Why won't the nightmare dream of communism die?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
Monarchy, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Socialism and liberalism in general all have in common the political goal of a few controlling the many by means of a large centralized government.
Click to expand...
It seems to be a feature of any type of government system that isn’t anarchy. Even confederation requires a central body.
Why? Because the elite believe they know best, that their knowledge is superior to the collective knowledge of the uneducated masses.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that’s consistently true. A lot of the American founders had a disdain for direct plebiscite as well. “Mob rule” and so on…
The following (ironically ungrammatical) quote displays this dismissive and condescending attitude.
If you can’t see the real appeal of a political system then you’re not sufficiently educated enough to discuss it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My missing a comma seems to be the only thing you’re objectively correct about in your whole post. Bravo? I guess?

The quote somewhat makes the point that you seem to be trying to make about elitism. It takes a substantially elitist dolt and zealot to insist that communism has absolutely no merit as a system and thus a substantial portion of central and eastern Europeans from the 20th century were all categorically and unambiguously wrong about the matter.

This inanity seems to be what the unfortunate thread title is alluding to.
In summary, there are no perfect systems. But every system that has been advocated has some element present within it that makes the whole worthy of advocacy.

I’ll repeat: If you can’t identify this energizing element, then you’re not informed enough to critique the system.
 
Last edited:
Why do people who live in countries with “free” health care spend thousands of dollars to come to America for treatment?
 
Vonsalza said:
It seems to be a feature of any type of government system that isn’t anarchy. Even confederation requires a central body.
Click to expand...
No one argues for anarchy. As social beings living together, humans need institutions, i.e., governance. The government that governs least, governs best. All socialist or communist systems are necessarily “large” governments. As government expands its authority to regulate lives then government displaces the family as the proper authority. To wit:


How long till we see a “one child” law from these socialist elites?
Vonsalza said:
In summary, there are no perfect systems. But every system that has been advocated has some element present within it that makes the whole worthy of advocacy.
Click to expand...
No one argues that a perfect system of governance exists; only that communism is a nightmare having no element unique to itself that is admirable. The communist premise that man exists for the state inverts Catholic values; no good can come from that mistake. Liberals have and will continue to attack the family. Conservatives read into this liberal promotion “It takes a village to raise a child” the prologue to that obscene Canadian law above.
Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
CENTESIMUS ANNUS p 48
Click to expand...
 
Hey, maybe you guys would like a comic book written by Catholics back in 1947: Is This Tommorow? America under communism! It’s a classic Cold War old timer and I loved it
 
Because medical supplies and medication has been jacked up so high to make as much profit as possible these companies in their greed destroy the systems. If you look at some of the cost for medications its absolutely ridiculous and nothing more than greed. Some are just greed at the cost of lives and the destruction of families A good example in the States is pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of the market is sudifed - the company that owns this has lobbied and continue to flood the market with the product knowing full well it is being used for meth and produce it at the levels needed to keep up with the underground meth market - why is it on the market? There are other medications that do the same thing. I imagine its the same with Oxycontin the more addicts the more profit that can be made, The is the biggest flaw in the free market system - greed - at the cost of lives and families.The system does not work if people are going to be greedy.
 
And why countries like Canada have US citizens hopping over the border to use their 'free healthcare which isn’t free its paid for by tax. I’d rather do it that way that be landed with a large bill if I needed A&E.
 
Not if you had an injury requiring special care, were in pain, and had to wait 6 months before they’d do anything.

Universal health care is a terrible policy for the poor and everyone else.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Why? Because the elite believe they know best, that their knowledge is superior to the collective knowledge of the uneducated masses.
Click to expand...
I’d say they’re right. Democracy is a failure.
 
Most of the stuff that’s being said here about communism is based on a Cold War caricature of communism. It isn’t an accurate summary of the communist movement or capitalism as it existed in countries such as the USSR and PRC.

Communism isn’t management of capital by the state. It’s the total abolition of capital, along with exchange, wage labour, the state and private property. It’s a society of individual producers associating freely, a society in which the individual and humanity has total control over their social relations. Capitalism is a society in which man is controlled by forces external to him, where man’s social relations are mediated by commodities and the state. Communism is a society in which humans will form relations between each other directly and consciously, rather than being controlled by these abstractions.
 
