Challenge: What is Communist in the US?

[lordbt]

Obama is constrained by political realities that 'real' socialists dont have to contend with. No matter how far to the left he is in reality, he can only govern as far left as he can gain a majority. So while socialists may condemn him for not being socialist enough, he can only be as socialist as the voters allow him to be.

 

[BoltNut]

Obama is constrained by political realities that 'real' socialists dont have to contend with. No matter how far to the left he is in reality, he can only govern as far left as he can gain a majority. So while socialists may condemn him for not being socialist enough, he can only be as socialist as the voters allow him to be.

Well, actually he can only be as socialist as the Congress is. Once the voters put him in office, if he can get a majority of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives to go along with his "program", he can pretty much do what he wants. Two thirds majority is needed on much that would need to happen in this scenario, so it would still be pretty tough. But not impossible.

 

[BoltNut]

If Obama is not a Socialist then you can be relatively certain that he is not a Communist either. That aside, I'd be more likely to trust a devout Socialist to identify fellow Socialists then a disgruntled Conservative who is prone to believe that there is a monster in his closest called 'Socialism.' And that is exactly what calling Obama a Socialist (or a Communist) is: a myth conjured in the imagination of the Far Right, which is unsurprising... after-all, when you're so Far Right it's not hard to see Communists everywhere.

In order for a hypothetical situation of a Capitalistic economy to switch to a Communistic economy (or society), it would first need to become Socialistic. The jump from Socialism to Communism is more subtle. Moving from a centralized government to a society that the labor force decides where resources should be concentrated would be less drastic than it would be moving from Capitalism. (ideal communism) I don't believe Communism, in its true and purist form, has ever existed. It's Utopian and in a practical sense, is unlikely to ever exist.

The article has statements from socialists that "Obama is no socialist". They may be right. He could still be a Communist. I'm not saying he is, just pointing out that just because a Socialist denies that Obama is one of their own, means little.

For the "far right" to say Obama acts like a socialist is really not too far off. Most of his policies are pretty far "left". Like the old saying, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,......". What makes the "right" nervous is more than just Obama being some kind of "closet Socialist", it's also the fact that many in Congress share the same opinions. Things look to them like the "closet" door is now open and many of these left leaning politicians are more open with their Utopian vision.

 

[salida]

I don't like playing this game either but I will answer your question. The first example is getting national healthcare forced down the american citizens throats when most don't want it. This what communism is about in my circles. I don't use the word socialism always because people will make these statements and say well, what about soc. security, etc. etc. Which is totally different from a national healthcare system. I'm always against bigger government.

And the second example:

http://www.historicalchristianity.com/my_weblog/2009/11/how-to-brainwash-a-nation.htm
　
Here are the four steps:
Demoralization (immorality, basically getting everyone used to it, thinking it's normal, and moral people are the bad folks)
Destabilization (of the economy, politics, etc.)
Crisis (caused by immorality and destabilization, which replaces the old government with a new controlling regime)
Normalization (as everyone gets used to the new regime)
http://www.hermes_press.com/brainwash1.htm

***The term communist is not defined as an unhappy conservative.

 

[katherine2001]

If Obama is not a Socialist then you can be relatively certain that he is not a Communist either. That aside, I'd be more likely to trust a devout Socialist to identify fellow Socialists then a disgruntled Conservative who is prone to believe that there is a monster in his closest called 'Socialism.' And that is exactly what calling Obama a Socialist (or a Communist) is: a myth conjured in the imagination of the Far Right, which is unsurprising... after-all, when you're so Far Right it's not hard to see Communists everywhere.

Let's hope not. The last thing we need is another Communist/Socialist witch hunt like we had in the 50's with Sen. Joseph McCarthy. With the climate we have at the moment, however, it would not surprise me.

 

[MattLangley]

Support your statement, or sit back down Potsy.

Right... since you supported yours so well lol

 

[Edmund Burke]

I don't like playing this game either but I will answer your question. The first example is getting national healthcare forced down the american citizens throats when most don't want it. This what communism is about in my circles.

Unfortunately, "your circles" are operating on a misunderstanding of Communism. The National Health care plan that was passed is NOT Communist

I don't use the word socialism always because people will make these statements and say well, what about soc. security, etc. etc. Which is totally different from a national healthcare system. I'm always against bigger government.

This is why you are wrong, you're ideological, not rational.

And the second example:

http://www.historicalchristianity.com/my_weblog/2009/11/how-to-brainwash-a-nation.htm
　
Here are the four steps:
Demoralization (immorality, basically getting everyone used to it, thinking it's normal, and moral people are the bad folks)
Destabilization (of the economy, politics, etc.)
Crisis (caused by immorality and destabilization, which replaces the old government with a new controlling regime)
Normalization (as everyone gets used to the new regime)
http://www.hermes_press.com/brainwash1.htm

***The term communist is not defined as an unhappy conservative.

This is all nonsense. It is not a viable, rational, or even supportable thesis.

