The Communist Left

[John Dibble]

Sorry guys but I don't get it. The communists, whether they were in the U.S.S.R. or China, or North Korea, all had horrible records of human rights abuses. Murdering their own people or sending them to forced labor camps was common. Also none on them came close to providing the level of prosperity that our capitalist system provides for us.
Someone please explain to me the attraction to communism.  

True communism to me would involve everyone doing what's best for the community according to what they can do best.

Much better than the libertarian paradise of everyone doing whatever they want.

True communism is impossible and will make people miserable. I might be able to do a job I hate much better than I can do a job I like - under the communist system I'd be forced to do a job I despise. When you sacrifice liberty for the good of the community, you get tyranny, plain and simple.

Oh, and unlike communists, we libertarians don't pretend what we advocate will be a utopian paradise, and we don't advocate people 'doing whatever they want', we advocate people being free to live their lives in the way they choose so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

[Giant Saguaro]

I usually get a chuckle out of how leftists and others talk about the religious right and those they typically like to "implicate." Joe Pesci's line from JFK comes to mind: "Like it's a remote experience in ancient history..."

To me, that religious convictions aid one in hammering out a political philosophy is entirely and completely valid. It's an experience like any other. The left may like to severely alienate these people, but their views are justified, i think. It's certainly no more invalid, shall we say, than someone allowing disproven and archcaic theories, such as those propsed by Marx, to influence their views (Atheist Left for the hardcore Marxist types, maybe?). It may not be organized, but Marxism is easily a religion, and I think someone may have alluded to this on one of the threads.

I have no problem with people using their religious views and values to guide them in policy matters; I use mine, too. But no one has any right to force their views on someone else.

I believe that a public policy should be justified by more than just one's religious views in order for it to be adopted.

I tend to agree - I don't know very many people, to be honest, who would propose an outright theocracy. I wouldn't for lots of reasons, among them legalism.

But take the abortion issue, for example. You mentioned no one has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone and generally that's something I and we all agree on, but it gets murky because there isn't a fixed meaning for imposing one's views on another. My pro life stance is dictated by two things: my religious views as well as my belief that the baby, in a rather harsh and horrible way, is being imposed upon. It can't even argue back (for its worth, I suppose, or that it could be adopted or that it could become a valuable member of sociey), let alone fight back (especially in the case of partial birth abortions). Now someone of a liberal persuasion would say no, a pro life stance imposes on the right of a woman to choose. Choose to do what, many would say, kill?

I guess there's no end to it because there are so many points of view. And one could probably argue (rhetorically or theoretically, at least) that any time a public policy is adapted someone's views are being imposed upon.

I don't have a problem with people being pro-life, just as long as they can give a logical reason for why they're that way.  What I think that Nym was saying was that he just doesn't want people to point to, say, a Bible verse as their sole reason for advocating or opposing something.  He wants them to be able to logically explain their position.  There's room for disagreement; we just want it to be logical disagreement, not "brick wall" disagreement.

As long as your opinions are your own and you can explain them in your own words, I can respect that.

And I agree with him - I don't want a man-made theocracy either.

There are certainly Democrats who are respectful and open to other opinions like you guys. That's great. But there is that wing of the left, that hard constructionist type, that simply views the religious right folks as a kind of cancer. I guess my comments were more directed at them than you guys!

Oh, and the religious right folks probably view the hard constructionist leftists as a kind of cancer too. I think they like to draw a lot of paralells with the Soviet Union, for instance.

All good points and well taken!
Somehow, I like discussing things with people who don't resort to things like "f**ck you" when there's a difference of opinion.

[Horus]

Nope, I'm economically liberal but Socialism is only good for things like healthcare and communism is repulsive.

[Nym90]

Yes, that's right Gabu, I was trying to say that religion should be kept out of politics in terms of a direct link...it's going to influence your views, which is fine, but I feel that God gave us a brain so that we could think for ourselves, and he doesn't want us to blindly follow what he might want us to do (and even of that we can never be 100% sure) but rather to come up with logical reasons for our stances.

I have a problem with abortion on a moral level, but I believe that it should remain legal because the alternative would be far worse. Throwing people in prison solves nothing in this case; we need to make abortion less necessary by improving the standard of living of those in the position to feel the need for abortions.

[Posterity]

No, I don't identify with the communist left.  I think communism goes against the most basic aspects of human nature.

