How Many Communists Are There In The U.S. Government?

[BPSCG]

Joe McCarthy never gave a clear answer to that question. But we do know for sure that, today, the answer is "at least one."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: What guarantees are you going to give this liberal about how that will reduce the cost of gasoline at the pump if we let you drill where you say you want to drill?
JOHN HOFMEISTER, SHELL OIL PRESIDENT: I can guarantee to the American people because of the inaction of the United States Congress ever increasing prices unless the demand comes down, and the $5 will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies.
WATERS: And guess what this liberal will be all about? Thios liberal will be about socializing--would be about, basically, taking over and the government running all of your companies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358301,00.html)

I'm sure there's a youtube of this available; I heard it on the radio yesterday driving home. In fact, Waters doesn't quite get the whole word "socializing" out; she catches herself just before she finishes, obviously aware she's let everyone have a peek under the rock she lives under, stammers a little, then completes the sentence.

So now there are two huge industries the communists "liberals" in congress want to socialize.

[Pardalis]

Don't fall asleep.

[Cleon]

Oh, you've got to be kidding.

Red-baiting? I mean, seriously?

That's the political equivalent of jumping the shark.

[JoeEllison]

Oh, you've got to be kidding.

Red-baiting? I mean, seriously?

That's the political equivalent of Fonz jumping the shark.

Well, when your position is intellectually and morally bankrupt, red-baiting probably seems like a logical move?

[jj]

Well, the Shell guy was flat-out lying about the cause of price increases, so I see this as two badly behaved maroons, myself.

[BPSCG]

Oh, you've got to be kidding.

Red-baiting? I mean, seriously?

That's the political equivalent of jumping the shark.

Well, when your position is intellectually and morally bankrupt, red-baiting probably seems like a logical move?:)

''You never need think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." Oliver Wendell Holmes

[KoihimeNakamura]

Does it matter? (Although, I have to agree with both of them. Sigh.)

[Cleon]

:)

''You never need think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." Oliver Wendell Holmes

:rolleyes:

This is really not something to be proud of yourself over.

[JoeEllison]

:rolleyes:

This is really not something to be proud of yourself over.

:p

[Nogbad]

Socialising as in making a responsible member of the community or nationalising the assets and taking into the common good of the community?

either would be good :)

[casebro]

The oil companies charge as much as we will pay. That is capitalism.

The best way to lower the price is to encourage competition. It's time to break up the oligarchy AGAIN. Maybe this time, break the vertical monopoly as well as the horizontal one?

While we are at it, we ought to put a stop to mergers in the rest of the commercial world too. No more having Microsoft gobble up it's competitors. Or to expand horizontally either. Maybe disallow mergers that would create any company from getting bigger than a 5% market share? Or is the potential for 20 companies still Oligarchorous? 2% maybe? The SEC could do this easily, they already have to approve buy-outs.

[ImaginalDisc]

Nationalizing companies constitutes being a communist?

Wow, then I guess that the airport security industry being nationalized under the Transportation Safety Administration in 2001 marks a precipitous slide into Mao jackets and sowing seeds in snow.

[Lonewulf]

The OP is a joke. It's a parody. It has to be; the alternative would drive man into insanity.

[Ziggurat]

Am I really the first person who's going to chime in and say, "Yeah, that Maxine Waters woman is a complete nutjob"? I guess so.

[BPSCG]

If anyone would like to make the case that Maxine Waters is not a communist, I'd be happy to hear it. Note that continuing to make ad hominem arguments doesn't get you any closer. :)

[ImaginalDisc]

If anyone would like to make the case that Maxine Waters is not a communist, I'd be happy to hear it. Note that continuing to make ad hominem arguments doesn't get you any closer. :)

FAIL.

You make the case that Maxine Waters is a communist. No one has to prove a negative. You didn't even offer an argument. You offered Red Baiting. The person who began the ad hominems was, wait. . . let me review. . .


YOU.

[Pardalis]

Even if she was, that's one out of how many?

Should she be persecuted for it?

[Ziggurat]

Should she be persecuted for it?

Who said anything about persecuting anyone? But when people advocate stupid ideas, isn't it rather appropriate to criticize them?

[Pardalis]

Who said anything about persecuting anyone? But when people advocate stupid ideas, isn't it rather appropriate to criticize them?

Well I'm not the one referencing to McCarthy and trying to snuff out the commies.

[Nogbad]

Is it a crime to be a socialist in the US?

It seems to me to simply be a reasonably common alternative viewpoint found in many a developed pluralist society. Is it not?

[dudalb]

Who said anything about persecuting anyone? But when people advocate stupid ideas, isn't it rather appropriate to criticize them?


Apparently not.
I think calling Walters a communist is a big much, but to call her a nutjob is appropriate.
The way the Anti Free Market movement is picking up steam is scary.

[Gazpacho]

Well, the Shell guy was flat-out lying about the cause of price increases, so I see this as two badly behaved maroons, myself.
He said that if new oil reserves are not found, prices will increase rapidly. :confused:

The OP is a joke. It's a parody. It has to be; the alternative would drive man into insanity.
It's Maxine Waters, and not the least bit out of line with what I remember of her during the LA riots.

[JoeEllison]

He said that if new oil reserves are not found, prices will increase rapidly. :confused:

Yep, it is a flat out lie, which 5 minutes on the old Google can show you.:D

[Gazpacho]

Is it a crime to be a socialist in the US?
The US constitution says very little on the subject of nationalizing and managing arbitrary industries, except as it impacts on some express power of the government. Therefore being an outright socialist in the US is something of a waste of time.

edit: unless you are prepared to go on record as having contempt for the US constitution, hence the stigma

[Darth Rotor]

Nationalizing companies constitutes being a communist?

Closer to fascist, though it has socialistic and communistic elements to it.

@ Lonewulf:

Nope. She was caught on tape. Saying it. In public.

DR

[Rufo]

A little odd that she calls herself a liberal if she wants to nationalize companies. It doesn't fit very well with my idea of liberalism. I can't see why it would be something to be overly upset about, though.

[Darth Rotor]

A little odd that she calls herself a liberal if she wants to nationalize companies. It doesn't fit very well with my idea of liberalism. I can't see why it would be something to be overly upset about, though.
Other than her being in Congress, no.

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

Closer to fascist, though it has socialistic and communistic elements to it.

@ Lonewulf:

Nope. She was caught on tape. Saying it. In public.

DR

I repeat: The TSA is a nationalized airport security service. Is it either fascist or communist?

No.

Ergo, you're taking out of the hole in your pants.

[Rufo]

Other than her being in Congress, no.

DR
I can't see why that would be something to be overly upset about either. She is in Congress and her self-described political ideology is inconsistent with her self-described political agenda. Yes, it's a bit silly.

[dudalb]

Not that Maxine Walters has much influence in the Democratic party. She is pretty much regarded as a member of the lunatic fringe of the party.

[Gazpacho]

I repeat: The TSA is a nationalized airport security service. Is it either fascist or communist?
It's the Transportation Security Administration, and it secures the routes of interstate commerce. It doesn't handle all security throughout the country.

[WildCat]

Is it a crime to be a socialist in the US?
Nope, and neither is it a crime to point out that Maxine Waters doesn't have a clue and is in fact a socialist since she threatens nationalizing the oil industry, like Hugo did in Venezuela.

I suppose everyone criticizing BPSG for posting this thinks that the recent legislation to sue OPEC was a great idea. And that is the most stupidity I've seen here outside of the Conspiracy forum.

[Gurdur]

If anyone would like to make the case that Maxine Waters is not a communist, I'd be happy to hear it.


Oooeer, the nostalgia! :) Guilty until proven innocent!

Retro-look HUAC revival! Yes!!! Poodle skirts and Edsels! Duck and cover!

[WildCat]

Well, the Shell guy was flat-out lying about the cause of price increases, so I see this as two badly behaved maroons, myself.
Oh, please explain how oil is immune from the law of supply and demand. I need a good laugh!

[Nogbad]

Nope, and neither is it a crime to point out that Maxine Waters doesn't have a clue and is in fact a socialist since she threatens nationalizing the oil industry, like Hugo did in Venezuela.

I suppose everyone criticizing BPSG for posting this thinks that the recent legislation to sue OPEC was a great idea. And that is the most stupidity I've seen here outside of the Conspiracy forum.

I would certainly agree that nationalisation is a strategy most often used by socialists - whether she personally has a clue or not I don't know - I have never heard of her.

[Cleon]

I suppose everyone criticizing BPSG for posting this thinks that the recent legislation to sue OPEC was a great idea.

You suppose incorrectly.

[WildCat]

whether she personally has a clue or not I don't know - I have never heard of her.
I can assure you that Maxine Waters doesn't have a clue about anything at all. :D

[WildCat]

You suppose incorrectly.
So the price of oil does in fact reflect supply and demand?

[BPSCG]

FAIL.

You make the case that Maxine Waters is a communist. No one has to prove a negative. You didn't even offer an argument. You offered Red Baiting. The person who began the ad hominems was, wait. . . let me review. . .


YOU.I said she was a communist. I offered evidence. That is not ad hominem. If you think my evidence was faulty or insufficient, it's your job to say why, not simply declare "FAIL."

Could you please explain what you mean by "red baiting"?

[BPSCG]

Even if she was, that's one out of how many?I don't know. Did I say somewhere I knew how many communists there were in congress? If so, I retract it.

Should she be persecuted for it?For her beliefs? No, absolutely not. Did I suggest that she should? If so, I retract it.

But should she be ridiculed? For espousing an economic system that killed, conservatively, fifty million people? Yes, absolutely.

[Darth Rotor]

I repeat: The TSA is a nationalized airport security service. Is it either fascist or communist?

No.

Ergo, you're taking out of the hole in your pants.
Why don't you go back to what the Congresswoman said, about the Government taking over businesses, rather than trying to compare who and what she was talking about to an agency that was created as a governmental function.

Or, explain to me how the oil industry, for example, is an inherently governmental function.

Nationalizing industries and private companies was a common decision of a variety of governments, some socialist, some a bit more fascist. (See Chilean copper mines, early 1970's, for an example.) What the Congresswoman was suggesting was nationalizing what is at present a provate industry. YOu can call that socialistic, you can call it communistic (the two are related) or you can call it fascist, you can even call it statist.

Or, you can keep foaming at the mouth.

Do try to stay on topic, if you can.

DR

[jj]

Oh, please explain how oil is immune from the law of supply and demand. I need a good laugh!

