Political Argument Arena!!!

[JaredSS07]

Incorrect. Communism was never antithetical to capitalism. The term you are probably looking for, being antithetical to capitalism, is Socialism.

You are correct that Communism does advocate a redistribution of wealth, but not equally.

Communism presupposes not a "levelling of the playing" field, but upending it in favor of the Proletariat, or worker to the detriment of the Bourgeousie, or ruling class, by forcing the Bourgeousie to become a member of the Proletariat

Socialism on the other hand recommends that redistribution of wealth must be done with equality to all classes and that profit must be shared to maximum effectiveness with all interests equally. On this point it is antithetical to Capitalism, which basically is all about self accumulation of wealth or capital.

Chavez is a Socialist/Stalinist/Dictator who advocates redistributing wealth to the Proletariat at the expense of the Bourgeousie, but doing it equally without removing the ruling class. He just wants to reign them in and uses the Proletariat to keep himself in power.

He likens himself to Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara with a bit of Daniel Ortega thrown in for good, clean megalomanical fun.

Communism is an extention of Socialism. By implication, Communism would be antithetical to Capitalism.

There are few, if any, cases where McCarthy was responsible for identifying a person, or removing a person from a sensitive government position, where later evidence has increased the likelihood that that person was a Communist or a Soviet agent.

The only tenous link to this would be thru Movement Conservative revisionist history citing the reports on Venona Project Intercepts, (a US and UK Military intelligence collaboration that intercepted Soviet messages from 1943 that was unknown to the broader governments of said countries) but these are hardly unbiased and broadly discredited as the implication that all 349 persons identified in the intercepts had a witting covert relationship with Soviet intelligence is unproven. For example, in some cases the individual may have been an unwitting information source or a prospect for future recruitment by Soviet intelligence and not an actual Communist or Communist agent.

Venona is controversial, but I wouldn't say "broadly discredited" (unless you are only ready stuff that reflects your own world view). Nicholas von Hoffman, hardly a conservative, has written that McCarthy was more correct than he is given credit for. I would never claim all 350, were in a covert relationship, but it is doubtful they were all innocent.



You all should read more, and read more of the stuff that does not reflect your own world view or reinforce your opinions....and drink lots of flouridated water...:)

You should not make assumptions about my reading habits or the type of water I drink. However, if you would like to send me some, I prefer the bottled Fiji water.

[mplsTOON]

Communism is an extention of Socialism. By implication, Communism would be antithetical to Capitalism.

Marx specifically delineated the differences between Socialism and Communism. In the pure form Communism is a practical and meaningful act with an end resulting being a perpetual utopia for the participants. It is an act with and end result being a social system...

Socialism like Capitalism by contrast is a system and never has an end and constantly evolves depending on other forces acting on it. which is why a Communist country calls it self a "Socilaist Republic" rather than a Communist Proletariat.

A good example in a capitalist system would be a monopoly.

Venona is controversial, but I wouldn't say "broadly discredited" (unless you are only ready stuff that reflects your own world view).

Much of it speculation and educated guesses that nobody can accurately say "yes they were actively engaged in espionage." Those that were on the list and have been proven guilty of espionage have been proven guilty by information outside of Venona and that Venona reports often contradicts.

Its much like saying that since you are on a mailing list for Big Soccer.com you are a supporter of S*nderland FC. yes there may be collusion to the fact that you have spoken to a Mackem, but that collusion was not witting meaning you were not providing support for the Sad Mackem Bastards.

the only things not discredited about Venona, post mortem, was that it would have made McCarthy's purges more difficult and disastrous due to the the shear amount of paranoia and misinformation it would have created.

Nicholas von Hoffman, hardly a conservative, has written that McCarthy was more correct than he is given credit for.

I do not believe anyone disputes his view that there were communists in America, people tend to dispute how much of an infiltration or conspiracy it was...

that is unless you are Ann Coulter or William F. Buckley (and I do not believe I equated the two, or gave one, a Ms Coulter, props enough to be used in the same sentence as William F. Buckley--My favorite Conservative writer BTW)

You should not make assumptions about my reading habits or the type of water I drink. However, if you would like to send me some, I prefer the bottled Fiji water.

Good for you! Saves that American Essence...All in jest BTW...Have you seen "Dr Strangelove?" According to Gen. Ripper, Flouridated water is part of a Communist conspiracy in America and this conspiracy's goal is to pollute our our juices, or essences, that make us Manly Americans....seemed a fitting little snark for this conversation...:p

[JaredSS07]

Good for you! Saves that American Essence...All in jest BTW...Have you seen "Dr Strangelove?" According to Gen. Ripper, Flouridated water is part of a Communist conspiracy in America and this conspiracy's goal is to pollute our our juices, or essences, that make us Manly Americans....seemed a fitting little snark for this conversation...:p

The best line is "Well boys I reckon this is it - nuclear combat, toe to toe, with the ruskies."

Gotta take out those commie bastards.

[mplsTOON]

The best line is "Well boys I reckon this is it - nuclear combat, toe to toe, with the ruskies."

Gotta take out those commie bastards.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here!

This is the WAR ROOM!!!

[BayernWake]

God I hate Ann Coulter.

Nietzsche, now that is a good read. Are you doing general philosophy courses on him right now or what?

1) Yeah, she blows.
2) We had to read a bit of Nietzsche for our Introduction to Graduate Studies in German class, which is basically a survey course on various important figures in the realm of German literary science.

[JaredSS07]

1) Yeah, she blows.
2) We had to read a bit of Nietzsche for our Introduction to Graduate Studies in German class, which is basically a survey course on various important figures in the realm of German literary science.

In one of my last philosophy classes I did a paper about how much Nietzsche still pervades our culture. All of my professor's didn't like him, so it was basically an apology of his works.

[ToonUSA]

What are we, in the 50's? Implying that people are communists? Give me a break.
He implied it himself. I just wanted clarification.

To answer your "implication" no I'm not a communist. I just hate when people throw that word around out of ignorance. I'm anti ignorance.
Ignorance? Are you implying I didn't know exactly what I was doing when I typed that word? Jared actually answered my point on this.

And if you just wanted to ask if he were a communist, you would've simply asked, "are you a communist?" But no, you wrote, "what are you, a communist?" which has a COMPLETELY different connotation. It REEKS of McCarthyism.
It was more of a backhanded rhetorical question. I knew he was a communist or at least a communist sympathizer from his posts. I just wanted him to own up to it.

[ToonUSA]

Lone conservative? Just because I don't debate issues non-stop, doesn't mean I am not a conservative. I just do it all day at work and have no desire to do it in my free time.

Apologies, I hadn't the slightest that I wasn't flying solo here. (as is the case on most of the site)

[BayernWake]

Ignorance? Are you implying I didn't know exactly what I was doing when I typed that word?

Yes, only because a lot of people haphazardly throw around the word "communist" whenever someone even comes close to criticizing capitalism.

[ToonUSA]

Where's Colin? Got a response?

[colinh9]

Where's Colin? Got a response?

Sorry, I've been real busy with school work(finals week) but I will take some time today to read through what I've missed.

[JaredSS07]

Yes, only because a lot of people haphazardly throw around the word "communist" whenever someone even comes close to criticizing capitalism.

This is a new branch for discussion... and a real question because I never studied much economic theory.

Outside of communism, socialism, and capitalism how many economic systems have been tried and are currently in practice?

[BayernWake]

This is a new branch for discussion... and a real question because I never studied much economic theory.

Outside of communism, socialism, and capitalism how many economic systems have been tried and are currently in practice?

Buuhhh....those are the three main ones in civilized societies I think.

mplstoon would know for sure.

All the other economic systems I know are dead (e.g. feudalism)...

[JaredSS07]

Vuitton-clad official spouts socialism. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071214/od_nm/luxury_dc_1)

This is classic.

[mplsTOON]

This is a new branch for discussion... and a real question because I never studied much economic theory.

Outside of communism, socialism, and capitalism how many economic systems have been tried and are currently in practice?

Hmmm if you condsider and example of what the fook they are doing here-er-there in China, which is a convenient blend of socialism, Free market economics and good old fashioned oligarchy and graft I would safely say ....

I have no clue.

Every economic system precludes that its the utopian solution to accumulating something, be it wealth, food, stuff, bitches, Bling, Pokemon cards or those bad paper maché Piñata's you get at the US/Mexican border in TJ.

so any "system" who purpose and goal is the accumulation of something would count.

Stealing included.

Buuhhh....those are the three main ones in civilized societies I think.

mplstoon would know for sure.

:confused:
Yeeeaah, you may want to remove the "for sure" from the above statement. FWIW you give me WAAAAAY to much credit BTW.

