20.11.19.1012Th NAIVETE SEMANTICS: I wasn’t going to bother with answering this comment I received as it involves a great deal of naivete with a coating of semantics. I say this not to be insulting; but only to indicate the degree of indoctrinated devotion being expressed. But then the comments kept coming as if to indicate that agreeing to disagree wasn’t an option. And right there you have the essence of socialism

1. I know of no communist state that’s ever existed that wasn’t totalitarian – none.

2. I know of no communist state that’s ever existed that wanted to keep people out – none.

3. I know of no communist state that hasn’t resulted horrifically for its citizens - none.

4. Revolution is far from being some noble battle that every young person has the idea is their calling in life. Communist countries proclaim a revolution every few years just to get the poison out of the youth rather than themselves getting put out of the country.

5. A revolution is democratic vote by ballot or force of arms.

6. The United States is a democratic constitutional republic with an electoral college precisely to prevent Tyranny of the Majority – thanks to the wisdom of the founding fathers. When you hear someone advocating elimination of the electoral college in favor of nationwide majority vote you’re listening to someone advocating tyranny of the majority – which the founding fathers were totally against. The electoral college is a dispersion of power every bit as important as the rest of the “Checks & Balances” the founding fathers set in place to prevent centralized tyrannical power.

AN EXAMPLE: There once was an informal club or association called “The Baker Street Dozen.” Their rule for expulsion was a majority vote of the members. Now give that some thought – that’s tyranny of the majority. Do you really want that?

That would make 49% of the nations population subject to every whim of the other 51% - which, in our case, tend to live in huge clusters on either coast. Do you really want that?

7. In a democratic republic, such as The United States of America, citizens are free to vote even for their own demise; in a communist socialism citizens are free to vote for the communist party line - (that’s totalitarianism).

8. “There is no free lunch” ~ (Milton Friedman I think) in capitalism or communist socialism – it’s just that the later provides you with stolen lunches while the former doesn’t. In fact the later can cost thrice as much as the former. The person it’s stolen from pays once with their productivity, the person that it’s given to pays with their productivity (if they can or want to produce at all), and it’s payed for a third time by the surrender of the diners liberty to the state.

9. The voter rests supreme atop all these “Checks & Balances” only to be checked themselves by the constitution – yet once more to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You know, that piece of paper that had outlived its relevance and needed to be consigned to the paper shredder – Hillary Clinton.

I need to end this rant now short of answering all the semantics used to conceal the real question which is between liberty & servitude – it could go on at great length.

Posted by: mona rose Jul 6, 2013
“Star Spangled Banner As You've Never Heard It”

Communism is a naïve idea. (1) it's never actually been tried in its pure form; and (2) I don't believe that it would work anyway, in any sort of sustainable way; and (3) I don't believe that a communist revolution ever works the way that it is "supposed to", with a transition away from authoritarian rule by the leaders of the revolution to freedom and equality for all. That transition never seems to happen, human nature being what it is.

Countries that claim to be communist are a mixture of government and economic models, but I guess the classic model is Soviet Russia or North Korea. Stalinism. The state owns all the stuff, people work for the state, the state (incompetently in most cases) controls the economy centrally, opposition to the state is brutally suppressed.

The transition to communism has generally involved a population living in grinding poverty under an oppressive oligarchy or class system, and an ideologically driven group of revolutionaries who are able to convince enough of the population that communism is a good idea, often by making grand promises that have almost nothing to do with any form of actual communism. Or it can be imposed by an invader (North Korea, Eastern Europe between the end of WW2 and the fall of the Iron Curtain).

The best defence against Communism is a system that works to improve the lives of its citizens. Look at what happened throughout the First World (an outdated term, but appropriate here) after the end of WW2 and prior to the fall of the Soviet Empire and the end of the failed/disastrous communist experiment in Russia. We had decades of job security, improving living standards, prosperity. Look at what has happened since the end of Communism as an alternative to Capitalism, and the end of the need for that "defence". This is not a coincidence.

There are also more than 2 models. You don't have Stalinism and total free-market capitalism and nothing in between. There are a whole lot of variations involving democracy and freedom and some attempt to improve people's lives beyond a pure "winners and losers" mentality.