Please explain your irresponsible presumption and substitution of a straw man for my position. Justify your irrational and/or unethical behavior in creating a straw man and engaging in baiting. After you do so, successfully, I may (if you do a really good job) consider you worthy of a considered response.

ETA: Oh, and in case someone forgot my original posting, Maxine Waters is a wingnut, too.

[BPSCG]

Oh, you've got to be kidding.

Red-baiting? I mean, seriously?

That's the political equivalent of jumping the shark.

Well, when your position is intellectually and morally bankrupt, red-baiting probably seems like a logical move?Could you please tell me what you mean by "red-baiting"?

[Ziggurat]

Well I'm not the one referencing to McCarthy and trying to snuff out the commies.

Actually, you are. Right in this post. Nobody suggested anyone should act like McCarthy, and nobody suggested we "snuff out" anyone. Nobody brought up McCarthy until you did. It's really ironic that you're so willing to jump on BPSCG for attributing communism to Waters, but you'll attribute McCarthyism to him at the drop of a hat.

[BPSCG]

Nobody brought up McCarthy until you did. Well, actually, I did, in the OP, being a little critical of McCarthy for never specifying how many communists he thought there were in the government. :)

[Rufo]

But should she be ridiculed? For espousing an economic system that killed, conservatively, fifty million people? Yes, absolutely.
Did nationalizing oil companies kill fifty million people? When, where and how?

[WildCat]

Please explain your irresponsible presumption and substitution of a straw man for my position. Justify your irrational and/or unethical behavior in creating a straw man and engaging in baiting. After you do so, successfully, I may (if you do a really good job) consider you worthy of a considered response.
Hardly a straw man at all. The Shell executive, who you said was "flat-out lying about the cause of price increases (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3741133&postcount=5)" was describing market forces, specifically supply and demand, to the clueless brain-dead knee-jerk creatures that make up the institution known as the US Congress, and to Maxine Waters in particular.

Now, how exactly was he lying?

[WildCat]

Did nationalizing oil companies kill fifty million people? When, where and how?
Nationalizing food production sure as hell did, and it was certainly a product of the economic system Maxine Waters seems to want to borrow ideas from. Note Beeps said "economic system", not the straw man you just created.

[BPSCG]

Did nationalizing oil companies kill fifty million people? When, where and how?Read your history. The economic system whose central feature is government control of all the means of production killed at least that many of the people who were forced to live under it.

[Gazpacho]

It's somewhat comical how she got very flustered right after she said "socializing."

GqjFBiPMmBE

[Rufo]

Nationalizing food production sure as hell did, and it was certainly a product of the economic system Maxine Waters seems to want to borrow ideas from. Note Beeps said "economic system", not the straw man you just created.
There was no need for me to create a straw man when it had so neatly been created for me. If this exposed the original straw man to you, then my question has served its purpose. Maxine Waters never espoused an economic system nationalizing food production. She espoused an economic system nationalizing oil industry.

Read your history. The economic system whose central feature is government control of all the means of production killed at least that many of the people who were forced to live under it.
Don't worry, I have read my history. Why do you make no distinction between communism and, for instance, democratic socialism? In the clip, Hugo Chavez is mentioned as an example of a politician who supports a nationalized oil industry. Regardless of what you, I, Shell or anyone else thinks of Chavez and his political policy, he is not a communist and the economic system he espouses is not the one which you are talking about.

[BPSCG]

Don't worry, I have read my history. Then why do you ask silly questions? Do you know of some economic model not called communism where the government owns and operates the means of production - which is what Waters was threatening?

In the clip, Hugo Chavez is mentioned as an example of a politician who supports a nationalized oil industry. Regardless of what you, I, Shell or anyone else thinks of Chavez and his political policy, he is not a communist and the economic system he espouses is not the one which you are talking about.Well, I wasn't talking about Chavez, now, was I? But since you claim he isn't a communist, would you care to explain in what respect he is not? Since you don't think Chavez or Waters are communists, could you please point one out to us, and explain why that person is a communist while Chavez and Waters are not?

[BPSCG]

It's somewhat comical how she got very flustered right after she said "socializing."Is it my imagination, or can you hear someone laughing in the background, if you crank the volume up?

[UserGoogol]

Read your history. The economic system whose central feature is government control of all the means of production killed at least that many of the people who were forced to live under it.

Backing nationalization of oil companies, although that may or may not be a sound economic policy, is not the same thing as backing the nationalization of all means of production. Her reaction seemed to be something along the lines of "If prices go to ridiculously high levels, we are going to nationalize your ass," which although not particularly market-friendly and somewhat ignorant of the principles of supply and demand, it's difficult to call it a call for socialization of the entire economy.

And yeah, I thought I heard a laugh.

[JoeEllison]

Since "supply and demand" is a rule of thumb and not a law, and is mostly meaningless in a modern economy, I don't see what the big deal is to nationalize oil. I'm sure all the "free market" idiots and liars have much to say on the subject, 99% of which is meaningless, deluded, and/or dishonest. Everything they say is fed to them by the parasite "investor" class, in order to maintain that class of ultra-wealthy people who contribute nothing to our country.

[SezMe]

Yes, Waters is way out there. And I'll bet she regrets the socializing remark. And even if she doesn't, it's just one opinion that is going absolutely nowhere.

My problem, Beeps, is the way you presented the issue. The title of the thread, "How Many Communists Are There In The U.S. Government?" seems a bit out the the 50's and really has nothing to do with the OP. In addition, you call her a communist and you see how that caused thread deterioration.

Why not just highlight the stupidity (in your eyes) of Waters' words and discuss the disasterous results that would ensue from her ideas? It would be a worthwhile thread without all the name calling and other distractions.

[Gazpacho]

The two people behind her, looking somewhat amused, appear to be Brad Sherman (D) Calif. and Betty Sutton (D) Ohio.

Joe, I'm at a loss as to what you expect me to look for on google that shows that supply shocks won't drive gas prices up. I mean, I could do a search on "evil oil companies" or "Hillary Clinton" and find things like that, but did you have something else in mind?

Since "supply and demand" is a rule of thumb and not a law, and is mostly meaningless in a modern economy, I don't see what the big deal is to nationalize oil. I'm sure all the "free market" idiots and liars have much to say on the subject, 99% of which is meaningless, deluded, and/or dishonest. Everything they say is fed to them by the parasite "investor" class, in order to maintain that class of ultra-wealthy people who contribute nothing to our country.
Oh come on, this is a joke. It's just gotta be.

[casebro]

My read of the transcript in the OP is that she said "socializing", which means "to relate to other people, like at a party". She caught her gaff, and so stumbled. Her stumbling over using the wrong word is what half of this thread is about. The other half seems to be the usual gang of suspects and their quibbling. "He said..." "She said.." You said..." Oh YEAH! You are an Ad Hom-er!" " Am NOT" "Neener Neener".

[WildCat]

Oh come on, this is a joke. It's just gotta be.
You would think no one here could possibly be as ignorant of basic economics as Maxine Waters, but there ya go!

[Texas]

Then why do you ask silly questions? Do you know of some economic model not called communism where the government owns and operates the means of production - which is what Waters was threatening?

Well, I wasn't talking about Chavez, now, was I? But since you claim he isn't a communist, would you care to explain in what respect he is not? Since you don't think Chavez or Waters are communists, could you please point one out to us, and explain why that person is a communist while Chavez and Waters are not?
If Chavez isn't a communist he sure has Fidel fooled.

[WildCat]

It would, however, be hilarious if Congress did nationalize the oil companies while at the same time continuing their policy of forbidding drilling wherever oil may be found. You just know that they would still employ every one of those new Federal labor union members even if the nationalized oil company wasn't producing a drop of oil. :)

[Texas]

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358301,00.html)

I'm sure there's a youtube of this available; I heard it on the radio yesterday driving home. In fact, Waters doesn't quite get the whole word "socializing" out; she catches herself just before she finishes, obviously aware she's let everyone have a peek under the rock she lives under, stammers a little, then completes the sentence.

So now there are two huge industries the communists "liberals" in congress want to socialize.

WATERS: And guess what this liberal will be all about? Thios liberal will be about socializing--would be about, basically, taking over and the government running all of your companies

I think Maxine may want to ask the Dutch before she steals Shell from them. She should have waited to threaten an American company.

[WildCat]

I think Maxine may want to ask the Dutch before she steals Shell from them. She should have waited to threaten an American company.
Why? Hugo didn't ask first!

[Texas]

Why? Hugo didn't ask first! Hugo is too busy trying to figure out who in the hell is going to refine his tar pit grade oil. He is like a dog that chases a car, catches it, and looks around stupidly for advice on what to do with it.

[Texas]

Backing nationalization of oil companies, although that may or may not be a sound economic policy, is not the same thing as backing the nationalization of all means of production. Her reaction seemed to be something along the lines of "If prices go to ridiculously high levels, we are going to nationalize your ass," which although not particularly market-friendly and somewhat ignorant of the principles of supply and demand, it's difficult to call it a call for socialization of the entire economy.

And yeah, I thought I heard a laugh.

Well if you nationalize the oil industry, the health care industry, pharmaceutical industry and the Airline industry you have taken one heck of a bite out of the private sector wouldn't you say? All four are now being openly nominated for nationalization.

[shuize]

I'm not sure which silly idea I find more amusing:

The idea that the law of supply and demand is "just a rule of thumb".

Or

The idea that once the Rep. Waters and her "not-communist" friends in government nationalized the U.S. oil industry prices would actually go down.

Both have given me a very good laugh.

[JoeEllison]

The two people behind her, looking somewhat amused, appear to be Brad Sherman (D) Calif. and Betty Sutton (D) Ohio.

Joe, I'm at a loss as to what you expect me to look for on google that shows that supply shocks won't drive gas prices up. I mean, I could do a search on "evil oil companies" or "Hillary Clinton" and find things like that, but did you have something else in mind?


Oh come on, this is a joke. It's just gotta be.

The supply isn't any less than it was when gas was $1.50 cheaper. Opening up drilling today will not lower gas prices at all.

Your ignorance of basic facts is neither my problem nor my responsibility.

[Gazpacho]

The supply isn't any less than it was when gas was $1.50 cheaper.
You know, it's called supply AND demand for a reason.

[jj]

It's interesting to see the free-market worshipers duck and weave here when we see the results of a completely free market and the rampant speculation, with cynical speculators pushing the cost of their speculation on to everyone else by devaluing the dollar so they can make one in the futures market.

But all we'll see is a lot more Hail Rand's, I suspect.

