The answer is a communist party

[Shad]

That sounds a little silly compared to your "immigration policies", doesn't it?

There is no comparison to be made here. More so I doubt you know what my immigration policies are.

I just provided an alternative instead of bloodshed

 

[Shad]

This is true but this was also a corner stone in progressive ideals in that time because it addressed the tax resistance in Judea. It also shows us first hand how a progressive rabbi indirectly promoted secular ideals of separation of church and state. such philosophies at least in popular history was unheard of during his time in that era.

Said rabbi was a source of divine right of Kings not secular government.

The tax issues is not as your presented. Jesus was mocking the Priests as the coins they had were Roman and inscribed with Roman Gods namely Augustus and his claim to divinity. The Priest's masters were Rome not God. More so theologically everything is God's thus nothing is due or is Caesar's.

 

[Anthem]

There is no comparison to be made here. More so I doubt you know what my immigration policies are.

I just provided an alternative instead of bloodshed

Well you arent answering me about them in the other thread.......

 

[Shad]

Well you arent answering me about them in the other thread.......

From what I see of your posts you never asked me. So I can not answer a question never asked.

*I could have missed it when I was inactive on the weekend. Old alerts are buried and dropped from the log especially if there are a lot. Post something in the other thread regarding your question(s) and I will answer.

 

[suncowiam]

In theory Communism should work. BUT inevitably the leaders of the country abuse their powers hence it fails.

Anything in "theory" should work...

How many more failed experiments does the world need to prove communism doesnt work.

 

[dfnj]

That's it. They need a communist party in US.

What else could turn things around for the real people (not the internet trolls)?

Marx has some good things to say about the problems with capitalism:

Any fool can appreciate what Marx is saying has some truth in it.

 

[Stevicus]

The emergent properties are simpler though,
eg, famine, oppression.

It depends on which form of communism we're talking about, whether it's Obama communism, JFK communism, FDR communism, MLK communism (all of whom accused of communism by the right at one time or another, but no recorded famines).

 

[Revoltingest]

It depends on which form of communism we're talking about, whether it's Obama communism, JFK communism, FDR communism, MLK communism (all of whom accused of communism by the right at one time or another, but no recorded famines).

It's silly to say "Obama communism".
Look at the most appropriate attempts....USSR, PRC, N Korea, Cuba.

 

[Woberts]

Lenin was imo the most interesting as it pertains to communist ideology.

However I'll never understand why Stalinism was embraced by the Soviets as opposed to Leninism.

We know how history turned out with Stalin as with just about any communist regime out there.

They did both, actually.
Lenin was the founder of the Soviet Union, after all.

 

[Woberts]

It's silly to say "Obama communism".

I think that's the point.

 

[Stevicus]

It's silly to say "Obama communism".
Look at the most appropriate attempts....USSR, PRC, N Korea, Cuba.

If we were discussing the histories of those particular countries, then that would be appropriate.

If we're talking about possibilities in contemporary US politics, then what's more appropriate is how Americans look at communism and the propensity to use guilt by association.

That was the hallmark of the McCarthy years and is still evident in more recent trends to associate "socialism" with "communism" and to try to label various liberal (and far from socialist) politicians in that manner.

From a capitalist standpoint, anything to the left of Barry Goldwater is a "communist," so if we're going to widen the field to such a degree, then anything is fair game.

 

[Revoltingest]

From a capitalist standpoint, anything to the left of Barry Goldwater is a "communist,"....

This capitalist finds that claim to be mere histrionics.
Are you "widening the field" so as to avoid addressing
the USSR, PRC, & K Korea?

 

[Twilight Hue]

They did both, actually.
Lenin was the founder of the Soviet Union, after all.

From my understanding Lenin and Stalin didn't exactly see eye-to-eye.

 

[Stevicus]

This capitalist finds that claim to be mere histrionics.
Are you "widening the field" so as to avoid addressing
the USSR, PRC, & K Korea?

Not at all. I'm just addressing the proper context as it's relevant to contemporary U.S. politics.

What happened in those other countries is a historical matter which I've had no problem discussing, but I just don't see how they're relevant to discussing possible solutions to problems facing America in the here and now.

I realize the point you're trying to make, so I'm not really avoiding it. You're suggesting (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that because of what happened in the USSR, PRC, Korea, etc., it means that if any form of communism or socialism is implemented in America, the same horrible things will happen in America.

I get that. I understand that. But I just don't think anything like that could happen in America, even if we did implement some socialistic elements into our political/economic system. We've already done that anyway to some degree, although many capitalists complain about that.

And if you want to talk about histrionics, when people who advocate for simple fairness in the economic system are automatically knee-jerk associated with the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, that's histrionics.

 

[Revoltingest]

And if you want to talk about histrionics, when people who advocate for simple fairness in the economic system are automatically knee-jerk associated with the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, that's histrionics.

FWIW, I know that people who advocate socialism or communism don't want
mass murder, famine or oppression. They believe that their agenda can be
implemented without the usual side effects we see in history. Our primary
disagreement is about the probability of those consequences recurring.

 

[Stevicus]

FWIW, I know that people who advocate socialism or communism don't want
mass murder, famine or oppression. They believe that their agenda can be
implemented without the usual side effects we see in history. Our primary
disagreement is about the probability of those consequences recurring.

I think the probability is quite low, since these are different times we live in, and we're a different country than Russia or China, which have always had authoritarian, repressive governments in one form or another.

America is different, although there's a possibility that we could descend into chaos if we're not careful. I don't think this will mean America will turn communist (it'll likely be just the opposite).

My only point here would be to say that some moderate forms of socialism could be implemented in order to prevent the further deterioration of the social order. A revolution from above would be far preferable to a revolution from below, which gets pretty bad - as you pointed out in your examples.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the probability is quite low, since these are different times we live in, and we're a different country than Russia or China, which have always had authoritarian, repressive governments in one form or another.

Nah....communism is far more likely to be oppressive because
it requires economic coercion to prevent free association. To
have this power in the economic realm is to grant it in the social.

America is different, although there's a possibility that we could descend into chaos if we're not careful. I don't think this will mean America will turn communist (it'll likely be just the opposite).

My only point here would be to say that some moderate forms of socialism could be implemented in order to prevent the further deterioration of the social order. A revolution from above would be far preferable to a revolution from below, which gets pretty bad - as you pointed out in your examples.

Revolution isn't the big risk factor though.
The historical examples maintained coercion even as they matured.

 

[Woberts]

From my understanding Lenin and Stalin didn't exactly see eye-to-eye.

Of course they disagreed, mainly on issues such as how they should interact with the world outside their borders.
They were in harmony on many other issues, however.

 

[Shad]

Of course they disagreed, mainly on issues such as how they should interact with the world outside their borders.

This was an issue that split the movement outside of Russia too. Global Revolution, Socialist State or Communist State. The Socialist State faction won when it came to power and control of it thus could eject the rival faction

 

[Notanumber]

George Orwell summed up communism with this - Animal Farm - Wikipedia

Just as he has done regarding the direction the West is heading today with this - Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikipedia