A war between the Socialists and those who value Liberty
 

In the Lybia thread Seretogis said the following

It can be found here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=39531

Wow what a thought.

What would this war look like? Where would the battle field be? When is this war coming? Can the US have Liberty without Socialism.

Im curious to see if this thread can not only stay on topic but also if it will be civil. Some strong views will be following so try your best to be good boys and girls.

First some clarifications are in order.

Who are the socialists that are so feared?

Who are "those who value Liberty"?

Collectivists vs. individualists, perhaps?

The war is already being fought. The battleground is in the media. The casualties are the ideals on which this country was founded. Both sides are guilty of plotting their demise. Class warfare may be inevitable. Liberty has definitions that are both social and economic. Infringing on one type has dire consequences on the other. The question is- can we or should we compromise?

i couldn't agree wtih you more Superbelt

Here a few of my thoughts on the subject

Is bush in on it too

Introducing medicare for the old

Bailing out air lines

The continuation of welfare is a slap in the face of Liberty if we go down this road

You can't compromise with a socialist. He keeps asking for more and complains you haven't given enough. Part of me wants to do a long and indepth post on this, but a bigger part of me is getting burned out with the tpf politics.

I'll make it short and say socialism is a disease of government, that saps the creative spirit and in the long run can only end in failure and greater misery for all.

I still would like to get a clarification of who are the socialists in america and Who are "those who value Liberty" in this country.

Could someone point out a few groups who fall into either mold?
Seretogis maybe?

Of course, this will all be subjective, which is the whole point for me asking the question, but please go for it anyway.

Seretogis where are you step to the mic

Who has supreme authority?

God, with the Church as his agent?
The collective, with the state as its agent?
Or the individual - the sovereign being, with only himself as his agent?

Are you a pious subject?
Are you an abiding subject?
Or are you sovereign?

A civil war between conservatives and liberals? That one's easy, conservatives like guns, we'd have that won in a few days. That's without military intervention though, but even then most of the U.S. military is conservative, about 25/1 I think the ratio is. So with them, liberals would be crushed almost immediately.

Between socialists and everyone? Most socialists are lefties, and there's not as many of them as there are liberals. This one is even shorter then the first.

You don't value liberty? That's interesting =).

The military is apolitical by design. As for voting patterns, The military as a whole votes Republican 2-to-1, enlisted men and women vote Republican 3-to-2, while the ratio among officers is about 8-to-1.

Any hypothetical civil war, though, is going to be won by whoever is being rebelled against (and not the rebels), because they are going to be the ones with the Constitution and the US military behind them.

In liberals v conservatives, it isn't that easy. I'm a liberal and I loves my guns.

I think if it comes down to a war between liberals and conservatives it would prove nothing except that neither of the two groups has any respect for the principals on which our country is based.

I agree with sparhawk, any civil war would probably be a repeat of the first in that the rebelling faction would be put down.


Also, anyone who lacks the intellect to see that someone who doesn't agree with them ideologically can also value liberty seems to be showing a lack of understanding of the privelidges of liberty i.e. i can have a socialist perspective and still value liberty. Don't forget, a socialist wrote the pledge of allegiance.

The problem here that's not being dealt with is the fact that some facts of life are "either or" decisions, no compromise can preserve the ideals of either side (a "black or white" answer, if you will). To compromise liberty is to not have liberty at all. "Give me liberty or give me death" although, your death is preferable if you try to take away my liberty.

Then there is the Ben Franklin quote about freedom or security..... lots of Americans (left & right) are only too willing to give up freedom to keep those evil doers away. Those with the most to lose often are wont to put the screws to the hoi poloi becuse they got theirs jack.

2Wolves

But what does this "war between Socialists and those who value Liberty" actually mean if you strip it of all its rhetoric. I would think it means a conflict between the individual and the community; between libertarianism and collectivism.

How can this war have a "winner"? Hasn't this necessary tension between the group and the individual been part of the human experience since the first two cavemen teamed up and went hunting together? Socialists as we commonly define them see the state as being this apotheosis of collectivism, but not all collectivists are statists. Look at the Kibbutzim of Israel, they're a co-operative - not individual enterprise, yet they don't reflect statist authoritarianism. Religion can be authoritarian too yet it (especially in the case of Catholicism) was historically able to challenge the power of the nation state.