[JoeEllison]

*shrugs*

When you decide to pull your head out of the sand, I'll be happy to give you some Q-tips. :)

[JoeEllison]

It's interesting to see the free-market worshipers duck and weave here when we see the results of a completely free market and the rampant speculation, with cynical speculators pushing the cost of their speculation on to everyone else by devaluing the dollar so they can make one in the futures market.

But all we'll see is a lot more Hail Rand's, I suspect.
You'll note how they exploit the new rules, and shrug off criticism by lying about the old rules still being in effect.

[Texas]

I'm not sure which silly idea I find more amusing:

The idea that the law of supply and demand is "just a rule of thumb".

Or

The idea that once the Rep. Waters and her "not-communist" friends in government nationalized the U.S. oil industry prices would actually go down.

Both have given me a very good laugh.

We are from the government and are here to help you.

[Texas]

The supply isn't any less than it was when gas was $1.50 cheaper. Opening up drilling today will not lower gas prices at all.

Your ignorance of basic facts is neither my problem nor my responsibility.
Would you care to post an instance when any commodity has not gone down in price when supply of that commodity has been significantly increased?

[Gazpacho]

edit: not gonna waste time in a debate where 4chan memes are thrown about as a sign of superiority.

[JoeEllison]

I came to the conclusion long ago that people on the political left totally reject the concept of supply and demand pricing. By that I don't mean that they believe it happens with some noise around the margins, or that it happens except in some special situations (both of which are reasonable viewpoints IMO). They believe it never happens, period. "Supply and demand" is completely replaced in their universe by "regulation and greed."

So, basically, you live in a fantasy world where you ignore what people actually say, create a strawman of "the left", and feel superior over people who aren't making the arguments you claim, and bask in your own ignorance of modern economics?

Awesome! Well, for you, I guess... 'epic fail' from an objective viewpoint, but no doubt you're proud of it! :D

[Lonewulf]

So, basically, you live in a fantasy world where you ignore what people actually say, create a strawman of "the left", and feel superior over people who aren't making the arguments you claim, and bask in your own ignorance of modern economics?

Awesome! Well, for you, I guess... 'epic fail' from an objective viewpoint, but no doubt you're proud of it! :DIndeed.

At the very least, he's good at what he does (making strawmen, that is).

[G-K-4]

BPSCG,

Before you asked Rufo this...

Since you don't think Chavez or Waters are communists, could you please point one out to us, and explain why that person is a communist while Chavez and Waters are not?

...I was going to ask you a similar question.

Do you make any distinction between "communist" and "socialist"? Or any of the degrees or types within those categories (for example Stalinism versus anarcho-communism)? Or do you not pay much attention to these differences?


Meanwhile, you might also want to count Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont as a socialist, specifically a democratic socialist. According to the New York Times article linked below, this is how he describes himself. He became mayor of Burlington in the early 1980's and went on to Congress, running as an independent.

When asked to define "democratic socialism", Sanders describes the Scandinavian economies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21Sanders.t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1

He seems to be more open about this label than Waters, especially with her use of the term "liberal". U.S. liberals today are still capitalists.

[Mycroft]

Oh, you've got to be kidding.

Red-baiting? I mean, seriously?

That's the political equivalent of jumping the shark.

I would say "red-baiting" is the practice of baiting a communist into an argument, but you seem to take it to mean simply labeling a communist as a communist.

I can see how baiting someone into an argument could be in poor taste, like trolling, but what's the problem with (correctly) labeling someone as a communist? It shouldn't be any different from labeling someone as a democrat or a libertarian.

If you honestly believe in the ideals of communism, why not be open about it? Why make up a term like "red-baiting" to try to silence people? Why not instead try to communicate to people what it is about communism that you like? People might not agree with you, but at least you get the benefit of being honest.

[Kopji]

Yeah, dirty commies... They are SO WRONG. Or whatever. I'm going to be ok with market driven gas prices as long as I'm not asked to bail out the oil speculators when the bubble pops.

I'm driving and shopping less while I think about how high gas prices have gotten. I hope they all enjoy their high prices with lowering demand and a general recession.

If we allow oil drilling on the North Slope, will it be better to sell the oil to the Communist Chinese or to Capitalist Americans?

[jimtron]

To answer the thread title: 57. What do I win?


Apparently not.
I think calling Walters a communist is a big much, but to call her a nutjob is appropriate.
The way the Anti Free Market movement is picking up steam is scary.

Speaking of the Anti Free Market movement, a lot of Americans--not only lefties--seem to feel that way with gas prices being so high.

[Mycroft]

Do you make any distinction between "communist" and "socialist"? Or any of the degrees or types within those categories (for example Stalinism versus anarcho-communism)? Or do you not pay much attention to these differences?

If you were to provide a primer describing the differences, I think that would be fascinating.

[JoeEllison]

Yeah, dirty commies... They are SO WRONG. Or whatever. I'm going to be ok with market driven gas prices as long as I'm not asked to bail out the oil speculators when the bubble pops.

The problem is that the parasites, and the morons who support them in the name of "free markets", have no problem in socializing/nationalizing the risks, and dumping the fallout of their schemes on the taxpayers. They walk away with billions in profits, and we get stuck with the bill.

[UserGoogol]

Yeah, dirty commies... They are SO WRONG. Or whatever. I'm going to be ok with market driven gas prices as long as I'm not asked to bail out the oil speculators when the bubble pops.

Oh, speculators. That's a pretty plausible explanation, yeah. I think consumer demand exceeding supply makes more sense, but investors do throw a monkey wrench in things and I've heard stuff from both sides. (Technically, investors are part of supply and demand, since investors cause people to demand more oil, but the dynamics are different.)

[Corsair 115]

Speaking of the Anti Free Market movement, a lot of Americans--not only lefties--seem to feel that way with gas prices being so high.And plenty of Americans seem to feel backing out of NAFTA is okay since they've blamed it for lots of job losses.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Maxine Waters is definately a fringe nutter, but...

Nope, and neither is it a crime to point out that Maxine Waters doesn't have a clue and is in fact a socialist...

WildCat calls her a socialist and Beeps is saying she's a communist. Which made me want to ask something GK4 beat me to...

Do you make any distinction between "communist" and "socialist"? Or any of the degrees or types within those categories (for example Stalinism versus anarcho-communism)? Or do you not pay much attention to these differences?

I'm wondering about this too. By communist does he mean a true Marxist, a Leninist-Stalinist, anarchist etc. and does he know that the democracies of Europe socialized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation) large segments of their economies, but have since privatized or semi-privatized them?

...especially since he gave me such crap for misusing kleptocracy a few months ago. :D

[E.J.Armstrong]

:rolleyes:

This is really not something to be proud of yourself over.

Hear hear.

[BPSCG]

Do you make any distinction between "communist" and "socialist"? Or any of the degrees or types within those categories (for example Stalinism versus anarcho-communism)? Or do you not pay much attention to these differences?I really don't care to get into hair-splitting among all the various degrees of government ownership and operation of the means of production. Adding to your Stalinism and "anarcho-communism" (whatever the hell that's supposed to be :boggled:), we've had on this thread socialism and "democratic socialism" (whatever the hell that is :boggled:); one could add Trotskyism, Maoism, and, what the hell, why not throw national socialism into the mix? Anyone care to tell me what national socialism is?

When I hear someone say, "We're going to have the government seize your industry and have the government run it," I think, "Meh, communist." Why do I have to specify what flavor?

Now, again, if Maxine Waters is not a communist, and if Hugo Chavez is not a communist, could you please point out a communist to me and explain the differences among them that makes that person a communist, and not Waters or Chavez? Thank you.
U.S. liberals today are still capitalists.Maxine Waters says she's a liberal, but she is certainly not a capitalist.

[BPSCG]

Hear hear.Good morning, E.J.

I notice you've changed your sig line and while I'm flattered to see you quoting one of my posts again, I was wondering if I could ask you to please provide a link to the source of the quote, inasmuch as when read in its proper context, it becomes clear that you are not actually quoting me, but rather the imagined thoughts I ascribed to a hypothetical person.

Thanks! :)

[BPSCG]

I would say "red-baiting" is the practice of baiting a communist into an argument, but you seem to take it to mean simply labeling a communist as a communist.Which is why I asked Cleon and JoeEllison to explain what they meant by "red-baiting." All I've seen back from JoeEllison at this point is a bunch of screeds railing at people for being so stupid as to believe in the law of supply and demand.

I can see how baiting someone into an argument could be in poor taste, like trolling, but what's the problem with (correctly) labeling someone as a communist? It shouldn't be any different from labeling someone as a democrat or a libertarian.I get called a "right-winger," and "neocon" all the time. Is that "right-wing-baiting"? Evidently the people using those terms seem to think calling me a right-winger is going to somehow make me hang my head in shame or burst into tears or something.

Why is it beyond the pale to call a communist a communist? Is there something sacrosanct about communists that they may not be called communists? What should they be called?

[Cleon]

I would say "red-baiting" is the practice of baiting a communist into an argument, but you seem to take it to mean simply labeling a communist as a communist.

Maxine Waters is not a communist. The idea is silly on its face.

Calling her one serves no purpose beyond painting little red horns on someone you disagree with. It's beyond pathetic.

[Cleon]

Which is why I asked Cleon and JoeEllison to explain what they meant by "red-baiting." All I've seen back from JoeEllison at this point is a bunch of screeds railing at people for being so stupid as to believe in the law of supply and demand.

I get called a "right-winger," and "neocon" all the time. Is that "right-wing-baiting"? Evidently the people using those terms seem to think calling me a right-winger is going to somehow make me hang my head in shame or burst into tears or something.

Why is it beyond the pale to call a communist a communist? Is there something sacrosanct about communists that they may not be called communists? What should they be called?

Your unfamiliarity with history is your own problem.

Maxine Waters is not a communist. Calling her one just makes you look like a kook.

But if that's the bed you want to make for yourself, have at it.

[The Painter]

How Many Communists Are There In The U.S. Government?

Not sure. However, there certainly quite a few on this board. When will they learn. Communism just doesn't work. Why do communists get upset when you call them communists?

[WildCat]

Maxine Waters is definately a fringe nutter, but...



WildCat calls her a socialist and Beeps is saying she's a communist. Which made me want to ask something GK4 beat me to...



I'm wondering about this too. By communist does he mean a true Marxist, a Leninist-Stalinist, anarchist etc. and does he know that the democracies of Europe socialized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation) large segments of their economies, but have since privatized or semi-privatized them?

