream was that the workers would rise up, that everyone would be equal and people like Carnagie, Rockafeller, and Morgan, the richest men in the world, would be like everyone else. He knew it would take force, that people like them wouldn't give up power without a fight and a new type of government would need to take the power from them, so the middle point, socialism, is implemented.

Once the society was established under socialism that leader (Josef Stalin/Mao Zedong/Kim Jong Il) was supposed to step down, and make sure everyone was equal. There-in lies the problem.

No country has ever gotten past step two. Power is too great of a drawing force. Essentially Marx was asking someone to be the complete and unquestioned ruler one day, and just like everyone else the next.
It was supposed to be global, everyone on earth, united and equal, truely a wonderful idea, but impractical.

Marx's true communism has never been implemented, and probably never will. Any government claiming to be a communist government is probably a socialist government. I.E: Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea.

If you wake up every morning and have to fear the powerful leader... you're not under communism.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

If you wake up every morning and have to fear the powerful leader... you're not under communism.
Of course not.

You're in the USA. :(

[The Kid]

Of course not.

You're in the USA. :(

That made me think of a Mad TV sketch... or maybe it was SNL... anyway it was right after Bush's second election and it was his inaugural speech. It went something like this:

Bush: Thank you, thank you, I'm so glad I'm going to be your president for the next 10 years.
Reporter: You mean four years?
Bush: Heh, that's what you think.

[Paul Fannin]

But politics don't live inside a bubble. perhaps communism could have worked if the rest of the world had the same mode of government. there is some modicum of truth in your postings, but do you really think capitalism is a success? there are whole cities that are turning into slums, our world is turning to crap because of pollution/global warming. Is that the fault of communism or industry at large?

and wasn't it bolkeshivism/stalinism that failed?

Hi Miss Toodles :)

By any accounting, free market capitalism coupled with Constitutional guarantees, has been a smashing success. The American People have enjoyed more social freedom and development than any other nation the world has known; but this is not all. Our people live longer, are healthier, more mobile, have greater access to conveniences, have more disposable income, and eat more and better than any other people. It is not even comparable. This is not by accident. There are other nations that have as much, if not more natural resources than we do.

The greatest plundering and pollution the world has ever known exists/existed in the former Soviet Union, China, and the old Eastern Bloc. Might this be because of the lack of private ownership of land and resources? As for the global warming angle, I emphatically, but respectfully reject it. America is not destoying the Earth.

Paul

[Thrifty McGriff]

That made me think of a Mad TV sketch... or maybe it was SNL... anyway it was right after Bush's second election and it was his inaugural speech. It went something like this:

Bush: Thank you, thank you, I'm so glad I'm going to be your president for the next 10 years.
Reporter: You mean four years?
Bush: Heh, that's what you think.

*shudder* I fear such a prospect.

And well said on communism The Kid.

Edit: Rejecting global warming... I can only sigh. It doesn't state that the United States alone is destroying the Earth either. The world does not revolve around the United States.

[dan]

In theory it would work, but human behavior dictates greed laziness,and arrogance. That destroys the great theory,to conclude its demise. Also have you ever seen an American Indian resoirvation at night..Very dark also...

[ScreamingChicken]

Dicatatorship? Unquestioned leader? Sometimes failure is a good thing.

[JudgeDredd425]

The Cold Warriors of the 20th Century: Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Goldwater, Humphrey, Rusk, Marshall, MacArthur, Kissinger, Schulz, and more importantly, people like our parents, were right in committing time, talent, and resources to it's defeat. To merely pontificate that it was failed idea that was never properly instrumented is balderdash.


Were you listing people on both sides of the fight here? Because clearly some of the ones you mentioned were part of the problem and not part of the solution. Carter stands out like a turd in the punch bowl. He has never met a dictator, especially a communist one, that he didn't like. He helped to cripple the nation during his Presidency and attempted to work with the Soviet Union to make sure that Reagan did not win in 1980. FDR also had a love of communism and his constant support of the Soviet Union directly along with his selections and appointments of communists and communist sympathizers within his administration hurt us and helped the Soviets.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

If you don't like it, JD, go back to Western Europe. :)

[JudgeDredd425]

If you don't like it, JD, go back to Western Europe. :)

And if you like it so, why don't you just shuffle off to Cuba, North Korea, or China if any will have you since they are such paradises to live in.

[EtobicokeFA]

You make it sound like with the right ideology in place, it does matter who is in power. That you can have a monkey running it. (Insert Bush joke here.)

Yes part of the credit for the success or failure of a political ideology goes to the inherit strong points and flaws of the ideology itself. However, some credit has to go with the people in power that interpret it.