 

[BoltNut]

People use the word Communism more and more these days, and every time they do, all they are really saying is "I don't know what to say, so I am going to say something wild to hide my ignorance."

So to all those terrified of the coming Red Revolution, let's see the evidence. What is actually Communist in the US. Keep in mind your examples will be subjected to actual definitions of Communism. If you are wrong, it will be pointed out, people will talk about how you do not know what you are talking about, you will probably feel bad, and you will look foolish. This is the price of an opinion.

So where are the examples...?

It just seems to me that you laid a trap for those unsuspecting or without a clear understanding of what Communism is. The question, "What is Communist in the US?", is a bit unfair to ask. Nothing in the US today is what anyone could actually call Communist. Are some of the policies proposed by the current administration Socialistic in nature? Yes. Could some of these policies create an economic crisis in the not-too-distant future? You bet.

It just seems you have presented a sort of "loaded" question, here.

 

[MattLangley]

I don't use the word socialism always because people will make these statements and say well, what about soc. security, etc. etc. Which is totally different from a national healthcare system. I'm always against bigger government.

National retirement is totally different from national healthcare?

 

[Edmund Burke]

It just seems to me that you laid a trap for those unsuspecting or without a clear understanding of what Communism is. The question, "What is Communist in the US?", is a bit unfair to ask.

Not really. Communism has some set definitional precepts. Expecting people to know the definition of a word before using it is hardly unfair.

Nothing in the US today is what anyone could actually call Communist.

Completely agreed. So why do people use the word when it does not apply?

Are some of the policies proposed by the current administration Socialistic in nature? Yes.

Not at all. Very, very, very, very little in the US is Socialist. It is simply a word people like to use.

Could some of these policies create an economic crisis in the not-too-distant future? You bet.

Potentially. This is not a characteristic of Communism or Socialism, however.

It just seems you have presented a sort of "loaded" question, here.

They are only loaded if the person has no idea what they are talking about before talking.

 

[BoltNut]

Not really. Communism has some set definitional precepts. Expecting people to know the definition of a word before using it is hardly unfair.

No, it's not unfair to expect people to know what Communism is.

Completely agreed. So why do people use the word when it does not apply?

Probably to make a point using the most distasteful word they can think of. Kind of like calling conservatives Nazis, I guess. It is not the proper meaning of the word, but people use words like these to make their point in the most emphatic way they can, even though it's wrong. Once in a while someone, like yourself, calls them on it.

Not at all. Very, very, very, very little in the US is Socialist. It is simply a word people like to use.

As things sit today, you could say very little in the US is, in fact, Socialist. The Health Care program as proposed by the current administration as it is today, is not Socialist. In 2014 when the entire program kicks in, that would be as close as you can get to Socialized Medicine as you can get. I would say it would then be a Socialistic program. The welfare program is somewhat socialistic, though not entirely. Some would make a case that 'cap and trade' is somewhat socialistic. That has yet to pass, so we can't say it exists at this point. If that were to get through congress, I'd bet my bottom dollar that Obama would sign it into law.

What many people are afraid of, is that we are headed down a path that embraces Socialistic ideals. Not all are bad, necessarily, but when a nation gets too far down that path it's difficult to do a U-turn and get back out of it.

Potentially. This is not a characteristic of Communism or Socialism, however.

True, it isn't a characteristic of either. By getting to that point, however, with no way to cover the costs, it could result in hyperinflation. When that happens, it would seem the next likely steps would be toward more Socialism.

They are only loaded if the person has no idea what they are talking about before talking.

It just seemed that if anyone tried to actually "answer" your challenge, they were doomed before they got started. I agree with you that people throw around these words too easily. Many do it purposely. Many more do it because they don't see the subtle differences between the two systems.

 

[Edmund Burke]

No, it's not unfair to expect people to know what Communism is.

Thank you.

Probably to make a point using the most distasteful word they can think of. Kind of like calling conservatives Nazis, I guess. It is not the proper meaning of the word, but people use words like these to make their point in the most emphatic way they can, even though it's wrong. Once in a while someone, like yourself, calls them on it.

But that's the issue. The political discourse these days is eclipsed by people screaming words they do not understand. If you were to tell posters here they could not use the words Communist, Socialist, Fascist, MArxist, or some derivation thereof, they would stop posting all together, because they have nothing else to say.

As things sit today, you could say very little in the US is, in fact, Socialist. The Health Care program as proposed by the current administration as it is today, is not Socialist. In 2014 when the entire program kicks in, that would be as close as you can get to Socialized Medicine as you can get. I would say it would then be a Socialistic program.