...especially since he gave me such crap for misusing kleptocracy a few months ago. :D
Ah yes, now we get into the old "no true communist" argument.

So productive... :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

The supply isn't any less than it was when gas was $1.50 cheaper.
What's happened to demand Joe?

and bask in your own ignorance of modern economics?
Let me guess, you're an expert despite never having taken an economics course in your entire life?

Maybe you should post in the Conspiracy Theories section and join the high school freshmen who think they know more about structural engineering than the leading experts in the field.

[Cleon]

Ah yes, now we get into the old "no true communist" argument.

So productive... :rolleyes:

Right, no need to be accurate or anything.

They're all commies! China, North Korea, Iceland, Venezuela, Sweden, Canada - all commies! Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Waters, Clinton, Chavez - all commies!

There's no difference. Just commies!


I wonder if you even realize that you sound like parodies of yourselves.

[BPSCG]

My problem, Beeps, is the way you presented the issue. The title of the thread, "How Many Communists Are There In The U.S. Government?" seems a bit out the the 50's and really has nothing to do with the OP. It doesn't?

And why does the fact that it's "out of the '50s" make the point irrelevant? If I say "All men are created equal," are you going to cuff on top of the head me for saying something that's a bit out of the 18th century?

Elvis was out of the '50s also.

In addition, you call her a communist and you see how that caused thread deterioration.That was the whole purpose of the thread - to discuss the fact that there is an avowed communist in the House of Representatives.

Why not just highlight the stupidity (in your eyes) of Waters' words and discuss the disasterous results that would ensue from her ideas? I thought it was already generally understood that communism is a stupid idea that's had nothing but disastrous results every place it's been tried.

Okay, not everyone understands that, but JoeEllison is beyond hope.

It would be a worthwhile thread without all the name calling and other distractions.Why is calling a communist a communist name-calling? :confused:

[WildCat]

Right, no need to be accurate or anything.

They're all commies! China, North Korea, Iceland, Venezuela, Sweden, Canada - all commies! Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Waters, Clinton, Chavez - all commies!

There's no difference. Just commies!


I wonder if you people realize that you sound like parodies of yourselves.
Look at the straw fly!

I notice you're avoiding discussing that there's actually a member of Congress threatening to nationalize the oil business.

Would you like to discuss that instead of engaging in your "no true communist" derail?

[Darth Rotor]

It doesn't?

And why does the fact that it's "out of the '50s" make the point irrelevant? If I say "All men are created equal," are you going to cuff on top of the head me for saying something that's a bit out of the 18th century?

Elvis was out of the '50s also.

That was the whole purpose of the thread - to discuss the fact that there is an avowed communist in the House of Representatives.

I thought it was already generally understood that communism is a stupid idea that's had nothing but disastrous results every place it's been tried.

Okay, not everyone understands that, but JoeEllison is beyond hope.

Why is calling a communist a communist name-calling? :confused:
Beeps, I am going to get nitpicky here.

Waters' remark smacks of statism, socialism, communism, fascism, and any number of other isms that all include governmental control of enterprise as an element of their practical ideology. Granted, socialism is the transitional stage to communism wherein human nature is allowed to perfect itself so that communism arises ex nihilo and all is sweetness and light . . . but Communist most often applies to a party affiliation, since the 1920's at the least, or an identification with the Comintern, the Party, or something smililar.

Why not refer to her as a socialist, or a statist, which is as accurate as communist, perhaps moreso?

As to her being a bit lost about how private enterprise works, yes, she's lost. But she got the votes, so there she is, lost in a very public way. I wonder if she understands what embarassment is. She appears to be immune to its effects.

As to the Greek chorus of Beeps detractors in this thread, what I just wrote is not a novel appreciation of the terms and means in use. Why did you all begin to foam at the mouth in Pavlovian fashion, rather than write a clear rebuttal about the use of communist, Communist, socialist, and so on.

Not much critical thinking here, folks, but plenty of emotion on display. Rebuttal to Beeps is "you are a right winger" or references to "parasite."

You can turn in your skeptic credentials to one of the Mods. You have exposed yourselves as frauds.

DR

[BPSCG]

Maxine Waters is not a communist. The idea is silly on its face.

Calling her one serves no purpose beyond painting little red horns on someone you disagree with. It's beyond pathetic.

Your unfamiliarity with history is your own problem.

Maxine Waters is not a communist. Calling her one just makes you look like a kook.

But if that's the bed you want to make for yourself, have at it.Please, say "Maxine Waters is not a communist," just one more time so I can invoke Lewis Carroll!*

Please explain to me why someone who favors the nationalization of major industry and the running of it by the government is not a communist.
*"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."

from The Hunting of the Snark

[volatile]

to discuss the fact that there is an avowed communist in the House of Representatives.

There is?

[Cleon]

Look at the straw fly!

No straw, an adequate summary of your point.

They're all commies!


I notice you're avoiding discussing that there's actually a member of Congress threatening to nationalize the oil business.

Would you like to discuss that instead of engaging in your "no true communist" derail?

Sorry to disappoint, but the OP called her a communist.

If you think it's a "derail" to say she isn't, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Cleon]

Please, say "Maxine Waters is not a communist," just one more time so I can invoke Lewis Carroll!*

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that quotations are an adequate substitute for reason.

You are incorrect.


Please explain to me why someone who favors the nationalization of major industry and the running of it by the government is not a communist.

I know, I'm the one supposed to prove you wrong. :rolleyes:



Git them commies, BPSCG! Git 'em!

[Darth Rotor]

There is?
Waters is in the Democratic Party. Some characterize that party, as of 2008, as the last refuge for any remaining Communists left in America since about the 1970's (I forget when Gus Hall stopped running for President). Given the way third, fourth and fifth parties tend to be marginalized, any Communist or Green who wants to get anywhere politically has to affiliate with the more leftish of the two major parties, just as a Libertarian/small government sort, see Ron Paul, has to affiliate with the more rightish or non statist party. (Then again, Bush has taken the GOP in the Statist direction, so Paul hitched his wagon to a strange star.)

Now, is Waters a True Communist, with a red kilt and all that? Couldn't say. There is another member of the Democratic Party who I am certain is no Communist, Ike Skelton of Missouri, likewise James Webb of Virginia, Harry Reid of Nevada, and so on, so one cannot map a one to one correspondence of Communist to Democrat, no matter how one tries.

Does that clear things up? :cool:

DR

[volatile]

Waters is in the Democratic Party. Some characterize it as the last refuge for any remaining Communists left in America since about the 1970's (I forget when Gus Hall stopped running for President). Given the way third, fourth and fifth parties tend to be marginalized, any Communist or Green who wants to get anywhere politically has to affiliate with the more leftish of the two major parties, just as a Libertarian/small government sort, see Ron Paul, has to affiliate with the more rightish or non statist party. (Then again, Bush has taken the GOP in the Statist direction, so Paul hitched his wagon to a strange star.)

Does that clear things up? :cool:

DR

That's not quite the same thing as "avowed", is it?

Nationalisation does not equal communism, in and of itself; to suggest otherwise is enormously ignorant, as you pointed out above.

[Darth Rotor]

That's not quite the same thing as "avowed", is it?
Indeed, I'd have to look into her history to find out if Representative Waters ever affiliated with the Communist party. Not sure she's worth the effort.

ETA: She is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (A snippet from Wiki)

Ideology
According to their website, the CPC advocates "universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare," fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in strike actions and collective bargaining, the abolition of significant portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of gay marriage, strict campaign finance reform laws, a complete pullout from the war in Iraq, a crackdown on free trade and corporate welfare, an increase in income tax on the wealthy, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in social welfare spending by the federal government.

[edit] Supporting organizations
An array of national progressive organizations will work to support the efforts of the caucus, including the Institute for Policy Studies, The Nation magazine, MoveOn.org, National Priorities Project, Jobs with Justice, Peace Action, Americans for Democratic Action, and Progressive Democrats of America. Also co-sponsoring the kickoff event were the NAACP, ACLU, Progressive Majority, League of United Latin American Citizens, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, National Council of La Raza, Hip Hop Caucus, Human Rights Campaign, Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, and the National Hip Hop Political Convention. The CPC has long maintained cordial ties with the Democratic Socialists of America, which hosted its website during the 1990s.
Note: Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a democratic socialist/social democratic organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International, a federation of socialist, social democratic, democratic socialist and labor parties and organizations. From wiki we note:
Political ideology: Democratic socialism
Political position Fiscal: Center-left, Left-wing
Social: Center-left, Left-wing
International affiliation: Socialist International
Colour(s): Red

So, given her second or third order relationship with Democratic Socialists, you could call her a Red, but quite frankly, it would be a reach.

But note the fourth order relationship to the Socialist International:

In the 1980s, most SI parties gave their backing to the Nicaraguan Sandinistas (FSLN), whose left-wing government had incited enmity from the United States. Since then, the SI has admitted as member-parties not only the FSLN but also the centre-left Puerto Rican Independence Party, as well as the ex-Communist parties such as the Italian Democrats of the Left (Democratici di Sinistra (DS)) and the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO).
So maybe she is by affiliation a fourth degree of removal, a la Kevin Bacon, a bit of a Commie symp.

Avowed Communist? Not so much.

Nationalisation does not equal communism, in and of itself; ==snip== as you pointed out above.
Correct

to suggest otherwise is enormously ignorant,
It might also be a tactic to smoke out the foaming at the mouth band of the usual suspects.

What do you think was the transaction here?

DR

[volatile]

It might also be a tactic to smoke out the foaming at the mouth band of the usual suspects.

What do you think was the transaction here?

DR

I think Beeps is wrong, but he's no Jerome.

[BPSCG]

Waters' remark smacks of statism, socialism, communism, fascism, and any number of other isms that all include governmental control of enterprise as an element of their practical ideology. Granted, socialism is the transitional stage to communism wherein human nature is allowed to perfect itself so that communism arises ex nihilo and all is sweetness and light . . . but Communist most often applies to a party affiliation, since the 1920's at the least, or an identification with the Comintern, the Party, or something smililar.

Why not refer to her as a socialist, or a statist, which is as accurate as communist, perhaps moreso? As I said before, I'm really not interested in getting into the various different shades and flavors of the proponents of government ownership and operation of industry. "She's not a communist, she's a socialist." "No, she's a democratic socialist." "No, she's a social democrat." "No, she's an anarcho-syndicalist..."

Screw it. Soon you're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, instead of the fact that there's a crazy lady in Congress who wants the government to take over, manage, and run the oil industry. I'm calling her a communist. Someone else wants to call her a social liberal secularist because he perceives some significant metaphysical distinction, let him have at it.