Would Democrary/Capitalism be such a success if the states didn't have great presidents to run with it?

[JudgeDredd425]

Would Democrary/Capitalism be such a success if the states didn't have great presidents to run with it?


Yes! Freedom is what made this country great. Presidents can seldom improve on that, but they can get in the way and most have in some fashion, at least those of the modern era. Despite their screw ups, things are good, but I would like to see better.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

And if you like it so, why don't you just shuffle off to Cuba, North Korea, or China if any will have you since they are such paradises to live in.

Because I am trying to change things/am happy how they are. And who said I wanted to live under Communism? And YOU'RE a native English speaker? Now I'm scared.

[Seth Warren]

You know, I always thought the saying "America: love it or leave it" was one of the stupidest things that could come out of one's mouth. If conservatism were true to its definition, then the republican party would preserve the status quo, rather than trying to put things back the way they were before the changes were made. As it stands, Democrats have become conservatives and republicans are either reactionaries or regressionists, depending on which term you prefer.

Time and time again I find the same people spouting off about freedom also blowing their tops over what is and isn't American and therefore potentially treasonous. The thing is that the United States was made to be flexible (in theory). Benjamin Franklin even wanted to go so far as to have the government thrown away and rebuilt every century so as to prevent despots from taking power (he was a cynical man, that Ben Franklin). The constitution can be changed - for better or worse, depending on how you look at it. The nation was built on the concept that the people had a say in their government - that the populace could mould their leadership in any way they choose to (assuming, of course, they could avoid the pitfalls of being manipulated by said "leadership").

Since a democracy is fluid, it might be interesting to note that democracy and communism need not be mutually exclusive. Were the majority of Americans to wake up tomorrow morning with a burning desire to wear hemp, smoke a lot of weed, grow their own food and craft their own jewelry, I doubt we'd see many republicans or Democrats running for office. Sadly, the stereotypical vision of Communism the world over - that is, "equality" enforced by the iron fist of the state - is what happens most of the times. As mentioned above, those aren't true communist states as defined by Marx. It was also mentioned that human nature, with it's hunger for power also prevents true communism.

However, if enough - or all - people suddenly find that their adrenal glands have checked out, who is to say what would happen to the way we are governed? It would be like the opening to Ayn Rand's "Anthem" - which is kind of unsettling (and that book demonstrates that full compliance would be necessary, else the system fails).

I'll keep saying it: a balance must be struck. Too much repression and society stagnates; too much freedom and we start killing each other in the streets because we're allowed to. Ideologies in of themselves are not dangerous, but it is the way in which they are implemented that tends to be the killer.

[Ryan]

In theory it would work, but human behavior dictates greed laziness,and arrogance. That destroys the great theory,to conclude its demise. Also have you ever seen an American Indian resoirvation at night..Very dark also...

Human nature usually demands rewards that are somewhat comparable to productive output, which is another reason why "communism" would have to be enforced at gunpoint.

If I knew that my standard of living really wouldn't improve no matter how hard I worked, what would be my incentive for working hard? If being a doctor didn't provide a lifestyle more lavish than that of a french fry cook, why go to all the trouble to be a doctor?

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Human nature usually demands rewards that are somewhat comparable to productive output, which is another reason why "communism" would have to be enforced at gunpoint.

If I knew that my standard of living really wouldn't improve no matter how hard I worked, what would be my incentive for working hard? If being a doctor didn't provide a lifestyle more lavish than that of a french fry cook, why go to all the trouble to be a doctor?

I understand WHY someone should go be a doctor in spite of the money. It's just, in all of reality, self-improvement matters just as much as helping others. Ideally, everyone would care so much about everyone else that the most important aspect of being someone like a doctor would be helping people. I'm not saying it works that way.

[MissToodles]

Paul, I suggest you read the book "planet of the slums"(and don't attack it as liberal pabulum, the author himself attacks neoliberalism) and of course the term freedom is subjective. I don't think freedom to destroy at will is true freedom. It's disrespectful to the soil upon which we stand.

[EtobicokeFA]

Yes! Freedom is what made this country great. Presidents can seldom improve on that, but they can get in the way and most have in some fashion, at least those of the modern era. Despite their screw ups, things are good, but I would like to see better.

Politicans improved the country by give women the right to vote.
Lincoln, improved the country by freeing the slaves.
Politicans improved the country by give the blacks equal rights.
Politicans improves the country by making sure that the voting process is fair.

A president must be prepared to defend those freedoms. That is why it in the oath he takes. Because, a president sometimes is presented with a issue that challenges that freedom.

