*sigh* Al, you do realise the Cold War was last century, yes?

And as a result of the end of the Cold War, communists are even more discredited now than ever - what does it say about a person's judgment that they would cling to so utterly failed an ideology?

"Look, if you're paying any attention at all, it is clear that the biggest organized protests in the US against war with Iraq have been organized by avowed communists."

Care to back this up, Senator McCarthy?

Al, why should this worry us? Do you know what communism is?

OK, you kids are determined to not get the point if at all possible. Yes, the cold war is over, so no I'm not really worried about the communists in the peace movement- thus the humorous tone of my post. Although I will note, however, that the Chinese communists are ultimately the biggest and worst long term political threat we face.

The Senator McCarthy crack merits perfect contempt. I'll not go into it at length here, but the fact that McCarthy was a jerk does not mean that there were no communists or that they weren't a threat.

The implication of the McCarthy charge and the request for proof is that I'm just making stuff up. Why didn't you bother following the link that was right in this post?

Besides which, the background of the ANSWER group sponsoring the big demonstrations has been widely reported. It's not even a secret; it's right out in the open.

Finally, of course I have no understanding of communism at all Sanford. If I did, I'd be all in favor of it, and realize what a worker's paradise and mecca of freedom and just all around light to the world is being provided by Cuba, North Korea and China.

"Cuba, North Korea and China."

All dictatorial communist nations. Communism is an economic system; it doesn't necessarily have to be paired with a totalitarian political system. It often is, because that's about the only way to keep some of the workers of the "workers' paradise" from wanting more and effectively terminating the communist economic system.

But, communism itself is not inherently "evil" or bad. Rather, it's inherently just. Unfortunately, it doesn't implement very well in a democratic society. However, a lot of these domestic communist groups have a utopian view of communism: They are certainly not trying to pitch a dictatorship to the American people.

San, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Maybe a really foolish person could have been forgiven for believing in marxism 100 years ago, before the USSR et al. However, the utter devastation and ruination caused by every single manifestation of communism make any defense of it at all now a throughly contemptible enterprise. And to call any of the communist countries "democratic" is utterly ridiculous.

And how is it "just" to take from the people who produce in order to give to those who didn't? If I work my ass off to make a buck, you taking it at gunpoint to give to whomever you decide "needs" it is not justice. It is pure, straight up robbery.

It would be wrong even if it actually helped the poor folk, but it doesn't. It's the ruination of poor people everywhere it's been applied.

Al,

I have been to three large demonstrations in L.A. organized by International ANSWER and ANSWER LA. I have never heard anyone representing the group advocate for Communism.

Ever.

Not once.

There are Communists passing out newspapers at the marches--just like the Greens, Peace and Freedom and many other political parties. (I've even seen Army recruiters--no shit.) The ratio of Communists passing out literature to marchers ignoring the literature I would put at about 1 to 2500.

ANSWER is a coalition of many groups. The Communist Party is not one of them. And most people at the marches don't really care who rented the PA system and printed the signs, anyway--they came to promote peace. One cause. No war. That's it.



The best anyone has been able to come up with on the subject of Commies and ANSWER is this: Some individuals who formed ANSWER also are members of a Communist organization. The key words are SOME and INDIVIDUALS.

I have worked with many people who I felt were misguided in their views outside our work together. I'm an atheist, but I will team up with a Christian, or a Christian church, in a heartbeat if we have a mutual goal. In fact, I have many times. If someone working beside me at a soup kitchen were an anarchist or a flat-earther or whatever, it wouldn't bug me. 20,000 people marched to the Federal Building in Downtown L.A. on Sunday. A tiny handful were Communists. Who cares?

I want to speculate about just why conservatives are so fond of discovering and amplifying slender links between the peace movement and Communism: It magically relieves them of any need to refute our arguments. It's a magic word, like "devil" or "evil" or "aluminum tubes."