Capitalist entrepreneurs see the necessity for a state apparatus to uphold property rights. Right wing Libertarians see the necessity for a state military infrastructure but have ideas about the rubbery flexible definition of self defence and foreign military adventures that seem more suited to liberal Wilsonian idealism than their own professed ideology.

Why in the early years of the 21st century would we all pick up guns and kill each other over these ideological vagaries and this tension between the individual and their society that has always existed?

The number one thing people have to do is stop thinking in black and white, as so much of the media and politicians try to perpetuate. Intergral to this is the use of language. If we start labeling people as 'nazis' and 'communists' then we are losing the battle.

This is a very stupid thread and notion.

How sad that people even contemplate such stupidity.

No wonder the aliens have never made first contact.

Looks like the socialists are loosing in CHina. The government just ended its restrictions on private property. Looks like CHina is slowly evolving from its left,socialist nation without the US even firing a shot.
Another failing socialist nation reaching for capitalism to bail it out.
I wonder why there are any people that still clutch to socialist ideas at all?

Endymon that has to be the stupidest thing to even remark. Unless you're from China, ahve lived there for the last ten years, then that statement has no credibility.

p.s. - they still control the economy and they are making more money than we are now with their blended system tho they're still behind elsewhere

Thank you! This is such a biased premise to begin with, and I'm not even going to rise to the bait.

Besides, this has already been done to death in the "culture war" debate. It won't be about guns, it'll be about legislation (mostly at the local level - see Kansas, e.g.) and hegemony. Besides, I think the marjority of Americans are pretty libertarian to begin with (or would be if they really knew what "libertarian" meant) with two small but VERY vocal and very determined wing-nut factions on either end (the "government should provide everything" faction and the "we're a Christian nation" faction, NEITHER of which have much to say about liberty). Don't be fooled into believing this "either-or" crap. It's defeatist and does absolutely nothing to strengthen our country.

i agree w/ lurkette

and please don't beat the socialism is communism debate to death

We will see. If you dont see a pro capitalism movement in China then I dont know what to tell you. China is moving towards Capitalism in inches. Its slow and glacial. Sorry you dont agree with me, but the proof is out there if you wish to study the evidence.

Have you been in China recently? Have you happened to live there? Its obvious they have hints at doign so but its not meant to be a full capitalism a'la the US. Its meant to boost their economy and to give them an edge over us, while keeping their other programs. Don't believe me? Go to China now. Its prospered / grown a hell of a lot from ten years ago, but fact is, stats cannot tell the other side.

P.S. Communism does not equal socialism.

It has grown because they are adopting Captialist ideas and methods. To not recognise this is just plain wrong.

The war has already been fought, We lost.
The war is fought in Congress, where the people's representatives have been giving away the money of future generations. The war was lost at the ballot box, once people discovered that they could vote themselves secure, or even wealthy from the public trough.

I agree that congress should not be able to vote themselves a raise.

socialism is impossible without freedom. Socialism is really nothing more than true and complete freedom, a society where men and women dominate and control the economic system, whereas capitalism is the opposite of course.

Nope, socialism is the government, by the acutal use of force or threat of the use of force, making the people pay for other people's lives.
Socialism is being punished for successs so that you can pay for other's failures.

And Socialism doesnt work.

far simpler

socialism means each person gives to society what they are able to, and takes what they need to.

You must not confuse Stalin or Mao with a true socialist society.

So socialists only give what they are able, not what they are compelled to by threat of imprisonment? You are wrong again. Norwegiens go to jail if they don't pay their taxes. So once again, you are incorrect.

I await your automatic responce that Norway is not a true socialist nation. I even know what lies you are goint to use as your answer.

Strange Famous, I have three words for you:

Free Rider Problem

I suggest you pick up a copy of Mancur Olsons book, and have a good read...

Why read that book? It doesnt jive with the conclusions Strange Famous already made before he started arguing.

How interesteing that you think Norway is a socialist state!

I am not sure anyone else is aware of that!

And making people pay taxes is making sure that they DO give what they are able to, but that isnt really the same thing as socialism.

As I have said, several times, there has not ever been an existing socialist or communist nation state. Some states have called themselves socialist, but they are not what I, or Marx, or history, will call socialists.

I understand the concept of the "free rider".

The mistake you are making is to imagine people as they are made to behave in a capitalist world in the new world after the revolution.

People will not WANT to free ride or not contribute to a society and an economy they are an equal stakeholder in, they will want to give all they can, and take all they need, to make THEIR society greater.

People may be "free riders" today becase their labour is exploited and alienated, reduced to a mechanical process, and that they are alienated from the value added by their labour.

