Is it America's job to "run the world"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vonsalza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
starshiptrooper said:
Anyone can have all the communist ideas that they want. Trying to lead others astray with them is evil and should be dealt with.
Click to expand...
You are only saying this because you have an overreactive fear of communism. But the bottom line is, most people would only find communism appealing because of poverty. The worse the poverty is, the more appealing communism sounds, and while i am not an expert when it comes to history, communism seems to win over minds were the majority of people were living in undesirable situations and therefore susceptible to communist ideals. Am i wrong?

Maybe attacking communism and becoming a totalitarian state in the process isn’t the best way to go about discouraging others from communism. Maybe we should spend more of our time attacking the root of the problem, like the growing chasm between the rich and the poor, and the lack of opportunity for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum.

But i guess people would rather lose their minds over communism. It might even be a good excuse to ignore the real problem.
 
Last edited:
I’ve seen its ugly face firsthand. Trust me. It looks good to no one but the elites in charge of it.
 
What too many people fail to understand when it comes to the ism of government is that most of those ism belong on the left. You can have 100% government down to 0% government. For the purpose of this post I am going to included Capitalism as an ism. There is also Communism, Fascism, Anarchism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism. Now there is many more isms but those are more of a political belief than a political system. Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, and Socialism will at some time be at 100% government. Anarchism is at the other side 0% government. Now both of these are equally bad. But so many liberals seem to want to go much more towards the 100%.
 
It’s ugly for the people living under those particular regimes,. Regardless of the success or failure of communist type systems Catholicism rejects communism because it involves the rejection of private property.and accepts the kind of redistribution efforts that undermines the dignity of ownership.

But this is all besides the point. The concept of Communism exists only as a response to a real problem. Regardless of whether or not it succeeds or that others have used it to support tyranny, the problem still exists nonetheless. It seems that first world countries like America refuse to provide an answer that represents the needs of everyone, and that’s why this problem keeps perpetuating itself and getting worse.

People are using the threat of communism as a smoke screen to avoid addressing the real problem, basically saying you’re better off where you are because communism is worse.
 
Last edited:
It’s not illegal to be a communist in the US. The Communist Party USA has been around since 1919 and has run presidential candidates in many but not all elections.

(Not that I am recommending their platform. I would recommend reading The Black Book of Communism.)
 
TheOldColonel said:
“The poor will always be with you.”

Quote -Jesus of Nazareth
Click to expand...
For a reason. Not because God wants it that way…

Poverty will always be with us because we are selfish.

What upsets me is that people will use a verse like that as an excuse for corruption and do nothing about it. When in fact it will always be our responsibility to eradicate poverty even though God knows that we never will,. And it’s not because it’s impossible. That’s what makes it worse…
 
Last edited:
TheOldColonel said:
Please, tell us a Communist success story.
Click to expand...
It always depends on what you call “success”.

If success is the generation of a perpetually sustainable society, then the socialist regimes of today (I’ll leave whether you can actually call any of them “communist” up to you) beat the pants off of our beloved consumerist capitalism that we westerners love so much.

For those in the elites, these regimes are tremendous success stories.
For the bottom classes, no so much.

I find this reality persists in any form of government…
 
Circumstance establishes poverty. Personal choices acceptsand maintain it or rejects it. The impoverished individual is hardly inert in the matter.
 
TheOldColonel said:
Circumstance establishes poverty. Personal choices acceptsand maintain it or rejects it. The impoverished individual is hardly inert in the matter.
Click to expand...
Neither can you think of a persons choices and circumstances as existing in a vacuum. Their choices is a response to society and the system that governs it. While poor choices can make you poor, that does not mean that society is their with open arms with a solution or an opportunity. The Market place is driven by competition and its brutal. That’s why we need taxation and legislation that supports the common good because otherwise a large number of people would die. The Market place cannot provide security for everyone.
 
General prosperity always supports the common good. Surely, this basic concept is not foreign to you.
 
TheOldColonel said:
Did you mean to avoid the topic of Liberty in you analysis?
Click to expand...
As modern democracies and their nebulous understanding of “liberty” are only a few centuries old, the concept seems to be largely irrelevant to the successful function of society over a quarter million years of human history.
 
When i see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, i find that hard to believe.
 
Vonsalza said:
40.png
TheOldColonel:
Did you mean to avoid the topic of Liberty in you analysis?
Click to expand...
As modern democracies and their nebulous understanding of “liberty” are only a few centuries old, the concept seems to be largely irrelevant to the successful function of society over a quarter million years of human history.
Click to expand...
Tribalism, for good or bad, was rather socialist.
 
If your proposing we take from the rich and give to the poor, it’s a rather Stallinist idea. Don’t you agree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top