[Monty Python]

BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG: **** off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Schtum.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the *********** Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!

[/Life of Brian]
I wonder if she understands what embarassment is. I think she does. Look how she stumbles around after realizing how close she came to saying she wanted to socialize the oil industry.

Problem is, the morons in her district certainly lap that stuff up.

[Darth Rotor]

As I said before, I'm really not interested in getting into the various different shades and flavors of the proponents of government ownership and operation of industry.
Fine, but then you'll get nitpicky ripostes. We are both old Cold Warriors, Beeps, but even I'll admit the world moves on.
"She's not a communist, she's a socialist." "No, she's a democratic socialist." "No, she's a social democrat." "No, she's an anarcho-syndicalist..."
I'd say she's a pol with massive statist preferences, and is a political racialist by her affiliations and positions. For her, the politics of race are an avenue to influence and position.
instead of the fact that there's a crazy lady in Congress who wants the government to take over, manage, and run the oil industry.
No quibble there.
[Monty Python][B]
Splitters fun
[/Life of Brian]
Look how she stumbles around after realizing how close she came to saying she wanted to socialize the oil industry.
Yes, she just tipped the Democratic Party's hand, which will have Nancy Pelosi, among others, engaged in a bit of damage control. Or not.
Problem is, the morons in her district certainly lap that stuff up.
Beeps, the folks in DC voted Marion Barry back in as mayor after he got busted for the cocaine and hookers deal. Voters are fickle. That's part of the fun, isn't it?

Further commentary in PJ O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores, for those readers interested on how democracy trips over itself time and again.

DR

[volatile]

Beeps - what you're asserting is essentially the same as saying that anyone who throws a ball in the air is a juggler.

There are intentional and functional differences between throwing balls in the air and juggling, even though throwing balls in the air is a component (and an important component) of juggling. The same is true of the differences between communism and socialism. If you can't see that, you need to read some more history and political science.

[BPSCG]

I know, I'm the one supposed to prove you wrong. Well, yeah.

Duh.

Who do you think is going to do it? Me? WildCat?

Or is everyone here supposed to be convinced by your compelling arguments, the sum and substance of which is, "Maxine Waters is not a communist"?

Right now, we have my claim that she is a communist, supported by some evidence.

We also have your claim that she is not a communist, supported by no evidence at all.

If you think my argument is faulty, then prove it, or admit you can't.

[volatile]

If she were a communist, she would nationalise industries. She wants to nationalise industries, therefore she is a communist.

If she were a juggler, she'd throw balls in the air. She throws balls in the air, therefore she is a juggler.

If A then B. B, therefore A.

Your "argument", such that it is, affirms the consequent and is thus utterly, utterly fallacious.

[Rufo]

Then why do you ask silly questions?
Because you refuse to. Someone has to ask the silly questions, or the silliness will continue.

Do you know of some economic model not called communism where the government owns and operates the means of production - which is what Waters was threatening?
Darth Rotor has made some examples, but that really isn't relevant to this situation. Waters never suggested that all the means of production be owned and operated by the government. She suggested nationalizing the oil industry. Difference.

Well, I wasn't talking about Chavez, now, was I? But since you claim he isn't a communist, would you care to explain in what respect he is not? Since you don't think Chavez or Waters are communists, could you please point one out to us, and explain why that person is a communist while Chavez and Waters are not?
Well, let's see.

Communism, basically, is the political idea that society should be changed from the current capitalistic system to a system where there is no private ownership, and where everything is owned collectively by the people. To achieve this, many forms of communism has the government seizing all the privately owned companies and controls them during the transitional stage to the communistic society, called socialism.

This is the definition of communism as a political ideology.

From what I know, neither Hugo Chavez nor Maxine Waters have claimed to have any such agenda. From what I can understand, looking at their policies, it is quite obvious that they are working with a different political agenda from communism. They want to nationalize certain industries - not all, just some of them - for completely different purposes. From what I know, neither of them have called themselves communists.

So, here is the current situation. Waters does not claim to be a communist. The definition of communist is not consistent with Waters' political policy and apparent political agenda. You admittedly have no or little knowledge of this part of the political spectrum. And for some strange reason, you think that you have no obligation to know what a word means before using it. Well, now you know. Lenin - whose economic system had fatal resuts - was a communist. Maxine Waters is not a communist.

[Cleon]

Well, yeah.

Duh.

Who do you think is going to do it? Me? WildCat?

Sorry, I thought the onus was on you to justify your claims. Silly me.


Right now, we have my claim that she is a communist, supported by some evidence.We don't have any evidence that she is a communist.

Of course, the moment we point out that nationalizing oil companies does not necessarily make one a communist, you just brush it off.


If you think my argument is faulty, then prove it, or admit you can't.
Faulty? You have no argument, just unsupported claims and bluster that sounds like 50-year-old propaganda.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/173483eaf099b2ba.gif

[BPSCG]

There are intentional and functional differences between throwing balls in the air and juggling, even though throwing balls in the air is a component (and an important component) of juggling. The same is true of the differences between communism and socialism. If you can't see that, you need to read some more history and political science.Please instruct me as to the functional differences between socialism and communism, and why Maxine Waters is the former and not the latter.

I've been asking a lot of people in this thread to explain a lot of things to me, and so far, all I've gotten by way of reply from the left side is abuse and snarky comments.

[volatile]

Please instruct me as to the functional differences between socialism and communism, and why Maxine Waters is the former and not the latter.

I've been asking a lot of people in this thread to explain a lot of things to me, and so far, all I've gotten by way of reply from the left side is abuse and snarky comments.

Rufo has done this above, so I shan't repeat what (s)he said. Suffice to say, though, that if you cannot see the functional and intentional differences between the social and economic policies Soviet Russia (which were communist, of one stripe or another) and countries such as France which have nationalised industries but are not communist at all, then I can't really help you.

[Pardalis]

Are all these countries communist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#Notable_nationalizations_by_countr y

ETA: and what's with the reference to McCarthy BTW? You never did explain it. Is one of the darkest periods of your history no big deal to you, BPSCG?

[Tailgater]

The supply isn't any less than it was when gas was $1.50 cheaper. Opening up drilling today will not lower gas prices at all.

Your ignorance of basic facts is neither my problem nor my responsibility.

Earth to Joe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/07cnd-energy.html?ex=1352178000&en=c7b2df89732dc21b&ei=5124&partner=newsvine&exprod=newsvine

Bolstered by speedy economic development and industrialization, energy demand from Asia has been one of the main contributors to higher oil prices. Over the last two years, China and India accounted for about 70 percent of the increase in energy demand and the world’s energy needs would increase 55 percent by 2030. Another reason for higher prices is investments not made by oil producers, including the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=world+oil+demand+china+india+oil+de mand&go=&form=QBRE

I would also suggest googling any legislation that has been blocked the last the last few decades in the name of the environment here in the US and read up. We are perfectly willing to import oil with no safety standards in tankers that can cause oil spills in the ocean (running on oil!), but block anything here in the US.

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=democrats+block+us+oil+exploration+ drilling+refineries&go=&form=QBRE

http://purelypolitical.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/18/1439081-the-truth-about-big-oil-democrats-and-environmentalism

[Tailgater]

I don't care who called who a communist. What I do care about is a national oil company becoming a political tool more than it already is. Just what we need is some idiot opening up the floodgates because that is "what the people want".

[Mashuna]

You know, I'd never realised that I'd been living in a communist country through the 70s. What with the nationalised steel, coal, gas and rail industries, amongst many others.

[Mashuna]

As I said before, I'm really not interested in getting into the various different shades and flavors of the proponents of government ownership and operation of industry. "She's not a communist, she's a socialist." "No, she's a democratic socialist." "No, she's a social democrat." "No, she's an anarcho-syndicalist..."

Please instruct me as to the functional differences between socialism and communism, and why Maxine Waters is the former and not the latter.

I've been asking a lot of people in this thread to explain a lot of things to me, and so far, all I've gotten by way of reply from the left side is abuse and snarky comments.

Can I just ask you to clarify which of these statements you want people to respond to?

[BPSCG]

Darth Rotor has made some examples, but that really isn't relevant to this situation. Waters never suggested that all the means of production be owned and operated by the government. She suggested nationalizing the oil industry. Difference.If one believes in the principle that it is good for the government to nationalize one industry, then why should one not believe in the principle that it is good for the government to nationalize all industry? The primary complaint against the oil industry is not that it isn't providing sufficient product, nor is the complaint that the product is faulty. The complaint is that the product is too expensive. Indeed, that is the central point of Waters's rant; she demanded guarantees from the oil guys that they would lower prices if they could drill more, and failing to get that, threatened them with nationalization.

Well, if nationalizing the oil industry because the price of gasoline is too high is a good idea, where should we look next? Why should the government not also nationalize the health care industry? The cable industry? The airline industry? The food industry? The housing industry? The banking industry? All those industries provide products that are increasingly expensive, and necessary to everyday life in America. Why should they not be nationalized for the same reason that oil should be nationalized?

If you can justify nationalizing one industry because Congress decides its products cost too much, then you can justify nationalizing every industry because Congress decides its products cost too much.

Call that socialism if you like, call it communism-lite, if you like. You yourself acknowledge socialism is simply a transitional period to communism. I have to ask you, do you think the distinction is important?

They want to nationalize certain industries - not all, just some of them - How do you know this? Could you please provide a link to where Chavez says he only wants to nationalize some industries, not all, where he intendeds to stop, what industries he says are safe from nationalization?

Could you do the same with Waters? Could you link to someplace where she says under what conditions she believes an industry should be taken over by the government?

From what I know, neither of them have called themselves communists.In Waters's case, that would probably be political suicide even in her silly district. That's why she caught herself before she finished saying "socialize."

The definition of communist is not consistent with Waters' political policy and apparent political agenda. You have not demonstrated that. All you have done is assert that she has no further territorial claims in Europe no intention of nationalizing any industry other than oil, and even that limitation is suspect, since we haven't even begun to discuss her views on health care in the U.S.

[BPSCG]

Can I just ask you to clarify which of these statements you want people to respond to?:biggrin:

Fair point. Though you have to acknowledge that pretty much all I've gotten so far amounts to "she's not a communist, you stupid dootyhead red-baiter."

[volatile]

"Why should the government not also nationalize the health care industry?"

It should! :-D

[Darth Rotor]

"Why should the government not also nationalize the health care industry?"