In a communist world this will not be the case, and TRUE human nature, which is compassionate, social, and creative, will be allowed to flourish.

So why are you championing a nation that can not possible exist?

And you can call them what you want, but history named many communist and socialist states.


Here is a desciption of Norway's Governemnt
The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector (through large-scale state enterprises). The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on its oil production and international oil prices; in 1999, oil and gas accounted for 35% of exports. Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994. The government has moved ahead with privatization. With arguably the highest quality of life worldwide, Norwegians still worry about that time in the next two decades when the oil and gas begin to run out. Accordingly, Norway has been saving its oil-boosted budget surpluses in a Government Petroleum Fund, which is invested abroad and now is valued at more than $43 billion. GDP growth was a lackluster 1% in 2002 and 2003 against the background of a faltering European economy.

Welfare Capitalism and government intervention. Isnt that Socialism?

Nor will there ever be. Marx was a fantastic economist, but he was also a utopian, and his vision is laced with the same fundamental flaw as every utopian, from More to Swift to Bacon. He fails to deal with the human condition of greed.

This was not the state of man prior to the advent of capitalism...

You are making the mistake in thinking that people will want to revolt.

Quote:

[People will not WANT to free ride or not contribute to a society and an economy they are an equal stakeholder in, they will want to give all they can, and take all they need, to make THEIR society greater.]

You are assuming that greed and laziness will some how be wiped out. Do you have any evidence to proove that communism eradicates laziness, innefficientcy or greed?

Quote:

[People may be "free riders" today becase their labour is exploited and alienated, reduced to a mechanical process, and that they are alienated from the value added by their labour. ]

You have one iota of proof to back up this wild claim? I eagerly await it.

Quote:

[In a communist world this will not be the case, and TRUE human nature, which is compassionate, social, and creative, will be allowed to flourish.

Again, wild claim, no proof, and accourding to you, there was no true communist or socialist nation so you can not provide any proof to back up this wild claim. Are you saying that there WAS a true socialist nation so you can provide proof? But you say there was no Communist or socialist nation, so we are back to no proof.
And each time a new Communist or socialist nation fails, guys like you will only yell that they werent truely communist. Its odd that they never yell that during the onset of that government, only when it fails.....

Communism is based on everyone working together and sharing, when we live in a word where no two people can agree on anything of importance. Its a fantasy. And No communist nation was successful, or even a particulally great place to live. And they each cost millions of lives for their failure. 125million to be exact, in just this century.

Marx also lived of the wealth of his wife, and produced nothing to feed or provide for his family. In short, he sat and wrote a book, and accourding to his own work, did nothing to provide for his commrades. And he did it on his wife's capitalist wealth. So if not for capitalism, Marx would not have been able to write.

That is because the stage of history before capitalism was also exploitative, a system of feudalism.

and before feudalism?

In fact, Marx lived off Engels far more than his wife. Engels was of course a capitalist, although not an especially succesful one. Marx did once try to get a job as a railway clerk, but was turned down because his handwriting was too bad.

And what about before that? Lets go back to primitive cave dwelling societies, arguably the only "communists" that have ever existed. They still had a hierarchy, they still fought other tribes, and they still punished the lazy ones.

Shall I just give you the whole picture?

Primitive communism

Slave Economy

Feudalism

Industrial Capitalism

Social Capitalism (today)

Lower Communism

Higher Communism


These are the stages that every society will necessarily pass through, the revolution which leads to the next stage is caused mostly by changes in the forces of production.

And again there was never a communists society, and accourding to you, never will be. So what is the point? Accourding to you, it cant be proven since there is no bases for study, no control. And accourding to all historians ( I have a degree in ancient history) every socialists and communist nation failed. So keep talking, the world is passing you by.
By the way, you might want to get a job cause capitalism aint going anywhere anytime soon.

So between his wife and engles, the founder of communism coudlnt provide for his children and needed not one, but TWO capitalists to provide for him. Food for thought.

We live in a capitalist world and one can only survive by being a capitalist most of the time.

We know though, that the revolution is coming, that capitalism is failing and falling around us.

It is true that history has not proven the success of communist society yet, but every motor and study of history shows us that communism is the most probable, logical, and desirable next stage.

The only real objection anyone has to communism is saying "oh, it wont work, people are too selfish to work together", nobody actually wouldnt prefer to live in a truly democratic communist society... so we have to ask ourselves, why do we not know ask more of our human nature, rather than expect less.