The link you provided to National Review is telling:

At the demonstration, which many media reports portrayed as a gathering of mainstream Americans, speaker after speaker condemned the United States with ancient Communist rhetoric: "revolution," "struggle," "oppressed peoples," "imperialism," and "liberation." One speaker even addressed her fellow protesters as "comrades."


"Comrades"? Lordy, someone call John Ashcroft! We got Reds in the house! I like how the author slips in the word "imperialism." Yay! That's been officially declared a Commie word! Now we don't have to deal with the whole empire issue, which used to be so troubling for us to deal with!

And if "liberation" is a Commie word, what does that make President Bush?

Another question: Who is more of a danger to the country--the Reds involved with the peace movement or the praying-for-Apocalypse Christians in the White House?

Hint: One group has approximately zero impact on the U.S. The other group is in control of U.S. foreign policy.



Oh, by the way, on Sunday Michelle Shocked did sing the lyric, "What will you do when the war is over, tender comrade?" You might want to write down her name on that list you're keeping.

Al, you get a big pat on the back for all of this.

Eric, Al gets a pat on the back for furthering the disinformation campaign?

Al, where -- point it out to me -- did I label any communist country democratic? I think I was pretty clear in stating that communism DOES NOT work in democratic societies. The alternative to democratic societies being dictatorial societies, I think my statement is an obvious condemnation of communism as implemented.

The Soviet Union, communist China, Cuba, North Korea, et al, are all gross bastardizations of the original communist blueprint. The original intent of communism was to create a fair and just society from scratch. It's perhaps naively utopian, but it was never formulated so some trooper could roll into your living room, stick an AK in your face and take away your big-screen TV. Jinkies, give Marx some credit. Communism was never intended to take away everything from those who already had it. But, unless you bought your own island, signed up boat loads of people and started from zero, that was the only way to implement communism in an existing society: Take everything away and redistribute it. I think that was a BAD idea, and I never justified that action.

Variants of socialism actually work rather well in small, largely homogeneous societies. These variants might work in larger nations if put to the test. But, these systems do borrow liberally from capitalist economic theory.

"From each according to ability, to each according to need."

In practice, that means that the state regime will start by confiscating everything of value, and then enslave everyone to work for the good of "the people" meaning the regime holding the power. In point of practice, that is exactly what it has meant, and is the only thing it could actually mean. Would that it only involved a trooper stealing your tv at gunpoint.

Of course, you imagine yourself as the objective person who gets to decide who "needs" what. It is an extraordinary presumption.

You try to flower it up with fluffy abstract words of "justice" and "equality," but the only equality is in the grave. Which is where your marxists have sent people early by the tens of millions.

No I do NOT give Marx credit for squat. His nonsense has been nothing but misery and suffering upon humanity.

The most you can say is that some few homogenous societies have managed to adopt watered down socialist welfare states while only hobbling rather than completely destroying their societies. These more pragmatic commie parasites have figured that you can only suck so much blood without killing the host, and have known how much looting they can get away with.

You paint marxism as idealism that, alas, has a hard time taking root in cold, hard reality.

In cold hard reality, marxism means greedy thugs manipulating the hardships and the resentments of poor people to grab power, and crush dissent. It is not idealism, but evil greed and power hunger.

Not seeing this at this point in history requires a willful blanking out of a million consistent datapoints right in front of your nose. It requires blithely ignoring or excusing and extending the needless suffering of hundreds of millions.

The main important thing though is that marxists CARE about the poor people, unlike the evil heartless capitalists who do nothing but oppress The People by starting businesses and giving them jobs by which they can earn money and actually put bread on their tables and roofs over their heads.

Al, "...some few homogenous societies...", pretty much all of western Europe. And they are hardly hobbled. Compare that to big chunks of America, hobbled by fear, ignorance and pursuit of the almighty dollar. Each system has its strong points, and, of course, its weak points.