[Ryan]

And if you like it so, why don't you just shuffle off to Cuba, North Korea, or China if any will have you since they are such paradises to live in.

She might be moving to California. That's almost like a communist country.

[Ryan]

I understand WHY someone should go be a doctor in spite of the money. It's just, in all of reality, self-improvement matters just as much as helping others. Ideally, everyone would care so much about everyone else that the most important aspect of being someone like a doctor would be helping people. I'm not saying it works that way.

I can understand why some people might still choose to become doctors in such a social system. But I believe that removing the high salary from the field would quickly result in a shortage of doctors.

[Miss Vickie]

I can understand why some people might still choose to become doctors in such a social system. But I believe that removing the high salary from the field would quickly result in a shortage of doctors.

There already IS a shortage of doctors, Ryan, particularly doctors who will accept Medicare and Medicaid. And specialists? Often you have to wait weeks -- if they're accepting patients at all. :(

[TheSadeianLinguist]

She might be moving to California. That's almost like a communist country.

You can say "is." Unless I visit and you own a bunch of snuff films or something weird.

[Ryan]

You can say "is." Unless I visit and you own a bunch of snuff films or something weird.

No snuff films here. Will all my NASCAR stuff freak you out?

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Not unless you sleep in one of those kiddie Nascar beds.

[Ryan]

Not unless you sleep in one of those kiddie Nascar beds.

Damn...I guess I need to get a new bed. :doh:

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Kitty can have that bed...

[Ryan]

Kitty can have that bed...

But will she say, "Vrooom! Vrooooooooom!" and make other car noises...like I do?

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Save your vrooming for when you visit TN and you get to share a bed with Dad. He's got an awesome sense of humor that way...

[Tina]

She might be moving to California. That's almost like a communist country.

*pffffffffft!* Where I live, on the central coast a few hours north of you, it's pretty Conservative.

Might be moving, eh? Wow. Congrats, you two. :D

Wait, "share a bed with dad"? *scratches head*

Ah yes, Mormon. Carry on.

[Ryan]

Save your vrooming for when you visit TN and you get to share a bed with Dad. He's got an awesome sense of humor that way...

That only works if he has a bed shaped like a race car.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Tina, actually, my parents ARE Mormon!

And no, his bed is not shaped like a race car. But his funky bedside urinal thing looks like a race car in a way.

[Ryan]

Tina, actually, my parents ARE Mormon!

Does your dad wear the magic underwear?

And no, his bed is not shaped like a race car. But his funky bedside urinal thing looks like a race car in a way.

You should sneak into his room at night and pour some red fruit punch into the urinal thing. Just for fun.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Does your dad wear the magic underwear?



You should sneak into his room at night and pour some red fruit punch into the urinal thing. Just for fun.

No. But he used to wear them!

And the fruit punch is an excellent idea.

[Tina]

And no, his bed is not shaped like a race car. But his funky bedside urinal thing looks like a race car in a way.

Really? Does it make "vroom! vroom!" noises as he pees into it? :D :p

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Really? Does it make "vroom! vroom!" noises as he pees into it? :D :p

You know, I thought this was a good thing for Ryan to research and post about. :D

[JudgeDredd425]

Time and time again I find the same people spouting off about freedom also blowing their tops over what is and isn't American and therefore potentially treasonous. The thing is that the United States was made to be flexible (in theory). Benjamin Franklin even wanted to go so far as to have the government thrown away and rebuilt every century so as to prevent despots from taking power (he was a cynical man, that Ben Franklin). The constitution can be changed - for better or worse, depending on how you look at it.


I have to take technical exception to what you had to say regarding changing of the Constitution for good or bad. The form of government laid down in it could be changed following the Amending process as laid out in the Constitution itself, but there are portions such as the Bill of Rights which are not up for debate and change no matter what the size of the majority is behind the initiative. These fall under those inalienable rights alluded to in the Declaration of Independence. In the Constitution's case, these rights are not given by the government and listed therin, They precede the creation of government itself and always reside in the people and are instead acknowledged by the Constitution not created by it.

The prime example of this is the Second Amendment's acknowledgment of the people's right to individual as well as collective self-defense. Any attempt to repeal the Second Amendment as has been proposed many many times over many many years by anti-gun nuts in and out of government, even if it followed to the letter the Amendment process and got the necessary number of votes, it would still be a null and void act with no true legal standing because it represents something forever beyond governments' legitimate authority to act against.

[JudgeDredd425]

Politicans improved the country by give women the right to vote.
Lincoln, improved the country by freeing the slaves.
Politicans improved the country by give the blacks equal rights.
Politicans improves the country by making sure that the voting process is fair.