Are we so poor a race, so weak and helpless, that we are unable to find our way toa society that everyone knows to be a better place, because we cannot get beyond petty greed and selfishness?

Yes.


And I for one do not think it would be a better place, there is nothing inspiring one to excell in such a society.

Also, in rereading your post above it seems to me that you do not properly understand the free rider problem.

1, Endymon, I would call Norway a social capitalist country, the same as America or Britain, although Norway is clearly a more advanced country than the other two.

2, Debaser, your argument sounds a little tautological to me. You say I cannot prove what a communist society would do because one has never existed, so therefore I cannot prove communism can work. If the only proof is an actually existing communist state, then this is self evident.

My belief is, through my experience in life, that people wish to share, that people are as compassionate as they are aggressive and greedy - that capitalism and the constant state of nationalist tension we live in feeds people's negative qualities; but that in a different society the positive qualities of human beings could be nutured.

I basically am saying that I do not believe man is basically a greedy, self interested, bad and aggressive animal - but that men and women have the potential to be peaceful, constructive and decent, if they can arrange a society which is non-exploitative to allow this. This is the goal, this is my dream, this is what I believe the future holds. Maybe I shall be proved to too hopeful, I think we all would at least agree that we should wish that I am not?

Why would a rational person want to "excel" in the sense of achieving or getting more than he needs? this is greed. the only excellence that is needed in a communist society is the drive to give as much as you can for society, to achieve as much as possible - the motivation for this is compassion, solidarity, and human creativity.

The free rider problem, as I understand it, is that what happens to people who do not wish to give all that they can? Also, what of those people who will enjoy the results of the revolution, but not work towards it - believing, if the revolution wins they will benefit, and if it fails and the master class lashes out against the common people they will not suffer the retaliation of the master class.

This is a view of human nature founded in Western capitalism, to believe that some people are basically lazy and would wish to not contribute to society if there was not the reward of a bigger mortgage or a bigger wide screen TV to push them on... these are not the people I believe in, I believe they are products of capitalism and the way it forces working men to compete against each other to enslave themselves further to capital in order for a small increase in material reward...

In a society based upon fairness, equality, democracy - people do not need to be motivated to work harder so they can get a new TV or so they can feed their children properly or give them a fit education... these things are given, their motivation becomes their own pride in themselves and their community.

No offence, but you vision of human nature is very naive. You place all of the blame for the ills inherant to mankind on capitalism. You forget that humans are animals, and as such we are still driven by animal impulses, one of the strongest of which is survival. Your survival depends on the destruction of others, be they your species or another.

How do you intend to stop people from overpopulating your new utopia?

How do you plan stop a faction that decides it is in their interest to have more than their share?

How do you determine what each individuals needs are?

How do you plan to enlighten the population of this planet to the point where they will go along with your plan?

Who is going to shovel shit in your society?

How do you foster pride when you remove all individualism from society?

Have you read 1984?

I have read 1984, I would have thought "Brave New World" would be a more appropriate book to ask me if I'd read!

1, Population will be far more controlled by making birth control widely available to those who wish to use it, and in the other direction by offering the best medical care to all people.

The superior organisation and ever advancing technology of communism will allow the earth to support a greater population.

I find it appalling for the argument that capitalsim operates a system of supply and demand even against the lives of human beings to be considered as an argument in its favour.

2, The interests of all are decided by all, there will be no factionalism in a truly communist society, because there will be no argument concerning the big issues - which have all been solved. The only debates will be concerning matters of organisation. It is capitalism and the state that causes great divides in society, by gender, class, race - class will not exist in the future, nor will racism or sexism.

What we are saying is that people have evolved to a level when they CAN be trusted. There may well always be a level of deviance, caused by mental illness, but the vat majority of crime and deviance we see today is created by class divides, capitalism exploitation, racism, and ignorance, and brute poverty. These causes will all be eliminated.

People in the future will not WANT to claim more than they need. There will still need to be a management of the society, the practical issues still need to be managed, but this is done by a body answerable to and inseparable from the will of the people as a people, the general will if you like - which rises above petty personal interest.

3, By democracy, by common sense. We know and understand today the things that people need - health care, security, a home, reasonable leisure time and activities, the ability to be creative - these are the things we give to our people. of course, even in communism, there will be a hugely diverse number of resources available to people, and choice as to which of them they wish to consume.