But, in a free society (like America is supposed to be) where people can live their lives in whatever manner they desire as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, there's nothing stopping a group of people from voluntarily setting up community where people work solely for the good of the community.  They could do that if they want.  But when they try to use the force of government to impose their idea of communist utopia on everyone in the country, then it becomes tyrannical.

[??????????]

All good points and well taken!
Somehow, I like discussing things with people who don't resort to things like "f**ck you" when there's a difference of opinion.

Sag this was his first post towards me before I even said anything to him.

Did I mention how much I really despise statesrights?

I shouldn't have used that word but I asked him what his problem is with me. Earlier in the day before I even said a word he said, "I really hate you statesrights". What am I supposed to do? Sit down and take it? Sorry, that's not me.

[David S]

Sorry guys but I don't get it. The communists, whether they were in the U.S.S.R. or China, or North Korea, all had horrible records of human rights abuses. Murdering their own people or sending them to forced labor camps was common. Also none on them came close to providing the level of prosperity that our capitalist system provides for us.
Someone please explain to me the attraction to communism.  

True communism to me would involve everyone doing what's best for the community according to what they can do best.

Much better than the libertarian paradise of everyone doing whatever they want.

My young friend, it seems to me that you are buying in to the promise of socialism; everyone works together for the common good, shared prosperity, no fat cats getting rich off the sweat of others, government takes care of everyone. I can't blame you for feeling that way since many years ago I also believed it. But the history of socialism and communism is very different from the promise. Socialists and communists have murdered millions of their own citizens in the past century. This is a brief list:
Communist U.S.S.R.           61 million
Communist China               35 million
Nazi Germany (Socialists)  20 Million
Communist North Korea    1.6 million
The communists/socialists lhave left a bloody trail of dead bodies in their path.

The idea of shared prosperity never happens either because socialism/communism does not create prosperity. It creates poverty, so you get shared poverty. It is a horrible system. Try to name one communist country in which the people enjoy more rights, or more freedom or greater prosperity than what we have right here in the United States. I assure you there are none.

By the way Libertarians have murdered no one.

[King]

Other/HELL NO

[Gabu]

By the way Libertarians have murdered no one.

Well, to play devil's advocate, it should also be noted that Libertarians have never gotten in a position of power in a country, either.  Communism advocates who have no chance of winning generally don't murder anyone either.

Given how deviant Soviet Russia under Stalin was from what communism was supposed to be like, it's hard to say what a libertarian country would be like.

[??????????]

Nazi Germany was NOT a socialist nation. Hitler hated socialism with every bone in his body. The name of his party was intentionally misleading to gain supporters when the Nazis had no power. Hitlers government was actually a Tyrannical Republic or something similar.

(Thank you History Channel)

[David S]

Nazi Germany was NOT a socialist nation. Hitler hated socialism with every bone in his body. The name of his party was intentionally misleading to gain supporters when the Nazis had no power. Hitlers government was actually a Tyrannical Republic or something similar.

(Thank you History Channel)

I can only say that the Nazi party is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Look it up in your dictionary. The Nazi's gave themselves that name not me.

[??????????]

Nazi Germany was NOT a socialist nation. Hitler hated socialism with every bone in his body. The name of his party was intentionally misleading to gain supporters when the Nazis had no power. Hitlers government was actually a Tyrannical Republic or something similar.

(Thank you History Channel)

I can only say that the Nazi party is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Look it up in your dictionary. The Nazi's gave themselves that name not me.

Oh, I know. Some people are mislead into believing that they were actually socialists.

[Citizen James]

Nazi Germany was NOT a socialist nation. Hitler hated socialism with every bone in his body. The name of his party was intentionally misleading to gain supporters when the Nazis had no power. Hitlers government was actually a Tyrannical Republic or something similar.

(Thank you History Channel)

I can only say that the Nazi party is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Look it up in your dictionary. The Nazi's gave themselves that name not me.

And communist china calls itself the  'people's republic of China'  - factually, they're only 1 for 3.

[David S]

By the way Libertarians have murdered no one.

Well, to play devil's advocate, it should also be noted that Libertarians have never gotten in a position of power in a country, either.  Communism advocates who have no chance of winning generally don't murder anyone either.

Given how deviant Soviet Russia under Stalin was from what communism was supposed to be like, it's hard to say what a libertarian country would be like.

First the Libertarian pledge is a promise not to initiate violence against anyone. ( Self Defense is OK though)

Second Libertarians believe in individual freedom, personal responsibility, and government limited to its constitutional duties. These are basically the principles that America was founded on.