How?

The welfare program is somewhat socialistic, though not entirely.

No, the government is not allocating resources or controlling an industry. This is not Socialism. Money from the government is not Socialist, thought it might not be good. I suppose you could call welfare an industry? I think you could make a good argument for that, in which case it might be somewhat socialistic, but it would depend on how you defined welfare.

Some would make a case that 'cap and trade' is somewhat socialistic.

No, the government is regulating resources, but not allocating them. It is relying on the free market to allocate the resources. This is not Socialism.

That has yet to pass, so we can't say it exists at this point. If that were to get through congress, I'd bet my bottom dollar that Obama would sign it into law.

I think it should. I think it is a Conservative program, it relies on a free market to develop alternatives by creating an incentive to do so. Additionally, it would tremendously boost industries like the Nuclear industry, which would be good for America. I can make a VERY good argument for Cap-and-Trade, using Conservative principles.

What many people are afraid of, is that we are headed down a path that embraces Socialistic ideals. Not all are bad, necessarily, but when a nation gets too far down that path it's difficult to do a U-turn and get back out of it.

But we are not. Nothing you mentioned was Socialist.

True, it isn't a characteristic of either. By getting to that point, however, with no way to cover the costs, it could result in hyperinflation. When that happens, it would seem the next likely steps would be toward more Socialism.

No, Socialism requires government money, and if there is no money, it is unlikely the government would try to allocate resources or control industries.

It just seemed that if anyone tried to actually "answer" your challenge, they were doomed before they got started.

Only if they did not know what socialism was.

I agree with you that people throw around these words too easily. Many do it purposely. Many more do it because they don't see the subtle differences between the two systems.

Quite possibly. I think in most cases it is the former, however.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The article has statements from socialists that "Obama is no socialist". They may be right. He could still be a Communist. I'm not saying he is, just pointing out that just because a Socialist denies that Obama is one of their own, means littl

I think it actually says a lot. And quite frankly, I'd be more likely to trust Socialists to identify other Socialists then I would Conservatives. It hardly seems fair to offend Socialists, even if you disagree with them, by portraying Obama, a person who does not represent them, as a prominent figure in modern Socialism. It's not just unfair, it's dishonest.

For the "far right" to say Obama acts like a socialist is really not too far off. Most of his policies are pretty far "left". Like the old saying, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,......". What makes the "right" nervous is more than just Obama being some kind of "closet Socialist", it's also the fact that many in Congress share the same opinions. Things look to them like the "closet" door is now open and many of these left leaning politicians are more open with their Utopian vision.

His policies only seem far left to those who are too far on the right. In reality, there is very little 'Socialism' in Obama's healthcare policy as it currently stands. What's more, he's done little to nothing that we'd expect an actual Socialist to do: like nationalising all major industries or otherwise turning them over to the workers. He hasn't abolished the Capitalist class. In fact, he's coddled them while attempting to appear like the champion of the ordinary man. You watch, the Obama Administration will come and go and nothing truly Socialist will have been implemented. Calling Obama a Socialist is nothing more than a dishonest ploy to devastate his reputation and portray him as the 'enemy of America's values'. There are better reasons to scrutinize the President than for political beliefs that people imagine he has.

I've actually met devout Marxists; the very same people that were planning to protest Obama's arrival in Australia, and their opinion of him is only subtly better than that of Bush! They still think he is yet another 'gear in the system', another 'Capitalist thug'.

 

[Skeptic90]

Why is communism so bad? Its just another political ideology. Seems like communism now is like calling someone a satanist. The only reason I see that we hate communism is because Russia was communist, and because they liked it, we must hate it. Its like two brothers disliking the others likes, just because the other brothers likes. Like because my enemy loves vanilla, I hate vanilla, chocolate is better.

I am no communist, or even close to that ideology. I have studied communism, but I reject the idea intellectually for logical reasons.

My question is why the stigmatization against communism in the culture at this day and age when Russia is no longer a treat?

 

[chaz345]

So you are telling me that the only thing Communist is the actual Communist Party, which has no power, holds no authority, and is an insignificant movement, but THIS is what has so many pseudo-Republicans terrified of a Red Revolution?

If holding power and authority and being a signficant number is what's required in order to need to be concerned about something then why the concern over racism? After all The KKK and other white supremicist groups have no power or authority and are insignficant numbers.

Now, I suspect you'll say "but that's different because many who identify with some racist ideas ARE in power". Which is exactly the point when it comes to communism.

 

[Edmund Burke]

If holding power and authority and being a signficant number is what's required in order to need to be concerned about something then why the concern over racism? After all The KKK and other white supremicist groups have no power or authority and are insignficant numbers.

