New York City

#7,554
#7,554
EasternVol said:
I don't know. What about communism automatically suppresses freedom? Past precedence says it's autocratic but is that because of some innate mechanism or because it was implemented by people who wanted absolute power? Fascism a la mid-20th century Europe and Corporatism and Militarism in late 20th century Singapore and Indonesia were capitalist and dictatorial. Does that mean all capitalist systems are dictatorships?
Click to expand...


Communism as a system means strict control of the means of production and property. That's intense erosion of rights there. You cannot simply start up a business and be successful, I mean you could but if you build it up enough to be noticed, the state just takes it away from you.

The state also picks winners and losers, the best ideas often don't get rewarded.

That's the problem though, no matter how well intended and pure the idea or intent toward communism is it will turn authoritarian because of one of the simplest and oldest human traits....... Greed. And the issue with communism is even more dangerous because the state already owns the means of production and distribution, it takes a full on revolution to overthrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737, BreatheUT and TrumpedUpVol
#7,556
#7,556
KB5252 said:
Communism as a system means strict control of the means of production and property. That's intense erosion of rights there. You cannot simply start up a business and be successful, I mean you could but if you build it up enough to be noticed, the state just takes it away from you.
Click to expand...
True, it does fail by definition on property rights. Otherwise how is it authoritarian? I'm thinking of the rights in our first ten Amendments.
We've got some pretty inane business licensing requirements ourselves.
KB5252 said:
, The state also picks winners and losers, the best ideas often don't get rewarded.
Click to expand...
Don't we see that in the US?
KB5252 said:
That's the problem though, no matter how well intended and pure the idea or intent toward communism is it will turn authoritarian because of one of the simplest and oldest human traits....... Greed. And the issue with communism is even more dangerous because the state already owns the means of production and distribution, it takes a full on revolution to ooverthrow.
Click to expand...
What if it's a representative democracy?
 
#7,558
#7,558
MAD said:
This Islamic lunatic is of our incoming mayor’s top advisors

Click to expand...

From a Palestinian

It is with a heavy heart that I share a grim and dark assessment, which I have been hinting at for a significant amount of time, but have struggled to articulate, and even hesitated to talk about publicly: a terrifyingly large constituency within the Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian-American communities have become far too extreme and radical regarding the issues of Palestine, Gaza, and hatred of the United States and all things Western. Worse, support for and endorsement of Hamas have become mainstream views and can no longer be considered “fringe,” especially within the “pro-Palestine” movement.

Many Muslim and Arab-Americans and their advocacy groups have chosen to become single-issue voters and activists, making Palestine the only rallying cry to mobilize their voters, when numerous other issues and challenges face these two communities. Overt support for Islamism, as CAIR and Linda Sarsour make it clear here in this video, and the aggressive Islamization of the West, is being supercharged on the back of the suffering of the people of Gaza.

I had hoped that support for Hamas among American and European-based Arabs and Muslims would begin to scale back when the war ended, creating some space and margin for introspection, self-critique, and most importantly, recognition that Hamas and violent Jihadi terrorists are not “resistance” or “martyrs” but the fuel for the annihilation of the Palestinian people.

Instead, there is a stubborn unwillingness to offer even the slightest of critique to Hamas and the whole “resistance” narrative, even as Gazans suffer horribly as the group re-establishes its grip on power and control, and the extent of Hamas’s criminality becomes apparent. Worse, many of these “pro-Palestine” personalities are moving on from Gaza entirely, drunk on the recent Mamdani victory, which they view as an extension of their activism and campaigning over the past two years.

It worries me immensely that in the near future, many of the young people involved in what has become the “pro-Palestine” cult in America and Europe will graduate to more violent stages of “activism,” all while worsening the isolation of Arab and Muslim diaspora communities from integrating into their countries of residence and new homelands. I also worry that the Democratic Party will be far too accommodating and tolerant of what are inherently intolerable beliefs, ideas, and actions, all in pursuit of voters who are mobilized by an extreme manifestation of identity politics that has been corrupted with radical academic theories, reckless rhetoric, and slogans.

There is still time to adjust course and reject these trends. However, as long as a confluence of irresponsible Muslim and Arab-American advocacy organizations remains hijacked by extremists and pursues radical audiences for fundraising purposes instead of communal growth, safety, and transformation, there is little hope of change.

Arab and Muslim-Americans are part of this great nation of ours, and many contribute immensely to our country’s success, defense, and prosperity. It is a strategic mistake to tie their fate and future to foreign conflicts, no matter how dear to them, as they adopt extremist and vile slogans and narratives, which worsen divisions and increase cross-community tension and isolation.

 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#7,559
#7,559
MAD said:
This Islamic lunatic is of our incoming mayor’s top advisors

Click to expand...

A Country/State/City should be led by people who were born and raised in it. Nobody understands America like those who grew up living its values, culture, and challenges. Leaders born here are more likely to have true loyalty to the nation, not divided interests or foreign ties.

