A
Al_Masetti
Guest
I would have but his invective against President George W. Bush required me to substantially edit Roberts’ remarks. In addition I added some bits of my own.
- Status
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Well, anybody wanting to read the original only has to copy any sentence out, pop it into google and read the whole thing in the original form - by far most your post is pure copy and paste.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
I hereby acknowledge that I have never been to either Chile or Argentina. And therefore had to rely on written material by others.
But then that applies to a lot of stuff … by me … and by others.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the history of struggles such as experienced by Chile and Argentina … and many other places … such as Vietnam … tend to ignore the ramp-up of events such as assassinations conducted by Communists that lead to societal instability.
And then, when the government reacts against the Communist violence ( explained away as mere “revolutionary exuberance against reactionaries and capitalist roaders” ), THEN all of a sudden, the left gets all outraged at the unprovoked response.
Pure Saul Alinsky.
I wrote this post without referring to stuff written by others.]
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Oh, I’m against anybody who does a copy and paste without attribution.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Style tells.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Then you must REALLY have it in for Media Matters.
Folks who are interested in debating with Communists would profit from reading these sources.
David Horowitz has written extensively on Saul Alinsky and Noam Chomsky and their tactics for disrupting democratic society.
amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134
amazon.com/Beat-Democrats-Other-Subversive-Ideas/dp/1890626503/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1
Horowitz also has a few things to say about George Soros who is bankrolling the Democrat playbook without which the MainStream Media would be mute and with which the MainStream Media betrays its sources … constantly using the same talking points … without attribution.
amazon.com/Shadow-Party-Hillary-Radicals-Democratic/dp/1595551034/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217721661&sr=1-3
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’m sure that reply means something in terms of a reply to my, laconic admittedly, observation that ‘style tells’ (ie suggesting that one can tell when something is ‘Al’ and when something is not).
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Not gonna bite.
Besides, now you have to read everything I post … and I type very fast.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Why - you done much debating with Communists? Oh, I forgot, liberals are Communists/Fascists to you, of course, but I mean old, hard-line Marxist-Leninists.
I really would like to hear your observations on the major themes of ‘The State and The Revolution’ or ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism’ - no I don’t mean a link to ‘Liberal-Commie-Nazi ate my hamster’.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
I agree. I cannot think of Communism simply in terms of political theory because the death toll of actual Communist regimes drowns out everything else.
Elsewhere on the forums is a discussion of the death penalty. It is believed that the place where executions are most prevalent is Communist China, but of course you can’t get the numbers from official sources.
For something that’s resulted in repressions, gulags, re-education camps, and millions dead wherever it’s been tried, I’m surprised it still has proponents anywhere.
S
Swan
Guest
This is, unfortunately, too true. And the problem with pointing out the “evils” of communism is that they will simply come back at you with the “evils” of capitalism - where every thing comes down to dollars and sense and where the “all mighty dollar” is the true god. Please not that my critique of capitalism is not a argument for communism. But the proof that money is more important than people in our society is impossible to ignore (IMO) so claiming that capitalism is the answer is disingenuous. What we need, IMO, is a new system, probably one that combines the good parts of other systems. But as long as human value is measured in dollars people are going to lose.
J
JimG
Guest
I thought we already had a new system. Neither of the major party candidates for president seems to me to advocate pure capitalism, and there are socialist aspects to our economy that are well embedded and will not likely be changed.What we need, IMO, is a new system, probably one that combines the good parts of other systems. But as long as human value is measured in dollars people are going to lose.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Yep. That is pretty much what I said a few posts back. The only thing the two major parties argue about is how much socialism is integrated with capitalism. The only party I know that believes in “pure capitalism” is the Libertarian Party and they will never become a major party because of their extreme position. A large majority of americans like having some controls on capitalism.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
Charity is a vital function of society. Aside from government relief programs, however, it belongs to the realm of individual volunteerism. A society based on the notion that everyone can be forced to be equally poor (Communism) is doomed to collapse. Individuals simply won’t work hard enough, over the course of their natural lives, down through generations, to realize such an abstract ideal and make their society a success. Human nature hinges on personal gain, especially with regard to materialism, like it or not. Moreover, Marxism’s war against individual liberty, especially that pertaining to freedom of religion, is criminal.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I wasn’t arguing for a Marxist state. My pet model is a European social democracy such as Denmark and Sweden. It seems to me that they have based their system of government on the ideals of Karl Popper.
And if you believe people do work for personal gain, why do you think charity and volunteerism will be effective at significantly reducing poverty? Because of this, I also believe that it would be more cost effective to sponsor liberal think tanks that care about reducing poverty than private charities as they will provide valuable ideas to help the poor.
M
mvinca
Guest
This is why capitalism must be balanced by Christianity. People in general may not be charitable, but Christians are. The freedom of capitalism encourages success. The love in Christianity encourages helping others to succeed as well. The “evils” in capitalism manifest themselves only when the society turns away from the Faith.This is, unfortunately, too true. And the problem with pointing out the “evils” of communism is that they will simply come back at you with the “evils” of capitalism - where every thing comes down to dollars and sense and where the “all mighty dollar” is the true god. Please not that my critique of capitalism is not a argument for communism. But the proof that money is more important than people in our society is impossible to ignore (IMO) so claiming that capitalism is the answer is disingenuous. What we need, IMO, is a new system, probably one that combines the good parts of other systems. But as long as human value is measured in dollars people are going to lose.
I realize this is OT from the OP, but it seemed to me the thread was OT already.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
Government lacks built-in accountability and is resistant to externally imposed accountability. Thus it is inefficient and notoriously liable to corruption. Private charity is uncentralized and therefore unable to insulate itself from all accountability, and therefore remains capable of mmeting needs without becoming corrupt or inefficient.
Also, government help is coercive. People tend to have pet causes, and do not want the money they had hoped to use to build a traffic island next to River Street Elementary taken from them and given to the effort to find a cure for congestive heart failure or v.v. They will see the taking of their money as a reason not to bother to earn that money or a reason to hide it. But people who get to decide for themselves who gets their money tend to give freely. And they also tend to work harder at earning said money, by producing things other people use, which increases the amount of useful stuff everyone has access to, reducing prices relative to pay. Charities that must ask people for money tend to work harder at becoming efficient and lovable to win the favor of donors, which makes them better charities.
Government help should be a safety net covering only what must be covered and is otherwise not covered – saving lives, as a supplement to private charity, not trying to prevent all unhappiness by itself.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Some Christians are, but I’m not sure the level of charity among Christians is higher than that of the general population.
As for debating with Communists, don’t bother. Theirs is a disproven ideology which has largely been relegated to the ashcan of history. A handful of communist governments exist, but the ones which haven’t embraced capitalism are sinking under their own weight.
I
Isambard
Guest
I don’t see how as most forms of christianity are socialist
Or if you follow the logic capitalism is based on
- Status