It should! :-D
Commie!

(You knew that was coming. :) )

[Darat]

If one believes in the principle that it is good for the government to nationalize one industry, then why should one not believe in the principle that it is good for the government to nationalize all industry?

...snip...

A simple reason is that industries are not all the same.

[Mashuna]

:biggrin:

Fair point. Though you have to acknowledge that pretty much all I've gotten so far amounts to "she's not a communist, you stupid dootyhead red-baiter."

:D

If she makes another slip on radio where she talks about the formation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, then I'll admit she's a communist.

[ravdin]

It's because of idiots like Maxine Waters that the word "liberal" has been equated with "communist".

As a liberal (i.e. an advocate for liberty), it annoys me to no end to see the word used the way she did.

[mrbaracuda]

Good morning, E.J.

I notice you've changed your sig line and while I'm flattered to see you quoting one of my posts again, I was wondering if I could ask you to please provide a link to the source of the quote, inasmuch as when read in its proper context, it becomes clear that you are not actually quoting me, but rather the imagined thoughts I ascribed to a hypothetical person.

Thanks! :)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3712623&postcount=5

[BPSCG]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3712623&postcount=5


Thanks! After seeing E.J.'s sig line, I suddenly realized what it must be like to read a Maureen Dowd column where she stitches together pieces of separate sentences to make it sound like you said something completely the opposite of what you intended.

[Rufo]

If one believes in the principle that it is good for the government to nationalize one industry, then why should one not believe in the principle that it is good for the government to nationalize all industry? The primary complaint against the oil industry is not that it isn't providing sufficient product, nor is the complaint that the product is faulty. The complaint is that the product is too expensive. Indeed, that is the central point of Waters's rant; she demanded guarantees from the oil guys that they would lower prices if they could drill more, and failing to get that, threatened them with nationalization.

Well, if nationalizing the oil industry because the price of gasoline is too high is a good idea, where should we look next? Why should the government not also nationalize the health care industry? The cable industry? The airline industry? The food industry? The housing industry? The banking industry? All those industries provide products that are increasingly expensive, and necessary to everyday life in America. Why should they not be nationalized for the same reason that oil should be nationalized?
There could be any number of reasons, given that, as Darat pointed out, the industries are quite different. Ask Waters and Chavez, not me.

If you can justify nationalizing one industry because Congress decides its products cost too much, then you can justify nationalizing every industry because Congress decides its products cost too much.
No. That implies you take no other factors into account except this one. There are a number of factors to take into account with each industry. Do not assume that your simplification is a valid model of the thinking of actual politicians.

Call that socialism if you like, call it communism-lite, if you like. You yourself acknowledge socialism is simply a transitional period to communism. I have to ask you, do you think the distinction is important?
Socialism is seen as a transitional period to communism in communistic thinking. Other political ideologies may use socialism or some version or degree of socialism for other purposes.

How do you know this? Could you please provide a link to where Chavez says he only wants to nationalize some industries, not all, where he intendeds to stop, what industries he says are safe from nationalization?

Could you do the same with Waters? Could you link to someplace where she says under what conditions she believes an industry should be taken over by the government?
I'm sorry, that is not how it works. It's possible that they have both made such statements, but I am not going to look for them, because the burden of proof is not on me.

You have claimed that Waters is a communist. You have provided what you considered evidence for that Waters is a communist. I have proven that your evidence is insufficient. You are assuming that Waters is a communist because you make unproven assumptions based on your insufficient evidence. I should not be the one to prove your assumptions wrong. You should be the one to prove them right.

In Waters's case, that would probably be political suicide even in her silly district. That's why she caught herself before she finished saying "socialize."
It would probably be political suicide for her to be a communist, yes.

You have not demonstrated that. All you have done is assert that she has no further territorial claims in Europe no intention of nationalizing any industry other than oil, and even that limitation is suspect, since we haven't even begun to discuss her views on health care in the U.S.
If I live in a country with nationalized health care and someone suggests that the health care system be privatized, would I be right to assume that that person is an anarcho-capitalist who wants to privatize the police force, the military and dissolve the government because the person has not explicitly said they did not? No, I would not. And I would not be right to consider my assumption true until proven false. How would this be different from what you are doing?

[Mycroft]

Maxine Waters is not a communist. The idea is silly on its face.

Why? Because the hard-core communists over on the Marxism Mailing list or the Yahoo SWP_USA message group don't think she's communist enough to fit in?

That wouldn't surprise me


Calling her one serves no purpose beyond painting little red horns on someone you disagree with. It's beyond pathetic.

Oh, that's bull!

Maxine Waters made an outrageous statement and was called on it. Calling her a communists does nothing more than correctly identify the political views that thinks it's okay for a government to nationalize private industry.

This is hypocrisy. You claim identifying her as a communist is bad because it demonizes her, yet your response is to manufacture your own term to demonize BPSCG.

My opinion: being a communist itself isn't any different from being a Libertarian, Democrat, Republican or anything else. It's a point of view. Maybe one that I disagree with, but a point of view.

Being a communists who takes pains to hide being a communist while actively trying to shut down criticism of communists with manufactured terms like "red-baiting" places them a step below truthers or revisionists on the scum scale. At least those guys are up-front about who they are and what they believe, and they don't try to shut down people talking about it.

[volatile]

Maxine Waters made an outrageous statement and was called on it. Calling her a communists does nothing more than correctly identify the political views that thinks it's okay for a government to nationalize private industry.

Just as throwing balls in the air is not sufficient to be a juggler, nationalising private industry is not functionally or intentionally sufficient to be termed communist. Affirming the consequent is a fallacy for a reason, Mycroft. You know that full well.

That a desire to nationalise industries is not equivalent to being a communist has been explained numerous times in the thread, and it's the precise reason why you, and why BPSG, are wrong. Calling her communist is disingenuous, and smacks of red-baiting precisely because it's not true and because it's intended to undermine her policies by associating her with the historical ideologies of communism which it is manifestly obvious she does not subscribe to nor support.

[Tailgater]

I wonder what steps she would take to lower prices when she "takes over".

[Cleon]

Why?


Because she doesn't espouse Communist philosophy or ideals, nor is she (as far as I'm aware) a member of any communist organization or network.

Nationalization of an industry != communism.


Maxine Waters made an outrageous statement and was called on it. Calling her a communists does nothing more than correctly identify the political views that thinks it's okay for a government to nationalize private industry.
Bzzt...Nope.


This is hypocrisy. You claim identifying her as a communist is bad because it demonizes her, yet your response is to manufacture your own term to demonize BPSCG. You think the term "red-baiting" is "manufactured?"

From this I can only assume you're rather ignorant of American history.


Being a communists who takes pains to hide being a communist while actively trying to shut down criticism of communists with manufactured terms like "red-baiting" places them a step below truthers or revisionists on the scum scale. At least those guys are up-front about who they are and what they believe, and they don't try to shut down people talking about it.And we're back to "Cleon's a commie," are we?

Get a new shtick. It's old.

[mrbaracuda]

It would probably be political suicide for her to be a communist, yes.

Ah, I wish it were the same here in Germany. I assume about a fifth of all politicans would be gone! :)

[Pardalis]

Again, BPSCG, what was the purpose of the McCarthy reference?

You're not actually saying he was right to do what he did? Are you suggesting it was no big deal?

[ddt]

Though you have to acknowledge that pretty much all I've gotten so far amounts to "she's not a communist, you stupid dootyhead red-baiter."

And you have to acknowledge that with the OP you wrote, you more or less asked for that - with the McCarthy reference and all, however you framed it.

And to chip in another example how not everyone who wants to nationalize industries is a communist: De Gaulle nationalized Renault in 1945. Was he a communist too? Or some sort of leftie?

[ddt]

Ah, I wish it were the same here in Germany. I assume about a fifth of all politicans would be gone! :)

With the SPD trying to overtake the CDU on the right during the SPD-Greens government, I don't see that.

[Lonewulf]

This is hypocrisy. You claim identifying her as a communist is bad because it demonizes her, yet your response is to manufacture your own term to demonize BPSCG.

[...]
with manufactured terms like "red-baiting"[...]"Manufactured"? Jesus, son, I'm not old enough to have known much at all about the cold war, but even I can tell that that term wasn't "manufactured". Where the hell have you been?

Haven't you ever heard of the "Red Scare"? There was one in 1920 and one in 1950; "red baiting" was used in both. It means accusing someone or a group of having far more leftist standing than they appear to; such as, say, labeling someone a "communist" because they take a few stances that can be called socialist stances.

Martin Luther King was accused of being a communist, for just the same reason; an attempt to smear his name. This is an example of "red baiting".

"Manufactured". Hah. It's been around for 80 years, and is practically entirely reminiscent of two periods of the Red Scare -- an important period in history, IMO, when it comes to stuff like free speech and civil liberties. And you call it "manufactured".

[ImaginalDisc]

It's the Transportation Security Administration, and it secures the routes of interstate commerce. It doesn't handle all security throughout the country.

Is the TSA a nationalized service which provides airport security? Yes.

Is it either fascist or communist? No.

[Darat]

I don't know when I last flew from the USA the security guards acted like right little Hitlers!

[BPSCG]

Because she doesn't espouse Communist philosophy or ideals, Advocating the government takeover and operation of industry isn't a communist ideal?

What is it, then? Capitalist?

nor is she (as far as I'm aware) a member of any communist organization or network.So next time you call me a fascist neocon, I can retort, "Nope, I'm not a member of any fascist neocon organization or network"?

Nationalization of an industry != communism.It's certainly an important feature of it.

You think the term "red-baiting" is "manufactured?"I have yet to receive a reply to my query to you as to what "red-baiting" is.

[ImaginalDisc]

Why don't you go back to what the Congresswoman said, about the Government taking over businesses, rather than trying to compare who and what she was talking about to an agency that was created as a governmental function.

Or, explain to me how the oil industry, for example, is an inherently governmental function.

Nationalizing industries and private companies was a common decision of a variety of governments, some socialist, some a bit more fascist. (See Chilean copper mines, early 1970's, for an example.) What the Congresswoman was suggesting was nationalizing what is at present a provate industry. YOu can call that socialistic, you can call it communistic (the two are related) or you can call it fascist, you can even call it statist.

Or, you can keep foaming at the mouth.

Do try to stay on topic, if you can.

DR


Nothing she said makes her a cummunist. Nothing about being a cummunist is inherently evil.

As other posters have said, BPSCg is indulging in Red-Baiting, a tectic of the right wing that was already old and tired in the 1920's.