Now, I suspect you'll say "but that's different because many who identify with some racist ideas ARE in power". Which is exactly the point when it comes to communism.

The KKK are a concern because they have active engaged in violence. In politics they are not a concern at all. David Duke was the last time I am aware of KKK affiliation being a concern in a political event.

Is anyone concerned that the KKK is taking over Washington politics? No.

Are people claiming Communists are taking over Washington politics? Yes.

It is a world of difference.

 

[chaz345]

Are people claiming Communists are taking over Washington politics? Yes.

I would absolutely agree that much of the current administration has a rather positive way of thinking about communistic/socialistic ideas. One only need look at their past and some of the things they've written to see that.

That they don't openly call themselves communist means nothing in terms of wether or not they embrace communist ideals though.

I agree that it's stupid and silly to attack based solely on slapping a communist/socialist label on people though, especially when it's so easy to show how the policies and ideas are likely to be an utter and complete disaster.

 

[Wolseley]

Why is communism so bad? Its just another political ideology. Seems like communism now is like calling someone a satanist. The only reason I see that we hate communism is because Russia was communist, and because they liked it, we must hate it. Its like two brothers disliking the others likes, just because the other brothers likes. Like because my enemy loves vanilla, I hate vanilla, chocolate is better.

I am no communist, or even close to that ideology. I have studied communism, but I reject the idea intellectually for logical reasons.

My question is why the stigmatization against communism in the culture at this day and age when Russia is no longer a treat?

Go live in North Korea for a couple of years, come back, and ask again.

Or even easier, go find some people who came here from Soviet Russia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Maoist China, or North Vietnam, and ask them why they left there to come here. Ask them if there's any difference between living there and living here, or if it's "just another political ideology".

 

[chaz345]

Go live in North Korea for a couple of years, come back, and ask again.

Or even easier, go find some people who came here from Soviet Russia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Maoist China, or North Vietnam, and ask them why they left there to come here. Ask them if there's any difference between living there and living here, or if it's "just another political ideology".

But, but, but those are not examples of "real" communism. The only problem with communism or socialism is that it's never been done with the right people in charge.
[/end sarcasm]

 

[BoltNut]

I think it actually says a lot. And quite frankly, I'd be more likely to trust Socialists to identify other Socialists then I would Conservatives. It hardly seems fair to offend Socialists, even if you disagree with them, by portraying Obama, a person who does not represent them, as a prominent figure in modern Socialism. It's not just unfair, it's dishonest.

All I am saying is that a Socialist looking at a Communist would say about the same thing as the one cited in your post. In theory, he's not identifing another socialist in this scenario. I'm playing "devils advocate" here, so don't get the impression that I think Obama is a Communist. I, personally, don't see Obama as a socialist or a communist. I see him as a bit of a "leftist". Take that for whatever it's worth, I just hate to label people. We are all more complex than any "label" people put on us.

His policies only seem far left to those who are too far on the right. In reality, there is very little 'Socialism' in Obama's healthcare policy as it currently stands. What's more, he's done little to nothing that we'd expect an actual Socialist to do: like nationalising all major industries or otherwise turning them over to the workers.

Actually, turning them over to the workers would be what a Communist would do, not a socialist. I don't consider myself to be "far" right, but I still see his policies as being pretty darn "far left". Socialism? No, that would be a little extreme.

He hasn't abolished the Capitalist class. In fact, he's coddled them while attempting to appear like the champion of the ordinary man. You watch, the Obama Administration will come and go and nothing truly Socialist will have been implemented. Calling Obama a Socialist is nothing more than a dishonest ploy to devastate his reputation and portray him as the 'enemy of America's values'. There are better reasons to scrutinize the President than for political beliefs that people imagine he has.

It's one thing to be a Socialist, and quite another to actually enact Socialist policies. A President cannot propose legislation. He can really only sign it or veto it. He can propose an idea and work to get it written up as a policy and then get someone in Congress to sponsor the bill, but that's about all he can do. With the Congress he has at present, it would be much easier for that to happen than if there were a Republican majority. What the President "believes" in his own mind, means little to me. He was elected by the people for whatever reason and there is nothing I can do to change that. I scrutinize all Presidents for what they do, or try to do, while in office. Personally, I don't believe the direction of this administration is in the best interest of the future of America. For the record, I wasn't crazy about the Bush administration either.

I've actually met devout Marxists; the very same people that were planning to protest Obama's arrival in Australia, and their opinion of him is only subtly better than that of Bush! They still think he is yet another 'gear in the system', another 'Capitalist thug'.

Of course a Marxist would say that. They are, basically, Communist and not Socialist. Anything short of handing everything over to the workers is unsatisfactory to them.