"...you imagine yourself as the objective person who gets to decide who 'needs' what." Quit putting words in my mouth to support your tirade. I never wrote, explicity or implicitly, that I thought communism could ever be properly implemented in any nation, with me or anyone else at the helm.

So you've banned for theoreticians the right to theorize. Does this apply to all areas of study, or only economic theory?

You are painting Marxism with the same brush most people paint Libertarianism (capital L).

It's pretty much as simple as this: communism brings out the worst in people, and any system that fails to take human nature into account will fail, utterly, as has communism.

As to whether socialism works "pretty well," that's very much open to debate. Societies need a safety net, no question, but where the idea line is drawn between safety net and welfare state has yet to be determined.

San--

Stop using your damn imagination. It's wrong.

Communism hasn't worked. It killed people. Stop thinking. Done. Over. Now you're NOT SUPPOSED TO THINK ABOUT IT ANYMORE.

If there are ideas that smell a bit like socialism, we Americans are allowed to dismiss them without considering their merits. Because Communism is bad. And we're allowed to treat any argument, such as, oh, let's say, "Socialized medicine has resulted in far better health care in many other countries," with the response, "COMMIE! TRAITOR!"

Stop thinking. Commie = bad. Where's your Pavlovian response? Have you listened to Rush lately? Maybe you need to turn Fox News up a little louder.

A good example of an open-minded backslider is Eric, who said,

"As to whether socialism works 'pretty well,' that's very much open to debate. Societies need a safety net, no question, but where the idea line is drawn between safety net and welfare state has yet to be determined."

It's this kind of moral relativism that will be the death of us. Thanks a lot, Eric.

B

Yes Brian, quit using your imagination- as far as facts are concerned. Sure, THINK about marxism all day, but recognize that the reality is inarguably wicked and evil exactly as I and many others have said.

It's not from lack of considering the merits. Marxism has been weighed in the balance and- to put it mildly- found wanting. What you want is for us to accept this evil system and destroy our lives and economies trying to find SOME way, ANY way to make this non-workable thing work.

What you want is not open mindedness and consideration of the facts. What you want is a pre-judgment in favor of marxism. You want to insist on the outcome you want to hear, regardless of the utterly overwhelming contrary facts of human experience.

Everybody gets to have their own opinion- but they don't get to have their own set of facts. "Socialism has resulted in far better health care in many other countries." That's just objectively not true. You're making that up. You're "using your imagination." I find it difficult to believe that you don't know better than what you're saying.

In fact, there is no reasonable doubt that America has the best doctors and medicine in the world. Now, some people can't afford all of the very latest and best advances. It's not absolutely utopian. However, when they're really sick, people around the world flock to the US for doctors and clinics, not Cuba or China.

You can wish and dream of the day when our basic nature as mammals will somehow change, and we will all feel motivated to work and put our money in a common pot and share it all over the world in selfless peace and harmony.

Frankly, I think this is a pretty cheesy and unimaginative vision. That's cool though. You can write some utopian novel or make some indy film like that. Feel free to use me as a model for your evil capitalist villain. Mwa-ha-ha!

What you CAN'T do is expect the rest of us to sacrifice our lives and well-being to your "imagination."

Medicine: We have perhaps the best technology; we have the best POTENTIAL to deliver medical care; but our delivery system is NOT the best. A combination of our technology and a socialized delivery program might indeed make us the best health-care provider in the world. But we are not there yet.

Al,

You wrote (about me):

"What you want is for us to accept this evil system and destroy our lives and economies trying to find SOME way, ANY way to make this non-workable thing work."

This is false. Evidence, please.

You also wrote (about me):

"What you want is not open mindedness and consideration of the facts. What you want is a pre-judgment in favor of marxism. You want to insist on the outcome you want to hear, regardless of the utterly overwhelming contrary facts of human experience."

This is false. Evidence, please.

You altered a quote (you might try cutting and pasting):

"Socialism has resulted in far better health care in many other countries."