Just a bit of Google, a few 400 level PolySci classes taught by Leftists and Free marketeers, and the observation of having to spend eight weeks a year in China watching the Chinese School everyone in how to make the free market work and make a few bajillion RMB doing so.

[BayernWake]

:confused:
Yeeeaah, you may want to remove the "for sure" from the above statement. FWIW you give me WAAAAAY to much credit BTW.

Sorry, I was just assuming you were the resident economic system expert. Since every message board has one, of course.

[colinh9]

What would the term socialist have made you feel better? It's the same thing when you dress it down. The problem with a system that wants everyone to be equal puts a cap on the human capacity to evolve and compete. Why is the US the most innovative nation on the face of the earth? Why do we create the best technology, medicine, and businesses? Capitalism is why. In Communism (or Socialism if it makes you feel better) what motivation do people have to work as hard as they can to make a new, more innovative product? That's right none. Capitalism has been saving lives for centuries.


Hey look, with the way the world is, there is no way everyone could exist equally in peace. What I want is a world that is more fair, that doesn't have the majority living on less than a dollar a day, where children constantly starve, are threatened by the idea they could be used as child soldiers etc. Is it idealist? Of course. Is it reasonable? In some respects yes, in some no. But what can be done is changes towards the better, and that is the what I want. I'm all for capitalism, but there has to be restraints.


These are the people who want handouts. How did most of the big businesses in the US get started? By immigrants who came here with barely any money.


Look, this is not always entirely true. Take the railroads here, these people who made millions of dollars were given major handouts by our government. Big business in this country is hugely favored. It's been a government for the rich, by the rich from the start. You cannot sit here and really argue that everyone has an equal opportunity in life.


He's making a ton of friends? Like who? The King of Spain just told him to shut up the other day so I don't know how many friends he's making? Are you referring to Cuba and Bolivia or do you have others?


A lot of Latin America and South america because of the cheap oil he is providing, and the foreign aid he is providing. It's more of us losing friends in that area. President Bush has not done anything for the people in these areas, and I just don't think its the right policy. For me you make more friends providing aid, then you do waging a silly war on drugs.


How is that an unthinkable number? How's this source for that number? Finally gonna admit it?


http://www.libforall.org/background-islamic-diversity.html

And no, radical Islam has not stemmed from this administration's policies Colin. 9/11 wasn't a result of the Bush administration's policies. Nor was it the cause of the take over of the US embassy in Tehran, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, or the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. Need any more?
[quote]

That was a stupid quote on my part. I'm not saying that radical Islam has directly stemmed from this administrations policies. I'm not saying that all the terrorist attacks were the fault of this administration. What I am saying though, is that this administration has only added to the anti-US sentiment world-wide, that it is only adding to the terrorists momentum. Anti-Us sentiment has come about though through our stupidity in foreign policy.

[quote]
What did those bombings do? Absolutely nothing. Would have been better off creating a comprehensive plan to go in there and root out the terrorist cells. Clinton also made the mistake of letting Pakistan know when we had the location of Osama Bin Laden inside Afghanistan and were gonna take him out. They warned Pakistan who then in turn warned Bin Laden who then escaped before we bombed them.


Well I agree that the bombings were a catastrophe, and I also agree that he had a chance to take out Osama and failed. He should have gotten Osama, but I don't think he should have taken a major offensive on a country.



Our sanctions cost the lives? No, their dictator sacrificed their lives. And you don't have a more concrete number than 100,000-1 million? I mean, there's a big difference between those numbers. Hell, you got a link while you are at it? Also, are these civilian deaths caused directly by US military personnel or just those civilians who have died?


Yup, our sanctions caused by their dictator cost lives. But Iraqis see our sanctions and see it hurting the common man of Iraq. They saw our sanctions costing that many lives. 100,000-1 million are estimated by many different outlets. I've seen as low as 100k and as high as 1 million, which was the Guardian who did a house to house survey. The reason I didn't put out a concrete number is; I'm not going to look like an ass because nobody can truly figure out how many civilian deaths there were. No matter the number, its a lot. It's also impossible to figure out which deaths were caused by US military personnel or by other reasons. Either way, the typical Iraqi is going to attribute these deaths to our military.


Really? Freedom seems like a nice thing they've gotten out of the invasion. Also, the ousting of the oppressive dictator. Why don't you ask the women of Iraq who they preferred in power?