4, The enlightenment of the people is happening all the time. Already the general population is rejecting capitalism and the state, the youth rejects the old guard and the outdated system of capitalism, people intrinsically hold dear to them certain values - fairness, peace, decency, compassion - communism is the realisation of what every person already knows to be right.

5, Do a degree we hope to allocate jobs according to ability. At the same time, we know that the technology we have now will be vastly increased when freed from the fetters of capitalist, exploitative economy... yes, there still will be work to done after the revolution that will be unpleasant... I think it will be handled in a variety of ways. There will be far less unpleasant work, there will be a genuine meritocracy so that people have jobs that suit there skills, jobs which are unpleasant will be shared, and expanded so that there are also pleasant parts. There will be no toilet cleaners after the revolution, even if toilets still must be cleaned.

6, Pride comes from the success and glory of the collectivism, of society, and also internally, from the part you individually play in the great society.

Wow, just wow.

You sound as if you actually believe this stuff, and more power to you.

The problem of course is that you are still waving a magic wand and saying that:
Your goals are noble, but you know what they say about the road to hell. There is no part of what you have written above that even vaugely synchs with the reality of todays world.

I fear your dream will forever remain just that.

And I love how he dismisses all the communist nations that butchered their own populace and started wars as "not communist"

So I will use his argument and say this to Strange Famous.

There was never a capitalist nations on earth, so you cant blame capitalism for anything. Why? Cause every capitalist nation has elements fo socialism. So by Strange Famous's logic, Capitalism is glorious, since there has never been a pure capitalist country.

Capitalism is an economic system and I think that it is very hard to deny that it is the economic system currently prevalent in this world.

The end of WWI was the death of industrial capitalism. people like Marx, Engels, Lenin, all expected communism to be born, but instead "social capitalism" was born - a capitalism economy but also with a welfare state and some state intervention and partnership with industry.

By making these concessions, the capitalist mode of production has gone on almost 100 years passed what should have been its sell by date. My belief is the same intrinsic flaws still exist and will still mean capitalism cannot help but destroy itself.

As a system of economy, capitalism has created huge technical and industrial advantages, has created very real freedoms, without real and total freedom - but there is so much it cannot do. It cannot protect the environment adequately from the irresponsible plundering of natural resources, it cannot protect us from pollution, constant threat of wars, and gross inequalitym internationally and locally.

We have created awesome productive power, yet we cannot stop this productive power polluting the world, the profit mechanism has become too powerful for mankind to control, we must bring it under control to go forward now. This is the aim of socialism, to place the economy under the control of human will, and not blind market forces that lust only for profit and the accumulation of more capital, no matter what the human or social cost.

Nope its not, as per your logic, there is no capitalist system since there are labour unions, and other socialist elements. So since you say there was no communism as per your flawed logic, I will use your logic and tell you there is no capitalism.
You cant have both,

One of the basic tenants of communism is that it must work. Therefore if it didn't work, it must not have been communism...


:rolleyes:

Why do so many people insist it is not possible to have a better world than we do?

Why do we not believe in people enough to think that a "utopia" can be realistic, rather than just a word that means "fantasy"?

Capitalism is failing, it is failing the environment, it is failing huge numbers of people - I mean, we have a system of economy that regular allows millions, literally millions, of people to starve to death.

We live in a world where Bill Gates can have a fortune of millions, and people in Korea are starving, people in Ethopia are starving, people all over the world dont even have basic health care or security, people in Indonesia, China, many places, work under terrible sweat shop conditions. Is this the best we can do? If we do not strive for something better, not just a few tweaks and regulations, but to turn everything upside down and create a world where we do not allow these things to happen, what hope is there for us?

Check out http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm before you bitch about Bill Gates. I loathe what the man has done to computing, but his philanthropy is beyond reproach...

Oddly enough the US, that vile cesspool of capitalism and greed, feeds more people than the rest of the worlds governments combined.

Bill Gates may be a great giver to charity.

The fact remains that a system of economy that can concentrate so much wealth in so few hands, while there is genuine starvation in this world, is just plain wrong.

How so?

It is not, in my opinion, the correct way to allocate resources if some people do not have enough to survive and some people have a huge surplus.

I believe it is morally right to have a system that guarantees ALL people at least a basic standard of acceptable life - (which I would define as food & clean water, shelter, a degree of security, access to education, basic health care and some leisure time)

Oh, you mean like in America?

I am not sure America guarantee's health care for all, or shelter for all - as far as I am aware there is a big homelessness problem in many American cities.