This is why I dislike Communism/socialism
History
As I mentioned before their history is littered  with dead bodies.

Philosophy
Communism/socialism is based on collectivism instead of individual rights. Rights can be sacrificed in the name of the common good. Eventually rights disappear and you have only oppression left.

Big government
Capitalism requires very little government intervention to work. Communsim/socialism on the other hand requires a huge and powerful government to run the economy of the nation. Such a government is in itself a threat to freedom. With big governments you get an army of bureaucrats with nothing to do but harass the citizens.
Our founders realized that governments tend to get into what they euphemistically referred to as mischief. (Some of us would call it larceny) They opted to keep government as small as possible to avoid that problem. In America our government has grown beyond its constitutional bounds. As a result we have the IRS harassing innocent taxpayers, the EPA telling people they can't farm their own land because some lousy endangered rat lives there, and now more recently government hinting that the "obesity crisis" justifies their meddling in our diets. In communist countries its much worse.

Economics
Capitalism is driven by the profit motive. In an effort to get rich people are willing to work long hours and take risks developing products or services that you and I might want. Henry Ford got rich by making an assembly line that could produce cars economically enough for most people to afford them. Yes he got rich but the benefits for the rest of us were great. We became a nation of mobility where people could easily travel long distances in little time. Ford's factories also provided high paying jobs for probably millions of Americans over its history. Bill Gates did  something similar with PCs. Probably you are using some of his products right now. There are countless entrepreneurs who have made themselvses wealthy making things that you and I want. In the process they have also created jobs that many of us also want. So while the system is based on individual profit motive the benefits for all of us are enormous. Furthermore competition forces them to produce their products with good quality and low cost. Communist countries cannot match that.

By the way, if the Soviet model of communism was deviant which model worked right?

[Gabu]

By the way, if the Soviet model of communism was deviant which model worked right?

Oh, I'm not saying any model of communism worked right; none even came close and I don't believe any realistically could.  What I'm wondering, though, is whether or not any model of libertarianism could work right either, since we've never had one.  I honestly don't know; like I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate.  I personally dislike communism for reasons I've said in other topics, so don't take this as an advocacy of one side over the other.

[David S]

By the way, if the Soviet model of communism was deviant which model worked right?

Oh, I'm not saying any model of communism worked right; none even came close and I don't believe any realistically could.  What I'm wondering, though, is whether or not any model of libertarianism could work right either, since we've never had one.  I honestly don't know; like I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate.  I personally dislike communism for reasons I've said in other topics, so don't take this as an advocacy of one side over the other.

Gabu
In the early history of America there were two social problems that Libertarians do not believe in; slavery and limited voting rights ie women and slaves could not vote. Thankfully both of those have long since been corrected by constitutional amendment.
Aside from those two items the founders were philosophically  Libertarians. So  Libertarianism has been tried in America and it worked well.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Communist U.S.S.R.           61 million
Communist China               35 million
Nazi Germany (Socialists)  20 Million
Communist North Korea    1.6 million
The communists/socialists lhave left a bloody trail of dead bodies in their path.

Nazi Germany wasn't communist. The others are (or were) communist in name only.

[Gabu]

Gabu
In the early history of America there were two social problems that Libertarians do not believe in; slavery and limited voting rights ie women and slaves could not vote. Thankfully both of those have long since been corrected by constitutional amendment.
Aside from those two items the founders were philosophically  Libertarians. So  Libertarianism has been tried in America and it worked well.

If it worked well, why did America stop being libertarian?

[Nym90]

Well, in the beginning of human history we had extreme libertarianism; we had no government at all. Everyone was free to do wahtever they wanted to, and there was a complete unrestricted free market. That didn't work out so well, and thus government was invented to maintain a civilized society. So yes, we've tried anarchy before, which is the most extreme possible form of libertarianism, and we decided it wasn't such a great idea. Obviously most libertarians don't advocate anarchy...but still, we have tried it.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I can only say that the Nazi party is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Look it up in your dictionary. The Nazi's gave themselves that name not me.

Yeah, and one of the first things the Nazis did when they came to power was to ban the Communist Party of Germany. Would you call a Nazi a "socialist" or "communist" he would probably beat you senseless.

The official name of East Germany was "German Democratic Republic", bit it wasn´t a democracy at all.

[English]

No, obviously. Communism is the exact opposite of liberalism.
I don't see how this is the same as asking if Republicans agree with the Religious right? They're both in the same area of the political spectrum after all.