JimG said:
And yet, nearly everybody manages to have a cell phone or an iphone, which are not necessities of life.

As to medical care, I can say that Medicare has changed me from a patient to a product. That’s why there are all the ads for Medicare Advantage plan providers and Medigap policies. As long as the government is paying for it, I am merely a product to be fought over for market share. DPC physicians are a different story.
Click to expand...
Eh, that’s pretty much what I felt like with private healthcare - I was a product, and an annoying one at that, that someone had to be forced to deal with and tried their hardest not to.

As far as cell phones - they really are a necessity of staying employed now. Land lines aren’t standard in cheap housing anymore. I don’t think I even have a phone jack anywhere in mine, so if I don’t have a cell phone that means I have no phone access at all. I think you can imagine how well a job would take that, or what it would be like trying to look for one. Pretty sure I’d get fired fast for no-call no-show, since I can’t call in.

They’re also not nearly as expensive as people think. I can get a cheap smartphone for $20. Currently I own an iphone 4, which is probably worth less than that. There’s pay as you go plans where you only pay for what you use that can be pretty cheap.
 
How would you respond to the claim that any care, even substandard care is better than no care at all? While, there are people who may be careless, there are people in difficult if not desperate situations. Yes, we have the ER, but can the ER help someone with a chronic or complex condition, particularly one in need of follow up, aftercare and support?

On the other hand, an argument could be made that there are distortions in the health care market, many workers and households like their employee-sponsored plan, yet many may have tax credits to thank for that. Perhaps in an another time, when job anxieties weren’t as prevalent, the employment-based model may have worked YET people in need of health care like the disabled and sick, aren’t they less likely and able to work, therefore unable to benefit from said model. We have Medicaid but it doesn’t appear to be a fallback for everyone.

If I could ask you specifically, what solutions could you see for those between a rock and a hard place? I’m keen on community health centers, what about you?
 
Hurry get to our schools and places of higher education and broadcast this… the children and students (and teachers) should know this. Very well said, IMHO!
🏆
 
DarkLight said:
There is no government without force - government is fundamentally the recognition that some form of coercion must be used to ensure a just society.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with this. People have to agree to have government. They are not forced…
It is necessary when there are large numbers of people and people decide they need rules to help them get along. THEN, comes in a duly elected government that works (supposedly) for the good of the people… It is a TRADE to try to live peacefully…
 
RCIAGraduate said:
How would you respond to the claim that any care, even substandard care is better than no care at all?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking and in response to this question, if someone is Catholic, good luck defending these bumper sticker slogans before God.

“What talents have you brought me”
RCIAGraduate said:
On the other hand, an argument could be made that there are distortions in the health care market, many workers and households like their employee-sponsored plan, yet many may have tax credits to thank for that. Perhaps in an another time, when job anxieties weren’t as prevalent, the employment-based model may have worked YET people in need of health care like the disabled and sick, aren’t they less likely and able to work, therefore unable to benefit from said model. We have Medicaid but it doesn’t appear to be a fallback for everyone.
Click to expand...
Free market health care irons out all of those concerns. We don’t have free market system. Haven’t for decades.
 
Last edited:
petra22 said:
I don’t agree with this. People have to agree to have government. They are not forced…

It is necessary when there are large numbers of people and people decide they need rules to help them get along. THEN, comes in a duly elected government that works (supposedly) for the good of the people… It is a TRADE to try to live peacefully…
Click to expand...
Eh, I mean, you can’t just decide “I’m not going to sign on to the government” and then run around lighting things on fire and deciding you’re exempt from punishment because you didn’t agree to the punishment. And I think most of us agree that is a very good thing that you can’t. Silly example, but it makes the point.

I do think that government broadly ought to have the agreement of the governed, but I also recognize that you just can’t have a government if your neighbor can decide to opt out. There was a fire department discussion in another thread - if the point is to stop big fires from spreading in a city, I can’t let my neighbor opt out of his share because him opting out endangers me.
 
Because on paper it seems like utopia.
In my opinion Jesus seems like a communist. Communism in principle isn’t bad. It just is never carried out in a good way because of human nature.
 
It’s been a very long time since I read the encyclical “Rerum Novarum.” But if I am recalling correctly I think it called not only for a living wage but for the ability to own private individual and inheritable property—in other words, the right of private ownership.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top