I didn't say "socialism." I said "socialized medicine." Have you heard of it? And when I say use your imagination, I mean, for example, imagine you lived in a country about which this could be said:

A report released earlier this month showed that nearly 75 million people went without insurance at some point during the past two years, a much larger number than the 41 million or so who have been considered among the chronically uninsured.

Okay, that's a bad example. You actually DO live in this country.

The present system is not working. We need to consider other options. Socialized medicine is one of them. There are others. But that we need to do something, and that it will require opening our minds to some significant changes in the health care system seems obvious to me.

Knee-jerk reactions such as, oh, let's say this--

"What you want is for us to accept this evil system and destroy our lives and economies trying to find SOME way, ANY way to make this non-workable thing work."

--while good for a laugh, don't really help to fix the health care system.

I really do want you to provide evidence for your strong accusations I quoted (accurately) above. I have never held Communism to be a workable system. In fact, elsewhere on Blogcritics, ironically at about the same time you were accusing me of advocating Communism, I have denounced it.

1:15 PM. Brian Flemming writes: "Communism has almost inevitably resulted in totalitarian states obsessed with mass killing and empire."

1:47 PM. Al Barger writes, "What you want is for us to accept this evil system and destroy our lives and economies trying to find SOME way, ANY way to make this non-workable thing work."

While I imagine you hadn't seen my other comment, I do wish you would ask me if I believe that the United States should become a Communist country before you state this as fact.

Thanks in advance for any evidence you might have to support what you said.

Al, afraid I have to jump on this bandwagon, too. Early in this thread, I wrote, "[Communism] doesn't implement very well in a democratic society." You've expended much effort in subsequent comments trying to tell Brian and me that we believe in communism, that we think it works as implemented. Yet we have both stated, unequivocally, that we do not think communism works as implemented.

You seem very, very interested in convincing us that we believe communism is the ANSWER (pun intended). Sounds like some sort of Red plot to me, Al.

Really, guys. You're both left wingers. You've both gone on at great length in this thread defending socialism and marxism. Maybe you'd say you're socialists, not communists. Not that there's that much real difference.

Sanford says [cut and pasted for precision, thank you] I didn't say "socialism." I said "socialized medicine." Please. If you support socialized medicine, you're pretty far along the road to being a socialist.

If you're not some kind of commies, that's great. Maybe you've just been pulling my chain with all the pro-socialist stuff.

So far as I know, neither one of you are members of the Communist Party. I'm going to cast my net a little wider than that, however. You may wish to draw niggling differences, but socialism is just watered down communism. Based on their real political principles and beliefs, I'm going to rate anybody from about the Green Party leftward to be commies.

This does not necessarily mean collusion with foreign powers. It could mean strictly domestic advocacy, with no ties to outsiders.

Clearly both of you are fairly far out on the left wing. I haven't seen a specific in depth political manifesto from either of you to make a total judgment of your outlooks on politics. However, it seems pretty clear that you both have strong socialistic sympathies. Let's just be honest, and admit to it, OK?

Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken in my understanding of what you advocate. I'm not purposely misrepresenting you.

Am I wrong in saying that "From each according to ability, to each according to need" appeals to you both as a basic principle?

Al,

You wrote:

Sanford says [cut and pasted for precision, thank you] I didn't say "socialism." I said "socialized medicine."


Actually, if it's precision you're going for, you should know that was me, Brian, not Sanford who said that.

You wrote:

Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken in my understanding of what you advocate. I'm not purposely misrepresenting you.


Well, I guess it's partly my fault. Sometimes I forget you live in Al World, not in the world the rest of us live in. In Al World, this is said with a straight face:

...I'm going to rate anybody from about the Green Party leftward to be commies.


In Al World, the lion lies down with the lamb, black is white, and this statement...

I haven't seen a specific in depth political manifesto from either of you to make a total judgment of your outlooks on politics.


...lives comfortably alongside this statement:

What you want is for us to accept this evil system and destroy our lives and economies trying to find SOME way, ANY way to make this non-workable thing work.