[Nogbad]

Read your history. The economic system whose central feature is government control of all the means of production killed at least that many of the people who were forced to live under it.

Many countries have social programmes that involved nationalisation including Britain, Sweden, France and others. No one died, suggesting there is nothing inherently wrong with the principle. However, it is a fact that bloody revolutions can propel people who like shooting people to the top. It seems to me that Authoritarianism kills people not Socialism or Capitalism. Authoritarians can and do use both economic models. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Franco, Pinochet were all authoritarians who believed a bullet was the most effective crowd controller. Stalin had the added twist of being completely paranoid (happily killing communist and Kulak alike) and Hitler had a bizarre sociopathic over-identification with his own race.

Beware those who gather power around them and speak of authority (especially the one called Eric Cartman)

[BPSCG]

Calling her communist is disingenuous, and smacks of red-baiting precisely because it's not true and because it's intended to undermine her policies by associating her with the historical ideologies of communism which it is manifestly obvious she does not subscribe to nor support.If she "does not subscribe to or support" communist ideology, could you please show me the evidence which makes it "manifestly obvious?" 'Cuz I missed it. All I have for the moment is evidence that she does support communist ideology, e.g., she supports the nationalization of industry, which is certainly not something a capitalist would support.

[Darat]

Advocating the government takeover and operation of industry isn't a communist ideal?

...snip...

Absolutely 100% not.

Sincerely BPSCG you seem to have a misunderstanding about what communism is, it wouldn't do you any harm to spend a few minutes quickly reading up on what communism (as a political ideology) actual is.

[Tailgater]

And as usual, people are concerned who is being called what and not about a congresswoman directly threatening to take over a company that her own party has helped in limiting production for decades.

[Cleon]

Advocating the government takeover and operation of industry isn't a communist ideal?

What is it, then? Capitalist?


An industry. Not "industry" in general. And no, it's not inherently communist to nationalize an industry. As others have pointed out, many non-Communist countries have nationalized certain industries.

When you can tell me with a straight face that Canada is a communist country, you'll have a point.

Until then...You really don't.


So next time you call me a fascist neocon, I can retort, "Nope, I'm not a member of any fascist neocon organization or network"?...I don't recall ever calling you a "fascist neocon." Nor am I likely to do so any time in the near future.

But yes, should I do so, you can retort with that. You can also retort with hysterical laughter, as if I were to call you a "fascist neocon," I would certainly deserve it.


I have yet to receive a reply to my query to you as to what "red-baiting" is.
Silly me, I didn't realize that you (collective "you") were so uninformed about American history. That's a shame--you really should rectify that. I find the subject fascinating, myself.

In any event, I'll merely repeat Lonewulf's succinct definition:


It means accusing someone or a group of having far more leftist standing than they appear to; such as, say, labeling someone a "communist" because they take a few stances that can be called socialist stances.

Martin Luther King was accused of being a communist, for just the same reason; an attempt to smear his name. This is an example of "red baiting".
So not only is it a very real term (and not at all "manufactured" by myself), your posts in this thread most certainly fit the description.

[Pardalis]

I have yet to receive a reply to my query to you as to what "red-baiting" is.

Maybe if you answered my question as to why you felt it necessary to refer to McCarthy in your OP, that might shed some light.

[Tailgater]

Is the TSA a nationalized service which provides airport security? Yes.

Is it either fascist or communist? No.

Is it more fascist than it used to be? yes
Is it absolute fascism? no

[ImaginalDisc]

And as usual, people are concerned who is being called what and not about a congresswoman directly threatening to take over a company that her own party has helped in limiting production for decades.

You should blame BPSCG for that. Unable to develop an understanding of either what nationalizing an industry means, or what communism is, he conflated the two and accused her of being a cummunist - all without even trying to discuss the issue.

If you want to discuss the issue rather than slander, avoid slandering people.

[Darat]

If she "does not subscribe to or support" communist ideology, could you please show me the evidence which makes it "manifestly obvious?" 'Cuz I missed it. All I have for the moment is evidence that she does support communist ideology, e.g., she supports the nationalization of industry, which is certainly not something a capitalist would support.

Communism is not a synonym for "opposite of capitalism", nothing in what you have posted shows that she supports the ideology of communism.

[BPSCG]

Again, BPSCG, what was the purpose of the McCarthy reference?

You're not actually saying he was right to do what he did? Are you suggesting it was no big deal?Please don't tell me there were no communists in the government in the 1940s and 1950s, in particular the executive branch. Please don't try to tell me that the fact that even though Alger Hiss, who advised FDR at Yalta, was also a spy for the Soviet Union, was "no big deal."

McCarthy may have been the blind pig who accidentally found the trough, but the fact is, there were communists in important positions in the U.S. government in the 1940s and 1950s.

I love how all the lefties here freak out at my mention of McCarthy in the OP, when all I did was repeat that same fact that lefties are so fond of pointing out ad nauseum: McCarthy never did say how many communists there were in the government. I see there's a new rule: Only left-wingers can find fault with McCarthy; if anyone else does it, even if they say the same thing, the lefties crap their pants in outrage. It's kinda like lefties think it's fine to compare Republicans to Hitler - Nixon, Reagan, Bush - but when Bush compares someone to Hitler by analogy, the lefties scream bloody murder, even though the person Bush is referring to is Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. You guys are funny.

[Cleon]

Now we're cannonizing McCarthy? What, seriously?

BPSCG, you are a parody.

Yay for witch hunts!

:nope:

[Tailgater]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.[1] It is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution[2], although socialist historians say they are older. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems would be for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government.

There you go. You can all start splitting hairs over if she is a communist or does she have some communist ideals. She definitely thinks she can "take over" when she doesn't like something.

[Pardalis]

Please don't tell me there were no communists in the government in the 1940s and 1950s, in particular the executive branch. Please don't try to tell me that the fact that even though Alger Hiss, who advised FDR at Yalta, was also a spy for the Soviet Union, was "no big deal."

So one woman scares the heck out of you? One woman and you want to repeat a very black era of your country's history?

McCarthy may have been the blind pig who accidentally found the trough, but the fact is, there were communists in important positions in the U.S. government in the 1940s and 1950s.Are there now?

I love how all the lefties here freak out at my mention of McCarthy in the OP, I don't consider myself a leftie and I found it offensive. McCarthy is the exact opposite of what America is supposed to stand for, right?

Only left-wingers can find fault with McCarthy; if anyone else does it, even if they say the same thing, the lefties crap their pants in outrage.As I said, McCarthy was an affront to anyone who loves democracy, and the one craping in its pants is you, because of one woman.

[ImaginalDisc]

Please don't tell me there were no communists in the government in the 1940s and 1950s, in particular the executive branch. Please don't try to tell me that the fact that even though Alger Hiss, who advised FDR at Yalta, was also a spy for the Soviet Union, was "no big deal."

Please present evidence that there were. McCarthy was unable to present any.

[Darat]

And as usual, people are concerned who is being called what and not about a congresswoman directly threatening to take over a company that her own party has helped in limiting production for decades.

But the opening post starts with a blindingly obvious erroneous conclusion and hangs their criticism of a rather vague comment based on that erroneous conclusion so to address the argument the opening post makes all you have to do is address the erroneous conclusion.

If BPSGC wants to criticize the vague suggestion based on something else then it is really up to him to bring it to the debate.

[dudalb]

Yes, Waters is way out there. And I'll bet she regrets the socializing remark. And even if she doesn't, it's just one opinion that is going absolutely nowhere.

My problem, Beeps, is the way you presented the issue. The title of the thread, "How Many Communists Are There In The U.S. Government?" seems a bit out the the 50's and really has nothing to do with the OP. In addition, you call her a communist and you see how that caused thread deterioration.

Why not just highlight the stupidity (in your eyes) of Waters' words and discuss the disasterous results that would ensue from her ideas? It would be a worthwhile thread without all the name calling and other distractions.


I agree. Walters is a moron, but Beeps did not exactly help he cause with his rhetoric.

And yes, I think that Marxism/Communism is basically a malignent political system. Whenever it has been tried it has evolved into a nightmare.
To call all Socialists ideas Marxist,however, is dead wrong,although I am very skeptical about how well Socialism works in practice.

[Tailgater]

But the opening post starts with a blindingly obvious erroneous conclusion and hangs their criticism of a rather vague comment based on that erroneous conclusion so to address the argument the opening post makes all you have to do is address the erroneous conclusion.

If BPSGC wants to criticize the vague suggestion based on something else then it is really up to him to bring it to the debate.

What was the vague part of "the government will take over your company"?

socia......what?

[elbe]

Please don't tell me there were no communists in the government in the 1940s and 1950s, in particular the executive branch. Please don't try to tell me that the fact that even though Alger Hiss, who advised FDR at Yalta, was also a spy for the Soviet Union, was "no big deal."
Isn't the inherent concern here more that he may have been a Soviet spy than his socio-economic leanings? While I believe it entirely likely that the Soviet Union's spies would most likely all be communists, that doesn't follow that any other communists, at that time, would have had any actual connection to the Soviet government.

I'm not personally that learned on the McCarthy era, not being one of my favorite periods, but wouldn't a Soviet spy try to conceal his or her communist connections if their goal was to steal information?

[dudalb]

Please present evidence that there were. McCarthy was unable to present any.


McCarthy did not uncover one real Soviet spy in his career. He was a phony and an opportunists.
However, there were Soviet spys active. Hiss for one...and the KGB records prove it.

[ImaginalDisc]

What was the vague part of "the government will take over your company"?

socia......what?

Everything, actually. Japan, France, The UK, Canada, and the US have all nationalized inustries. It does not mean those countries or the people who instituted those policies are cummunists.

That would be like accusing someone of being communist for wearing red.

[ImaginalDisc]

McCarthy did not uncover one real Soviet spy in his career. He was a phony and an opportunists.
However, there were Soviet spys active. Hiss for one...and the KGB records prove it.

The evidence in favor of Hiss having been a Soviet spy is incredibly weak and mainly hinges on perjuring himself. Decades of scrutinizing the evidence by subsequent historians has turned up very little in support of the case, and what little there is is not owed to McCarthy.

[BPSCG]

Nothing she said makes her a cummunist. Nothing about being a cummunist is inherently evil. There's a joke about oral sex in there, but I'll let it pass...