[John Dibble]

Well, in the beginning of human history we had extreme libertarianism; we had no government at all. Everyone was free to do wahtever they wanted to, and there was a complete unrestricted free market. That didn't work out so well, and thus government was invented to maintain a civilized society. So yes, we've tried anarchy before, which is the most extreme possible form of libertarianism, and we decided it wasn't such a great idea. Obviously most libertarians don't advocate anarchy...but still, we have tried it.

Anarchy is not extreme libertarianism - libertarianism in any form recognizes the government is necessary, a necessary evil(we can't all live in peace and harmony and still be humans). Libertarians just advocate keeping it small, having it do less, little more than it's necessary functions. I'll admit, sometimes new functions for it might come up, but much of what our government does today is not necessary(especially federal, lots of what they do could be better done by the states). Besides, any good libertarian knows anarchy leads to government - usually tyrannical to boot.

[Nym90]

Well, in the beginning of human history we had extreme libertarianism; we had no government at all. Everyone was free to do wahtever they wanted to, and there was a complete unrestricted free market. That didn't work out so well, and thus government was invented to maintain a civilized society. So yes, we've tried anarchy before, which is the most extreme possible form of libertarianism, and we decided it wasn't such a great idea. Obviously most libertarians don't advocate anarchy...but still, we have tried it.

Anarchy is not extreme libertarianism - libertarianism in any form recognizes the government is necessary, a necessary evil(we can't all live in peace and harmony and still be humans). Libertarians just advocate keeping it small, having it do less, little more than it's necessary functions. I'll admit, sometimes new functions for it might come up, but much of what our government does today is not necessary(especially federal, lots of what they do could be better done by the states). Besides, any good libertarian knows anarchy leads to government - usually tyrannical to boot.

Yes, and I realize that almost no libertarians support anarchy, just like almost no liberals support communism; communism is the most extreme version of economic liberalism, but almost no liberals support it.

However, I would say it still is the most extreme version, because one could at least theoretically debate whether any function of government is good, right, and proper. Even on the military or the police, one could argue that the "free market" will sort it all out, and that no one should have to pay for the protection of others if they can't afford their own personal police.

I realize the overwhelming majority of libertarians support government protecting people from harm, but my point is, the most extreme version would still be absolute social darwinism and the belief that the free market will sort itself out on everything, and that ultimately that will be good for society.

I agree with the basic tenet of libertarianism, that government should only do what is necessary and proper and should generally take a hands off approach, but I disagree with what is considered necessary for the betterment of the quality of life of people.

I guess I mainly just think that people should have more fundamental absolute rights than most libertarians would think. Either I'm spoiled and/or hopelessly idealistic and expecting way too much, or I'm trying to advance society forward and advocating "prosperity with a purpose". Take your pick.

[David S]

I can only say that the Nazi party is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Look it up in your dictionary. The Nazi's gave themselves that name not me.

Yeah, and one of the first things the Nazis did when they came to power was to ban the Communist Party of Germany. Would you call a Nazi a "socialist" or "communist" he would probably beat you senseless.

The official name of East Germany was "German Democratic Republic", bit it wasn´t a democracy at all.

You're from Germany and I suppose you should know better than me but the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party. That's what my dictionary says. Also the following link takes you to a speech by Rudolph Hess, one of Hitler's thugs.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hess1.htm
He uses the word socialist or socialism about 12 times and always in the context of German goals or philosophy, and always in an approving manner. I doubt that anyone beat him senseless.
Tell me he wasn't a socialist.

[??????????]

I can only say that the Nazi party is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Look it up in your dictionary. The Nazi's gave themselves that name not me.

Yeah, and one of the first things the Nazis did when they came to power was to ban the Communist Party of Germany. Would you call a Nazi a "socialist" or "communist" he would probably beat you senseless.

The official name of East Germany was "German Democratic Republic", bit it wasn´t a democracy at all.

You're from Germany and I suppose you should know better than me but the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party. That's what my dictionary says. Also the following link takes you to a speech by Rudolph Hess, one of Hitler's thugs.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hess1.htm
He uses the word socialist or socialism about 12 times and always in the context of German goals or philosophy, and always in an approving manner. I doubt that anyone beat him senseless.
Tell me he wasn't a socialist.

They used the term 'socialisst' to draw in uneasy citizens of Germany who didn't really trust Hitler but didn't like the Jews either.