Communism v Socialism

antagon

The Man
Dec 6, 2009
3,572
295
48
I'd rather this not evolve into the typical showdown between ideologies as much as a practical look at the evolution of American policy. We have a massive social state, stubborn unemployment and shrinking economic growth. Rather than paying people who don't work, couldn't we pay people to do work instead? Our nation's New Deal infrastructure is on the blink, among our uncommonly low land utilization for developed nations. Rather than adopt Leninist- or New Deal- styled communism, couldn't the government subsidize labor costs to private employers for domestic infrastructure projects, for example?

If all this sounds far fetched, imagine telling Abraham Lincoln that we would just pay tens of millions to stay home in government or government-subsidized housing, while we import Mexicans to do unskilled labor in our country, then take billions more and subsidize development in Pakistan.

Times change.
 
your point is interesting and well explained. the problem here is the government, it's too big. there is always a scramble to spend the same tax money (because that's what it is) several times over.
i've always maintained that this country has more talent and resources than any other.
this government is hell bent on wasting it. how many millions of stimulus money went to hillary clinton's pollster for what, three jobs? who got that money for studying the sex habits of collge freshman girls? it should have been me. the countless millions funneled to "friends of obama and the goverment cronies?"
there is plenty of money to work with. shrink the government and stop the flow of illegals. right now we are showing the world that the most powerful country in the world can't control it's borders, and mexico is taking our land away. all of the money in the world won't stop the government from being incompetent. we are putting on a good show of how not to govern a country. i diectly blame obama, reid the screed, and lady pelosi gaga. they are almost done i think. most americans don't want to be communists or socialists, and it seems that everybody gets that except for our own governmnet.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather this not evolve into the typical showdown between ideologies as much as a practical look at the evolution of American policy. We have a massive social state, stubborn unemployment and shrinking economic growth. Rather than paying people who don't work, couldn't we pay people to do work instead? Our nation's New Deal infrastructure is on the blink, among our uncommonly low land utilization for developed nations. Rather than adopt Leninist- or New Deal- styled communism, couldn't the government subsidize labor costs to private employers for domestic infrastructure projects, for example?
If all this sounds far fetched, imagine telling Abraham Lincoln that we would just pay tens of millions to stay home in government or government-subsidized housing, while we import Mexicans to do unskilled labor in our country, then take billions more and subsidize development in Pakistan.

Times change.


I don't understand the difference between giving money away to pay people to do nothing and giving money away to pay people to nothing worth while.

If you want to stimulate the economy, stimulate spending. Offer tax credits to anyone who spends any amount to improve their private dwelling to any extent for any pupose. The amount given is automatically limited by the tax liability of the individual making the improvements, it improves the community, it stimulates spending, encourages employment in the retail and trades immediately and then rediates out to those who sell and produce products to support construction and labor which is everything.

As a side effect, this increases the tax base locally and suddenly the city and state budgets are balanced. What a concept! Balancing local budget without Federal Grant money.

If the Big 0 had used his Trillion Dollar Democrat Party Pay-off/Payback fund to do this instead of funding the Failed Stimulus, we would right now have 4% unemployment and a Red hot economy.
 
Socialism sucks every time and everywhere it's been tired.

What is so hard to understand about that?
 
1. Fine or imprison employers who hire illegal aliens
2. Give zero interest loans to all homeowners who add insulation and Solar energy roofs
3. Ration gasoline, charge .25 cents per gallon for those using more then a life-line amount TBD
4. Remove marijuana from schedule I, allowing each state to make it illegal or to tax it and regulate its cultivation, sale and distribution.
5. Revoke the medical license of any health care professional who engages in fraud.
6. Make the advertising of any drug illegal on TV, radio or in print.
7. Use taxes on fast food, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and ammunition to build health centers in each of the 435 Congressional Districts to provide free preventative health care to all Americans.
8. Require each non-emergency agency at each level of government to purchase electric or hybrid vehicles or forfeit all transportation dollars.
9. Change the War Powers Act so a president can respond to an emergency immediately but never again engage in a war of choice and a decade long occupation of a foreign land.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: blu
there is plenty of money to work with. shrink the government and stop the flow of illegals.

i agree that there is plenty of money to work with, but i think stopping the flow of illegals will swell government. i think shrinking the government's other functions combined with stopping the flow of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, might shrink the US economy on aggregate, definitely further shrink the rate of its growth into the future... that is if some of the fundamental ways which American government operates, regardless of its size, aren't addressed.
 
couldn't the government subsidize labor costs to private employers for domestic infrastructure projects, for example?