Freedom? Freedom to do what? Imagine how scared you'd be as an Iraqi right now. Sure, in 10-20 years if everything goes optimally it will be a lot better than it was under Saddam. But at the moment, there is less running water, less electricity and less health care. I'd have to go back and read over some more things, but there are other situations that are a lot worse at the moment.


Well, I'm not most Conservatives. I just am not dumb enough to think they had no idea what was going on. Just me though. And you don't think we went into Iraq to oust Saddam? If not a dictator/tyrant what would you call him? My point wasn't that we only went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but that was a good thing to have come out of it.


Look, getting rid of Saddam is a fantastic thing. He was a tyrant for sure, and the world is a much better place without him. That just isn't the reason we went in there, at all. It had very, very little to do with it.

You got a link that supports him denying it was a genocide?


Oh come on!

Absolutely I support US military intervention in Darfur. Now, I'm not talking a full scale invasion as we did in Iraq. Maybe sending some troops to help train some locals would be a good start.

Well at least we agree on something.





I apologize for taking such a long time to respond. I hope you aren't done with this debate, and it looks like we have a separate thread to talk about this election, which has just given me a major hope :D

[ToonUSA]

A lot of Latin America and South america because of the cheap oil he is providing, and the foreign aid he is providing. It's more of us losing friends in that area. President Bush has not done anything for the people in these areas, and I just don't think its the right policy. For me you make more friends providing aid, then you do waging a silly war on drugs.
Which countries inparticular was my question.

That was a stupid quote on my part. I'm not saying that radical Islam has directly stemmed from this administrations policies. I'm not saying that all the terrorist attacks were the fault of this administration. What I am saying though, is that this administration has only added to the anti-US sentiment world-wide, that it is only adding to the terrorists momentum. Anti-Us sentiment has come about though through our stupidity in foreign policy.
Of course it has added, but it's never easy to do what's right. Stupidity? What's "stupid" about what we've done?


Yup, our sanctions caused by their dictator cost lives. But Iraqis see our sanctions and see it hurting the common man of Iraq. They saw our sanctions costing that many lives. 100,000-1 million are estimated by many different outlets. I've seen as low as 100k and as high as 1 million, which was the Guardian who did a house to house survey. The reason I didn't put out a concrete number is; I'm not going to look like an ass because nobody can truly figure out how many civilian deaths there were. No matter the number, its a lot. It's also impossible to figure out which deaths were caused by US military personnel or by other reasons. Either way, the typical Iraqi is going to attribute these deaths to our military.
How do you know what the Iraqis think about our sanctions? Have you personally spoken with them? There are alot of casualties no doubt, and it's unfortunate but I wouldn't throw out a number where the +- ratio is 900K. Doesn't help your credibility one bit.


Freedom? Freedom to do what? Imagine how scared you'd be as an Iraqi right now. Sure, in 10-20 years if everything goes optimally it will be a lot better than it was under Saddam. But at the moment, there is less running water, less electricity and less health care. I'd have to go back and read over some more things, but there are other situations that are a lot worse at the moment.
Scared to what? Violence is down by a large margin in Iraq as of today. What are they scared of exactly? Worse? No, things are not worse than being an 8 year old and witnessing your father beaten and your mother and sisters taken away by Saddam's goon squad.


Look, getting rid of Saddam is a fantastic thing. He was a tyrant for sure, and the world is a much better place without him. That just isn't the reason we went in there, at all. It had very, very little to do with it.
Very little? While it wasn't the main reason Bush cited it definitely played a large role.


Oh come on!
Still waiting on that link.

[Howard Zinn]

I agree, but really Keegan only wants the best for the club I blame the incompetents running the whole show. I don't care if you made billions selling shirts and hats you still don't know shit about running a football team let alone the 14th richest one in the world.

How have you been Zinn? Who are you backing in the elections this year?


I've been ballertastic, as they say in my hood.

I'm backing no one in this election because I'm still bitter about '04. I was going to vote Colbert if he actually showed up on any ballots, but alas, the man brought Stephen down. :(

Do you have Seattle MLS fever yet? ;)

[BayernWake]

Zinn...you do know Colbert was never serious about running for president? Not only because he'd never win...but because he has absolutely no interest in a political career.

And you'd really vote for someone who has 0 political experience? I love Colbert, I think he's brilliant. But I'd never vote for him for president. Luckily he's going to stay a comedian, so I'll never have to make that decision.

Morever, how is KK a lunatic? If you're referring to his infamous interview...it's not his fault SAF is a dick. Natural reaction.