A president must be prepared to defend those freedoms. That is why it in the oath he takes. Because, a president sometimes is presented with a issue that challenges that freedom.


Important historical note here, Lincoln did not free a single slave, that was done by an act of Congress in accordance with the Constitutional Amendment process. Lincoln however is often given false credit for this after having gave his Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 where he declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.

In other words he did not free a single slave in the Union where he did have power and authority, but instead declared that all slaves in the Confederate States of America, a foreign nation, where he did not have power and authority, were free. This means that not a single slave was freed by him.

This would be tantamount to President George Bush declaring that the people of Canada, Britain, and Australia can have their guns back despite the police state anti-gun ownership laws now in effect inside these nations. Bush does not have the power and authority to do such a thing much as Lincoln did not have power and authority to free slaves in someone else's country.

As to the Oath of Office, it has been violated by almost every President since Lincoln starting with Lincoln. As time has taken us further away from the Founding, these breaks have become more numerous in number and more serious in size and importance.

Finally, IMO, politicians turn to shit almost everything they touch due to the level of corruption they operate in, I don't see anything good coming out of Washington, but I sure do see a lot of graft.

[JudgeDredd425]

She might be moving to California. That's almost like a communist country.

The full and proper title is: The People's Democratic Republic of California. But I agree with the sentiment.

[EtobicokeFA]

Important historical note here, Lincoln did not free a single slave, that was done by an act of Congress in accordance with the Constitutional Amendment process. Lincoln however is often given false credit for this after having gave his Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 where he declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.

In other words he did not free a single slave in the Union where he did have power and authority, but instead declared that all slaves in the Confederate States of America, a foreign nation, where he did not have power and authority, were free. This means that not a single slave was freed by him.

This would be tantamount to President George Bush declaring that the people of Canada, Britain, and Australia can have their guns back despite the police state anti-gun ownership laws now in effect inside these nations. Bush does not have the power and authority to do such a thing much as Lincoln did not have power and authority to free slaves in someone else's country.

As to the Oath of Office, it has been violated by almost every President since Lincoln starting with Lincoln. As time has taken us further away from the Founding, these breaks have become more numerous in number and more serious in size and importance.

Finally, IMO, politicians turn to shit almost everything they touch due to the level of corruption they operate in, I don't see anything good coming out of Washington, but I sure do see a lot of graft.

A few points, he did free slaves in the North, because most of the northern states already abolishedsalvery by 1810. Remember salves were already escape to the north via the underground railroad at this time. You should also note that congress wanted to compromise with the south, allow them to keep slavery.

By the way, this is what this Emancipation Proclamtion said about the issue."That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such person found on [or] being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves." And, it also focus the war on the issue of salvery.

Yes, technincal it was a act of congress that freed the slaves, but it was the arm twisting of Lincoln and like minded congress members that got the congress to pass it.

[JudgeDredd425]

A few points, he did free slaves in the North, because most of the northern states already abolishedsalvery by 1810. Remember salves were already escape to the north via the underground railroad at this time. You should also note that congress wanted to compromise with the south, allow them to keep slavery.

By the way, this is what this Emancipation Proclamtion said about the issue."That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such person found on [or] being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves." And, it also focus the war on the issue of salvery.

Yes, technincal it was a act of congress that freed the slaves, but it was the arm twisting of Lincoln and like minded congress members that got the congress to pass it.


You are wrong about Lincoln freeing slaves. He did not. As to northern states and slavery, yes it was outlawed already by the various states but some of those in addition made it illegal for blacks to be in their states at all as was the case with Indiana as an example. The no blacks in Indiana was a part of that state's Constitution.

As I pointed out Lincoln's proclamation had no power or authority in foreign countries which was where it was directed to begin with. The places in the Union where slavery was still legal during the War of Northern Aggression were not affected by this action.

[EtobicokeFA]

You are wrong about Lincoln freeing slaves. He did not. As to northern states and slavery, yes it was outlawed already by the various states but some of those in addition made it illegal for blacks to be in their states at all as was the case with Indiana as an example. The no blacks in Indiana was a part of that state's Constitution.

As I pointed out Lincoln's proclamation had no power or authority in foreign countries which was where it was directed to begin with. The places in the Union where slavery was still legal during the War of Northern Aggression were not affected by this action.

I didn't say he directly free the slaves for the south. I said he free the slaves, that made it to the north and free the rest by winning the civil war. Not to mention, the fact that he convinced the congress to go to war with the south, considering that the congress was considering let the south just go, even with the possbility that almost every state from Maryland down, would leave with them!