I don't understand the difference between giving money away to pay people to do nothing and giving money away to pay people to nothing worth while.

If you want to stimulate the economy, stimulate spending.

beyond stimulus, is there a need to look at policies for their horizons, rather than the short-term? social welfare is direct spending stimulus, however, the long-term effect of the policy is not sustainable.

i guess few public finance and economic policies are sustainable over centuries. what's next for relics like welfare?
 
They're the same thing. Communists around the world also call themselves Socialists. So it's easy to understand why so many get confused about the two terms. Socialism is Communism and Communism is Socialism. Some just like to shy away from the term Communism and instead use the term Socialism. They are the same thing in the end though.
 
libox, capitalist countries call themselves communist and socialist countries call themselves capitalist. can you see how concepts which are defined differently are different, even if nations are quick to pretend they're constituted of a single ideology?
 
libox, capitalist countries call themselves communist and socialist countries call themselves capitalist. can you see how concepts which are defined differently are different, even if nations are quick to pretend they're constituted of a single ideology?

Good point. Yea those old terms probably don't apply anymore. I think most Governments use what ever terms they think their majority of citizens would like to be labeled as. Most modern Governments are a mixed-bag in the end. The countries that bash Capitalism the most are the same countries who benefit the most from Capitalism. I think it's vice-versa for many Capitalist nations around the world. Some modern Capitalist nations seem to be ashamed of their wealth and are now actually in favor of being called Socialist. That seems to be the fad at this point. It's all about guilt for many of these rich Capitalist nations. It is kind of ironic huh? The current fad is to not call yourself Capitalist. All countries are Capitalist though. The Socialism/Communism fad will fade eventually. Those systems just don't work in the end. That's my take anyway.
 
i think democrats are becoming communists.

I disagree, they're not becoming, they've become Communists.

Some are just stupid and don't realize it but all of the Dem politicians know what they've become and they still can't talk about it. Dems like Dingell, Obama, Waters, etc. will let the cat out of the bag from time to time and they they promptly try to withdraw the comment

Make no mistake, the Communist Party has achieved of its stated goals of taking over one or both of the American political parties. No surprise, the Dems were the first to surrender
 
Third grade 'reasoning' seems to be how this thread evolved. Without labels to identify as objects of hate CrusaderFrank, Libo and other members of the echo chamber might be stuck dumb - in effect they'd become double dippers.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk_HPs34usU]YouTube - ‪Congressman John Dingell: "It takes a long time to ... control the people"‬‎[/ame]

You were saying?
 
libox, capitalist countries call themselves communist and socialist countries call themselves capitalist. can you see how concepts which are defined differently are different, even if nations are quick to pretend they're constituted of a single ideology?

Good point. Yea those old terms probably don't apply anymore. I think most Governments use what ever terms they think their majority of citizens would like to be labeled as. Most modern Governments are a mixed-bag in the end. The countries that bash Capitalism the most are the same countries who benefit the most from Capitalism. I think it's vice-versa for many Capitalist nations around the world. Some modern Capitalist nations seem to be ashamed of their wealth and are now actually in favor of being called Socialist. That seems to be the fad at this point. It's all about guilt for many of these rich Capitalist nations. It is kind of ironic huh? The current fad is to not call yourself Capitalist. All countries are Capitalist though. The Socialism/Communism fad will fade eventually. Those systems just don't work in the end. That's my take anyway.

i think policy makers divine the policies and the populace accords, commonly with the assistance of propaganda from said policy makers. in this way, the fads which you point out are fads among policy makers in my opinion. i dont entirely believe that we have so much say in our policy to shape its foundations as much they have been in the last 100 years.

i think the traditionally capitalist countries are holding on to that banner, but the US and certainly the UK have swept a lot of socialist policy under the rug. in the end, it's my take that capitalism couldn't work for a society without combination with socialist or communist policy, and that this fact draws an obligation to tame these beasts as they would tame capitalism. as fads, i think they are increasing in influence, unfortunately. the OP has a proposal for re-invading public policy with deference to privately organized... communism (?). you're right about these terms loosing application.
 
It will never happen. Unions will not allow the politicians for whom they have bought and paid to create programs to hire people at reasonable, market based wages. The public which is footing the bill will not support a massive spending program to pay low-skilled workers higher pay (the union level) than they earn in the private sector.

The highest unemployment rates are for those with a high school level or less level of education. The value of that labor is not high in this economy - but the government won't acknowledge that fact.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU]YouTube - ‪MAXINE WATERS OUTS THE DEMS SOCIALIST AGENDA‬‎[/ame]

You were saying?
 

Forum List

Back
Top