Ah, yes. To live in Al World. A world in which name-calling stands in for logic. Where accusations are true because Al speaks them. Where facts are rarely cited, and more rarely correct.

A world where fallacy reigns.

Al World.

Sometimes I forget that's where you're coming from.

A new protester friend of mine named Amanda recently posted something at an L.A. message board that proved to be Kryptonite to the pro-warriors there. Here's what she wrote:

There are many kinds of logical fallacies and your arguments commit a few of them:

An argument is an ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM argument if and only if it purports to discredit a position by insulting those who hold it. (For example, calling someone a spoiled little brat)

An argument is a CIRCUMSTANCIAL AD HOMINEM argument if and only if it purports to discredit a position by appealing to the circumstances or characteristics of those who hold it. (For example, bringing up a person's education or background).

An argument is a RED HERRING if and only if it tries to justify a conclusion irrelevant to the issue at hand. (For example trying to argue that protesters are liberal democrats or bringing up whether or not a protester voted in the last presidential election.)

Some other kinds of logical fallacies to look out for:

An argument is Tu Quoque if and only if it purports to discredit a position by charging those who hold it with inconsistency or hypocrisy.

An argument appeals to force if and only if it tries to justify a kind of action by threatening the audience.



You don't have to pay attention to this information, though, Al. In Al World, the information is tainted because Amanda is a civilly disobedient commie protester (ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM, aka Al Barger's Primary Argument Technique).

Actually, in Al World, Amanda's notes would make a pretty good instruction sheet.

I think I'll put together a post that lists many kinds of fallacies, and I'll number them. That way, when you feel like hurling an ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM or a RED HERRING at Sanford or me, you can just write "#1" or "#4."

We'll get the drift, and it will save you a lot of typing. Things will be a lot easier in Al World.

Brian, do you consider it "ad hominem" to be properly identified as a socialist? You should be proud of who you are!

Note that there are basically TWO very different points being argued here. One is whether or not the beliefs professed by Sanford and Flemming are in the range of what would be reasonably identified as marxism or socialism or communism. Two is whether or not those socialistic beliefs are valid.

Note that I am specifically NOT arguing that a belief is invalidated simply by having the word "socialist" or even "communist" associated with it. From the original post "Indeed, the fact that the Communist Party USA advocates a position does not automatically mean that the position is wrong."

Again, trying to clear up confusion and establish general principles, would you agree that "From each according to ability, to each according to need" constitutes a noble political goal, however difficult to implement in practice?

Al,

You wrote:

"Again, trying to clear up confusion and establish general principles, would you agree that 'From each according to ability, to each according to need' constitutes a noble political goal, however difficult to implement in practice?"

To tell you the truth, Al, I've never even thought about trying to implement it. I never had a Marxist phase, not even in college. In my lifetime I've seen with my own eyes that communism resulted in disaster, and markets work. So not only am I not a Marxist--I've never really dabbled in it, either.

I feel these arguments have limited value (value nonetheless, but limited). Communism frickin' failed. Get over it, commies. I'm not old enough to have lived through a period in which communism even looked like it had any hope. I'm a capitalist. I sell things. I market. I've never felt like converting to another system, or trying to make the U.S do it.

On the other hand, I'm not an extremist, either. I recognize that within a capitalist system there can be (and are) some horrible abuses. I don't treat capitalism as if it's a religious cult that requires my total, uncritical devotion. Capitalism unchecked can be a very ugly thing. In the same way as communism has often brought out the worst in people, free market capitalism, at its Darwinist worst, can be rotten, too. As far as I'm concerned, the main struggle is to try to get capitalism and justice to co-exist.

Capitalism is a given. Markets are what we have, and we have them because they won the contest. I don't try to turn back the clock. I do try to address injustice when I see it, though. I think this is what you mistake for a red streak. I don't consider every modification to pure capitalism to be a red menace.