The founders built that idea into the Constitution by requiring the president to be a natural born citizen. It is not about exclusion. It is about protecting national identity, culture, and security. America should be run by Americans for Americans.

Also, Dual Citizenship shouldn't be allowed either... It's America First for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM and MAD
#7,560
#7,560
EasternVol said:
True, it does fail by definition on property rights. Otherwise how is it authoritarian? I'm thinking of the rights in our first ten Amendments.
We've got some pretty inane business licensing requirements ourselves.

Don't we see that in the US?

What if it's a representative democracy?
Click to expand...
Communism always trends toward authoritarian naturally. When power is centralized greed always takes over. Even in systems that trend capitalist, the only difference is there competing greed and all power isn't condensed as it is in communism. Greed is the common human trait that drives systems, the human element is undeniable.

Yes we've got insane business licensing requirements but it's acheivable and realistic. Same can't be said for Communist systems, the state state decides the winner.

If it's a representative democracy it can't be communist. It's like cats and dogs, both are house pets but completely different things entirely.
 
#7,561
#7,561
KB5252 said:
Communism always trends toward authoritarian naturally. When power is centralized greed always takes over. Even in systems that trend capitalist, the only difference is there competing greed and all power isn't condensed as it is in communism. Greed is the common human trait that drives systems, the human element is undeniable.
Click to expand...
Don't or didn't we say the same about capitalism, that greed takes over and we get a dictatorship? Early European capitalist societies were ruled by the oligarchs in which power was condensed, had very little in the way of personal rights, and were the model that Marx and Engels said would be overthrown by the workers. The difference between then and now is largely due to the spread of representative democracy.
KB5252 said:
Yes we've got insane business licensing requirements but it's acheivable and realistic. Same can't be said for Communist systems, the state state decides the winner.
Click to expand...
The state decides the winner here sometimes too.
KB5252 said:
If it's a representative democracy it can't be communist. It's like cats and dogs, both are house pets but completely different things entirely.
Click to expand...
But why is that? Why couldn't all that state power and property be managed by an elected government answerable to the people? Why would greed win out when it supposedly doesn't win out under Western Democracy? If the answer is constitutional safeguards then what makes them unattainable under communism?
 
#7,562
#7,562
EasternVol said:
Don't or didn't we say the same about capitalism, that greed takes over and we get a dictatorship? Early European capitalist societies were ruled by the oligarchs in which power was condensed, had very little in the way of personal rights, and were the model that Marx and Engels said would be overthrown by the workers. The difference between then and now is largely due to the spread of representative democracy.

The state decides the winner here sometimes too.

But why is that? Why couldn't all that state power and property be managed by an elected government answerable to the people? Why would greed win out when it supposedly doesn't win out under Western Democracy? If the answer is constitutional safeguards then what makes them unattainable under communism?
Click to expand...
Point one: yes , but we live in a representative Republic. The terms dictate that power at the highest level of representative government can't be oligarchical unless the people vote for it.

Sometimes is better than every time no?

Because once you centralize government to that point all it takes is one person (such as trump) to say no........I am and will be the leader. In our current form the Constitution prohibits that. Scrap it and go to communism,b which is completely at odds with our current model, and you invite authoritarian unelected government. You must first dissolve our constitution to install communism, the two mix like oil and water.



Edit to add:

Do you really think a government that skims money and makes trade deals at odds with the law can be trusted with complete, centralized control of the nation and all it's means? Do you not think rival factions would would wage war against each other at our expense? Look at the government shut down, neither side gives a damn about you and me. The only thing we have going for us now is that they need us to elect them.

Give them more power and we no longer have any meaningful means to keep them in check. This is why communism has failed everywhere it's been enacted. Why should we expect any different?
 
Last edited:
#7,566
#7,566
allstar34bd said:
A Country/State/City should be led by people who were born and raised in it. Nobody understands America like those who grew up living its values, culture, and challenges. Leaders born here are more likely to have true loyalty to the nation, not divided interests or foreign ties.

The founders built that idea into the Constitution by requiring the president to be a natural born citizen. It is not about exclusion. It is about protecting national identity, culture, and security. America should be run by Americans for Americans.

Also, Dual Citizenship shouldn't be allowed either... It's America First for me.
Click to expand...
Zohran has lived in NYC since age 7. That's not "raised in NYC" because he isn't white, while Cuomo doesn't even live there? What are we doing here
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#7,567
#7,567
allstar34bd said:
A Country/State/City should be led by people who were born and raised in it. Nobody understands America like those who grew up living its values, culture, and challenges. Leaders born here are more likely to have true loyalty to the nation, not divided interests or foreign ties.

The founders built that idea into the Constitution by requiring the president to be a natural born citizen. It is not about exclusion. It is about protecting national identity, culture, and security. America should be run by Americans for Americans.

Also, Dual Citizenship shouldn't be allowed either... It's America First for me.
Click to expand...
A lot of those founders were born in another country; so..................................

Who knows, maybe being born in another country can actually give you a better perspective.

  • Alexander Hamilton: Born in Nevis, a Caribbean island.
  • Button Gwinnett: Born in England.
  • Francis Lewis: Born in Wales.
  • Robert Morris: Born in England.
  • James Smith: Born in Northern Ireland.
  • George Taylor: Born in Ireland.
  • Matthew Thornton: Born in Ireland.
  • James Wilson: Born in Scotland.
  • John Witherspoon: Born in Scotland.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#7,568
#7,568
luthervol said:
A lot of those founders were born in another country; so..................................

Who knows, maybe being born in another country can actually give you a better perspective.

  • Alexander Hamilton: Born in Nevis, a Caribbean island.
  • Button Gwinnett: Born in England.
  • Francis Lewis: Born in Wales.
  • Robert Morris: Born in England.
  • James Smith: Born in Northern Ireland.
  • George Taylor: Born in Ireland.
  • Matthew Thornton: Born in Ireland.
  • James Wilson: Born in Scotland.
  • John Witherspoon: Born in Scotland.
Click to expand...

In today's world as a generalization foreigners are coming here and trying to replace tradition, culture, political questions, etc with how things were done in their own failed State. Its Yellowstone, "what is a foreigner"? A person that comes here to escape the shithole they came from and than try to change it to exactly like the place the already ****ed up. (paraphrased)

(I don't really watch that show but I think I caught that in the first episode)
 
#7,569
#7,569
LSU-SIU said:
In today's world as a generalization foreigners are coming here and trying to replace tradition, culture, political questions, etc with how things were done in their own failed State. Its Yellowstone, "what is a foreigner"? A person that comes here to escape the shithole they came from and than try to change it to exactly like the place the already ****ed up. (paraphrased)

(I don't really watch that show but I think I caught that in the first episode)
Click to expand...
There has been great effort from the right-wing propaganda machine to condition people to feel that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and EasternVol
#7,570
#7,570
luthervol said:
There has been great effort from the right-wing propaganda machine to condition people to feel that way.
Click to expand...

Mr. Chicken, you believe a face diaper is going to save you or social distancing is going to stop you from getting a cold, so if we take you as a test case - very obvious idiots can be taught all kinds of things.
 
#7,571
#7,571
MAD said:
This Islamic lunatic is of our incoming mayor’s top advisors

Click to expand...


How this wretch ever gained citizenship is mind boggling?

These are the many voters of NYC that somehow gained access to this country through immigration. Along with confused young women and those with degrees from failed institutions of delusion dejour.
 
#7,572
#7,572
n_huffhines said:
We're basically in agreement over ideas and what works best, but I do think the semantics on this matter. I'm not calling you out or saying you are part of the problem, but both sides tend to reduce either socialism or capitalism to only good/bad things. Capitalism is just greed and legalized theft, for example.

I'll pick on conservatives with this example:

Most conservatives like the public school system, but the government has a monopoly on the means of production here, a clear example of socialism. This never gets grouped in with socialist ideas, because socialism is bad and public school is good. However, welfare is bad, so it gets grouped as a socialist idea when that's not really what socialism is.

Just seems like there is so much misuse of terms, probably starting with talking heads, and it's confused the conversation.
Click to expand...
agreed, its why i am careful with the terms I use, and why I tend to call out people using a term wrongly. see me getting into people about Nazi/Marxist. republic/democracy is another good one.

people get loose with definitions so they can lump anything they don't like under a scary header so they can try to diminish the point without addressing any of it.
 
#7,573
#7,573
luthervol said:
The sun rises in the east.
Water is wet.
trump won because people voted for him.
had people who disliked trump voted third party, he would not be president.
Click to expand...
is that what you actually meant to say?

I mean its true. because there are a good number of people who voted for him because Kamala/the Dems are bad.

voting third party will pull votes from both sides, not just the dems.
 
#7,574
#7,574
EasternVol said:
Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. In capitalism the means of production are privately owned. Private property exists under both. With pure communism everything is owned by the 'people' which means the state.
Welfare programs don't indicate socialism no matter how much the John Birchers want to say they do.
Click to expand...
socialism covers more than ownership of the means of production. thats no where close to being enough to the economic theory that socialism is. and doesn't even touch the political aspects of it.

economically socialism also changes the stated goal from profit to meeting needs only. It also pushes societal changes (presumably towards equality). both of those we have seen from our government, the left tends to push things like renewables far beyond the market demand, as well as trying to force equality through various means. the right pushes whatever grift Trump is on.

depending on which flavor of socialist you are will determine the level/specifics of the governments involvement, well beyond just owning the means of production.
 
#7,575
#7,575
EasternVol said:
He was about 15% right in that we should be very vigilant against espionage.
People should be free to favor whatever economic system they believe in.
Click to expand...

This statement is plain ignorant.

That's not how this country was founded.

This is what were up against.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top