But certainly, a genuine safety net, such as most advanced industrial countries have, is the very minimum that can be acceptable in my opinion.

A welfare state that covers the globe, not one nation's territory.

America provides the services you list above for all people within our borders. Granted there is a problem with homelessness, but that is as much a problem of the individual as it is the society. Americans pay for these services. How do you propose to expand that net around the world when many nations do not have the ability to pay for them?

You are so far left I wonder if you are just a troll who is having some fun stirring up the pot.

Freedom is more then just being able to do the drugs you want and fuck who you want. Freedom is also economic freedom, the freedom to reap what you produce with your own labor. Why the left can't understand this is beyond my comprehension. If there ever comes a time when the government tries to take such freedom from me, I will be more then willing to take arms against said government.


Live free or die.

It is quite disturbing when people think that someone who is a communist must be a troll... surely you know these ideals are not dead, they are held by many people. I really do see two America's...

The political compass thing was another example, someone believed my score was a joke or I had tried to score the furthest left I could, the fact is there were very questions I even had to consider how I felt on, my responses were automatic.

I posted the same link on another site (not a political site, the site of a pop singer I used to like) and everyone that took the test was scoring around -5, -5... This is one America.

Your America, with your wish to take arms against people if they try to make you contribute all of your wages to a social fund and then take from that fund what you need, is the other. To me, to anyone, that would be a wonderful way to organise society. You genuinely seem to be willing to fight and die to oppose a system that seems so clearly more fair to me.

Freedom from persecution is important. I support the freedom for people to take narcotics (as long as they are fully educated about all of the effects), and people should be able to have any sexual relations they want as long as they are conducted by adults with informed consent.

But these are not the most vital freedoms. The freedoms that really matter are these:

Freedom from fear, freedom from poverty, freedom for persecution on the grounds of race, ability, gender, religion, age... freedom from the violence of invisible hands.

The freedom to make more money than you really need, the freedom to accumulate enough so that you can begin to exploit the labour of others rather than have your own labour exploited, the freedom to arm yourself with lethal weaponary, these are false freedoms... these are freedoms that make people unfree.

Communism is about freedom from the market, and about a society that uses its economic power for democratically decided ends... what is the freedom to compete worth? Why do you wish to have the freedom to do better than other people? This is a false freedom... the freedom that is needed is the freedom from genuine want, from persecution, from exploitation.

In a communist society, the general population will NOT be armed, and will not be permitted to bare arms. There is little argument I find convincing for bearing arms today, there will be none in the future. In a communist society, there will not be the freedom to exploit, there will not be the freedom to take more than your share just because you work harder or are more talented - these freedoms we know are not needed.

The freedom you will have is the freedom from the market, from economic power, from war and from far and from crime and from pollutuion.

You do not take what you produce now, the capitalist alienates the common person from a portion of the value of their labour. What communism means is this exploitation ceasing, and the value of all labour to be placed into a social fund and then be distributed democratically, not just to the most powerful or the strongest or the most capable.

In a society were everyone is willingly working toward the greater good, and putting the good of the body politic above their own, what do have to fear from the common person having a gun?

You realize you have just trashed your entire premise, right? By stratifying the society into haves and have nots, you have created a group who is subservient, and a group who can excercise force on that group without fear of reprisal (rather like in all of the "communist" nations to date).

Guns will not be needed in a communist society, they will be forbidden because the only people who want them will be people who commit crime due to mental illness... the economic motivation of crime (which causes 99% of crime today) will have disappeared.

*poof*, just like that...

mostly. Most crimes have a economic motive, or are caused by the economic degradation the criminal grows up in. Remove these factors and you will only have a very small number of people who commit crimes because of mental inbalances - mostly sex criminals I would expect.

What about crimes of passion? Are all of the drones in your perfect society capable of shutting off their emotions as well?

And how do we acheive such a wonderful goal while there are currently criminals in the world?

There may be some crimes of passion, far less than there is today of course, because a lot of the pressues put on relationships are a result of the conditions in a capitalist country. of course, human nature is still what it is, even though a communist society can nuture its better parts... there will always be crimes caused by romantic jealousy... a communist society will need to process and treat these criminals, humanely, but justly.

Those who currently are committing crime must be rehabilitated (sic?) into society, and helped to become productive members of society, rather than deviants.

LOL good one.

then why are you against the IRaq war? You clearly dont practicewhat you preach. There is MORE democracy, more schools, better pay, more food, more peace, and better economy there now than in the past 30 years. In short, Iraq is now better to utopia then ever, and yet you are wetting your pants screaming that Saddam should never have been removed. Why so inconsistant?

How? Does BLessed MArx know how to stop crime? PLease enlighten me. :lol:

What communists never grasp is that the communist leaders are people too. Sure you can deprive the citizens of rights and make them slaves to the government, but the leaders of said government are just as human an will abuse their power to their own gain. Communism is a wonderfull thing, if you are an ant, all working for the good of the queen and the hive. We are not ants, and you can not make us ants.

44 million Americans without health insurance would disagree with you, not to mention the 13-20 million illegal immigrants in this country, who have basically no safety net of any kind, yet provide some of the most important day-to-day labor jobs in this country.

And would any one of them be denied medical care if they went to a hospital?

This is an important issue that needs more attention:

http://covertheuninsuredweek.org/rel...p?ReleaseID=89

Here's a sample from the link:

Children are all covered by public aid. What always made me sick were the children who could get free treatment for problems but their damn parents never took them back for the treatment even though it was 100% free.

There is a big difference between being uninsured and being denied care don't you think?

For a start, you do not create more peace by going to war with someone and bombing them. Look at Iraq today, is it peaceful, is their security? Jumpy American troops being ambushed, retaliating and shooting anyon ewho gets in the crossfire too...

The state infrastructure of Iraq is being broken down by this war and by UN sanctions, we have not improved the lot of the average Iraqi citizen, and you will find no reports showing Iraqi people who say that we have.

Sure, they hated Hussain, or at least many did, but they America and the UK too, Iraq is not asking for America to take it's oil, sell it to itself (at a price set by America) and then give the money back to Iraq but only to be spent how the American's say it should. Hussain is gone, the military is beaten... Iraq is asking to be left alone to pick up the pieces.

This varies quite a bit state to state, Ustwo. I should mention that one of the states that's provided the most coverage for children is Vermont. We all know who that state is home to...

Still doesn't change the fact that the uninsured figure is a myth.

The only people in this country who get screwed are middle class people without insurance for whatever reason. The poor get their medical bills covered.

This stat kills me. How many of these 44 million have nice cars, cable tv and other luxeries but CHOOSE not to buy insurance? The actuall number of people who have no access to insurance and can not afford it is actually much much lower.
Its not Americas fault that so many would rather spend their money on cell phones, cable tv, sports cars, than heath care. This stat is touted all the time as america's shame, when the truth be told its really a testement to America's greatness, that so many people can choose to disrgard their heatlth and their families health, and then demand that others pay for their own shortsightedness.

You slay me. Look at Germany six months after the major fighting stopped. There was more death, more destruction and less success. By your logic, we should have pulled out thus creating the same circumstances that happened after ww1 that led to ww2. I dont see the Germans ralling to destroy America today ( nor do i see it in Japan) and starting a new war? As per usuall, you are wrong. Again.

Myth?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0930-01.htm

43.6 Million without insurance. Definitely 'mythical' numbers...

As to your other, valid, point, I'll quote from the same article:

*sigh* This is a particularly insiduous lie being spread by the current administration.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/

A few blurbs, feel free to click and read all of it:

emphasis mine.

Its a myth because they dont' have 'insurance' but the government pays their bills which amounts to the same thing.

If only that were true.

It is, I've been there done that and treated them.

I don't understand why you keep stating this.

First of all, the government doesn't "pay" impoverished citizens' medical bills in the way you are implying. The laws, while varying from state to state, essentially ensure that a poor person won't be denied emergency care. the government only pays for it in the form of a loan and the patients don't receive primary care.


There are multiple problems with this, as I see it:

1) impoverished citizens are less likely to seek medical care if they don't feel they can afford to repay their debt. I don't lay this at anyone's feet, but it does need to be considered in light of the next point.

2) Since they only are entitled to emergency treatment and not primary care, impoverished citizens who do seek treatment only do so once their ailment is life-threatening.

3) I would much rather pay a $150 dollar primary care visit than a $1500 emergency care visit.

4) Impoverished citizens are also less likely to desire or be able to leave work for a few days to recover from a minor ailment. I don't want people walking around my work, school, or children's places with communicable diseases.

5) In the current environment of biological warfare threats, it seems that our security needs might compel us to allow for primary care coverage of non/underinsured persons. It would be tragic if a germ were dispersed to the public and the poor kept walking around spreading it because they couldn't afford to get their "bronchitis" checked out.


So, Ustwo, please stop spreading disinformation. If you really have worked in such places with uninsured persons, then you know that the government doesn't provide free treatment, it bills the patients. It also doesn't provide adequate medical coverage, it only requires that hospitals not let people die in their emergency rooms. This is hardly an efficient method for dealing with communicable diseases that the infected person can spread to many people as well as being a leading cause of reduced productivity.

Nice post, smooth - what I was trying to get across, only smoother ;)

Really Dr. Smooth? While many people, rich and poor, wait to late for medical care, its based more on education and fear of the doctor then insurance. You won't hear the nurse saying 'I'm sorry but your tumor is not big enough, please come back in a few months'.

Me too, though I'd rather they paid, but thats another topic.

Really? This is something the poor have a problem with the insured don't? Most companies are rather stingy with sick time, and being self employed I personally don't get paid sick time and my whole office has to shut down if I miss a day (all paid). I really don't desire to leave work a few days. So who are these uninsured walking around your work and your school passing the plague unto thee?

This one is amusing, and shows an utter lack of understanding of how people act when sick. Most ignore it until they are VERY sick, and if they do come in early the symptoms are not diagnostic. Do you check everyone who walks in with a cough for anthrax?

I'll admit that our system isn't perfect, as it does hurt the working, non-insured, lower middle class, but the 'poor' are covered fully. It was always infuriating when I could get a cat scan done for some piece of human waste who had not worked a day in their life because it was covered by the government and not for the girl who had a job and was not on the public dole. I'd be all for government subsidized insurance (you have to pay SOMETHING for it) and the total elimination of all benefits for the adult welfare class we have created in this country. There ain't no free lunch, and I've seen the socialized systems and personally don't hate people enough to support them.

What you apparently didn’t bother to do is read Perry Biddiscombe’s “Werwolf! The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946,” which gives full chapter and verse on Nazi-postwar guerrilla operations. It’s true that the Werwolf was poorly organized, and the threat of attacks greatly subsided after a few months of occupation. But they were very real. A survey of records by the U.S. Army Center of Military History shows that at least 39 combat deaths occurred in the first few months of the occupation. If the Nazis had been better organized, the Werwolf might well have given World War II GIs as much trouble as the thugs in Iraq are generating now.

And Werwolves weren’t the only problem. Violent crime, thievery and black-marketing were rampant. Germans incessantly complained to U.S. military officials about inadequate public safety. And these threats paled in comparison to the physical privations. Many feared masses of Germans would freeze or starve to death in the first winter after the war. To suggest that the first year of occupation was anything less than a dreadful, harrowing experience for many Germans is just bad history.

Making the postwar reconstruction of Europe appear like a walk in the park suggests that somehow this administration must have screwed things up terribly to face such a plethora of problems. In fact, history suggests the opposite.

Occupations are rarely easy. And it’s understandable that the Pentagon couldn’t completely and precisely predict the postwar conditions it would face in Iraq. In time of conflict, it’s impossible to fully anticipate the end state--what the country will look like after the war. There is a “fog of peace” fully as dense as the “fog of war,” the phrase Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz used to describe why battles never go as planned.

Misusing the past offers little insight to understanding the scope of the challenge the United States faces today. In truth, the key to success in Iraq is to take a page from the occupations in postwar Europe: Stand-up a legitimate government and domestic police forces, and let the people rebuild their own country.

It took four years to do that in post World War II Germany. Sometimes it takes that much time and effort to be on the right side of history.

Please quote when you use someone else's source, Endymon32. Especially when we know you aren't James Carafano...

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commen...nderforPrint=1

This graph is from the book you and I both haven't read: “Werwolf! The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946"

<img src="http://www.unc.edu/~sstaff/images/graphww.jpg">

As you can see from the graph, attacks on Allied personnel never went above 11 per month. Granted, this was just one zone. So, being generous, we'll say 40 per month max for the 3 western zones.

Comparing that to the 10-20 attacks per day the coalition faces right now is ludicrous at best, revisionist history at worst.

Like Chris Rock said about when he was growing up...

Chris Rock: When I was a kid, I had to be near-death to see a doctor, so my daddy got into the habit of putting Robitussin on everything, and I mean EVERYTHING!

Here, you feeling sick, drink some Robitussin. You break your leg, here, just rub in some Robitussin. Oh wait, we're out of Robitussin, well just add some water to the bottle and swish it around.