Actually, the basic premise of communism - that one does not own what one produces - is evil. Free society is impossible without guaranteed property rights. That's why John Locke wrote that...Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

...and which is why Jefferson wrote that the purpose of government and laws is to ensure those rights, and asserted the right of people to change governments that do not insure those rights. Communism denies the right of the individual to own property, and by so doing, denies him the ability and the motive to create wealth, and thereby to make mankind's life better, rather than (as Hobbes put it), "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Yes, communism is inherently evil, because it condemns man to perpetual poverty. The proof is in the catastrophically failed communist experiments of the 20th century; not one single country ever rose from poverty to prosperity via communism, while a great many endured grinding poverty, and the few that didn't give it up still do.

But "nothing about being a cummunist (sic) is inherently evil." :)

As other posters have said, BPSCg is indulging in Red-Baiting, a tectic of the right wing that was already old and tired in the 1920's.Please tell me what you mean by "red-baiting." BTW, you are aware, aren't you, that the Red Scare of the 1920's occurred under Democratic President Woodrow Wilson's watch, through the agency of his Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer? Why don't you accuse me of "Palmerism" instead of McCarthyism?

[UserGoogol]

Advocating the government takeover and operation of industry isn't a communist ideal?

It is, but to break things into "communist ideals" and then say someone is a communist based on their allegiance to one of them is absurd. Taken to the extreme, this would imply that the United States is founded on Communism because the Constitution embraces the idea of "socialized mail." Granted, there are differences between the government creating businesses and the government taking over preexisting businesses, but there are also differences between the government taking over some businesses and taking over all businesses, so it's all a matter of degree. There is a spectrum from Absolute Socialism to Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and yes, this clearly implies she is further to the left than many, but to equate any leftness with the sharpest extremes is a bit much.

[ddt]

Given the way third, fourth and fifth parties tend to be marginalized, any Communist or Green who wants to get anywhere politically has to affiliate with the more leftish of the two major parties,
From a European perspective, I'd say that the US has one party with two right wings :). Your wording "more leftish" is quite apt: you can't call the Democrats left, at most "not as right as the Republicans".

[Pardalis]

Free society is impossible without guaranteed property rights.

A free society isn't possible without something like the first amendment either.

[elbe]

Actually, the basic premise of communism - that one does not own what one produces - is evil. Free society is impossible without guaranteed property rights. That's why John Locke wrote that...

...and which is why Jefferson wrote that the purpose of government and laws is to ensure those rights, and asserted the right of people to change governments that do not insure those rights. Communism denies the right of the individual to own property, and by so doing, denies him the ability and the motive to create wealth, and thereby to make mankind's life better, rather than (as Hobbes put it), "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Yes, communism is inherently evil, because it condemns man to perpetual poverty. The proof is in the catastrophically failed communist experiments of the 20th century; not one single country ever rose from poverty to prosperity via communism, while a great many endured grinding poverty, and the few that didn't give it up still do.
Aren't you essentially arguing a philosophical position then? Communists may believe, on a philosophical level, that property is not an right. Maybe some anarchists raise their own property rights above the right of other people to live. Just because communism fails on a practical level doesn't mean it's evil on it's philosophical level.

[Tailgater]

Everything, actually. Japan, France, The UK, Canada, and the US have all nationalized inustries. It does not mean those countries or the people who instituted those policies are cummunists.

That would be like accusing someone of being communist for wearing red.

Ya, and IIRC, Japan has gone back to privatizing some industries because they ran up deficits under nationalization. Seriously, what would the US government do with a nationalized oil company? Start drilling at home? We know the Dems won't allow that. Turn profits directly to reduce cost? That will shoot up demand and we will be at the same price a year from now. More likely they will tap the profits for other projects and the next disaster that wipes out an oil refinery will be paid through a tax increase. Welcome high gas and high tax.

Of course this is wild speculation, but history supports similar scenarios.

[ddt]

Actually, the basic premise of communism - that one does not own what one produces - is evil. Free society is impossible without guaranteed property rights. That's why John Locke wrote that...

...and which is why Jefferson wrote that the purpose of government and laws is to ensure those rights, and asserted the right of people to change governments that do not insure those rights. Communism denies the right of the individual to own property, and by so doing, denies him the ability and the motive to create wealth, and thereby to make mankind's life better, rather than (as Hobbes put it), "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Communism doesn't advocate the total abolishment of property. It advocates the abolishment of private property of the production means. If that were the sole motive for people to "create wealth", we'd all be entrepreneurs, right? So it isn't. People are motivated by a lot of things to work and thereby create wealth, and money in the sense of getting rich is not high on that list.

BTW, also in a capitalist society property rights are not unbounded as you seem to suggest. There are a lot of laws restricting that - e.g. environmental laws.



Yes, communism is inherently evil, because it condemns man to perpetual poverty. The proof is in the catastrophically failed communist experiments of the 20th century; not one single country ever rose from poverty to prosperity via communism, while a great many endured grinding poverty, and the few that didn't give it up still do.
Apart from the fact that those countries could not be called communist in a Marxist sense: the rise in productivity in Stalin's Soviet Union was quite notable. It was the only country exhibiting growth in the 1930s.



Please tell me what you mean by "red-baiting." BTW, you are aware, aren't you, that the Red Scare of the 1920's occurred under Democratic President Woodrow Wilson's watch, through the agency of his Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer? Why don't you accuse me of "Palmerism" instead of McCarthyism?
Have you no decency? :D

[WildCat]

No straw, an adequate summary of your point.

They're all commies!
Oh really Cleon? Then you'll have no problem finding the post in this thread where I mentioned the countries you listed as communist. If you are unable to do so, go look up what a straw man is again.

[BPSCG]

Just because communism fails on a practical level doesn't mean it's evil on it's philosophical level.Sure it does. If an economic philosophy that unfailingly leads to grinding poverty and the mass murder of anyone who doesn't submit to it is not evil, then what philosophy is? Maybe that's not the intent of the philosophy, but that's certainly its effect. And shouldn't a philosophy regarding how men should live be judged on the results of its implementation?

[BPSCG]

Seriously, what would the US government do with a nationalized oil company? Start drilling at home? We know the Dems won't allow that. Turn profits directly to reduce cost? That will shoot up demand and we will be at the same price a year from now. More likely they will tap the profits for other projects and the next disaster that wipes out an oil refinery will be paid through a tax increase. Welcome high gas and high tax.Don't forget gasoline shortages. The Soviets nationalized everything and had chronic shortages of everything.

[Nogbad]

Aren't you essentially arguing a philosophical position then? Communists may believe, on a philosophical level, that property is not an right. Maybe some anarchists raise their own property rights above the right of other people to live. Just because communism fails on a practical level doesn't mean it's evil on it's philosophical level.

I took the piece to be a text book political tract on communism. The history is considerably more complex than that though. Most countries that have gone down the revolutionary route were already in grinding poverty or a state of civil war/post colonial hiatus. Marx thought the road to communism was via socialism whereas countries like China have done it in reverse and are moving albeit slowly to a more open socialist mixed economy rather than a centrally planned economy. One facet of Russian central planning was its inepitude. This is in large due to Stalin's mistrust of bourgeois civil servants and they had to make do with fewer planners than many so called capitalist countries (nowt as queer as folk).

Equally one can argue that it is man's basic instinct to be a greedy hoarding bastard and that neither the ideological altruism necessary to make communism work nor a post industrial society of plenty where the hoarders could hoard without impinging on others simply were options.

I do not hold that communism in itself is evil nor that property in itself is good. To deify or demonise such concepts seems fundamentally flawed to me. How one shares and how one owns is far more pertinent.

Having said all the above I think the notion that nationalising an oil company when the price is being driven by futures speculation seems a trifle bizarre. One best nationalises a business if the company is failing but the task is essential to national infrastructure or security.

[Tailgater]

Don't forget gasoline shortages. The Soviets nationalized everything and had chronic shortages of everything.

The funny thing is, it's the communist countries who are tapping near the areas the US won't allow US companies to drill right off our own shores.

[ravdin]

Taken to the extreme, this would imply that the United States is founded on Communism because the Constitution embraces the idea of "socialized mail."

There's nothing inherently communist about the government providing a public service like delivering the mail.

It would be communist if the government decided to loot socialize nationalize private companies like FedEx or UPS in order to ensure a monopoly for itself.

I would be a much bigger fan of government intervention if the efficiency of the post office was the rule rather than the exception.

[UserGoogol]

I think that it's quite plausible that she wasn't even making a particularly serious suggestion and was just trying to have some fiery rhetoric.

Maxine Waters asked "If we let you drill, will prices go down?" To which she got the reply "If you don't let us drill, prices will be crazy." It seems plausible that she viewed this as a threat, and decided to return in kind. "If you don't have prices go down, we'll take over your businesses and be all commie on your ass." and then continued to add "Er, I mean, I'm not a communist."

[elbe]

Having said all the above I think the notion that nationalising an oil company when the price is being driven by futures speculation seems a trifle bizarre. One best nationalises a business if the company is failing but the task is essential to national infrastructure or security.
For what it's worth, I took congresswoman Waters' statement more as a threat of punishment to the oil company than actually wanting to nationalize it; like a clumsy way of saying "If you can't play nice, you can't play at all".

[Pardalis]

From a European perspective, I'd say that the US has one party with two right wings :). Your wording "more leftish" is quite apt: you can't call the Democrats left, at most "not as right as the Republicans".

Same thing here, the left is alot stronger over here and we haven't turned into a communist state.

It seems in the US one woman shows some socialistic tendencies and it's the end of the world.

[WildCat]

Maxine Waters speaking at an anti-war rally organized by the communist group International ANSWER in 2006:
http://answerla.org/pic/2006/06-03-18-demo/dayof/maxine-waters-0677-med.jpg

Just to show it's not the only time she asscocated with this group, she also spoke at an ANSWER rally in 2007: http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8423

And in 2004: http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr007=6dixkinn12.app6a&abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=5651&news_iv_ctrl=1621 and http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=5543&news_iv_ctrl=1621


Now, just because she's on ANSWER's speed dial whenever they need a speaker at one of their events doesn't prove anything, but there's something about the company you keep.

[Pardalis]

Just to show it's not the only time she asscocated with this group, she also spoke at an ANSWER rally in 2007: http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8423


Did you see the lone 9/11 sign? :D

[Tailgater]

It seems in the US one woman shows some socialistic tendencies and it's the end of the world.

Really? Someone said that?

[Pardalis]

Really? Someone said that?

Well isn't it implied in the OP? One woman says the word socialising and off is BPSCG almost starting another witch hunt.

Does this woman have any weight in the government, or even in her party?

[BPSCG]

Maxine Waters speaking at an anti-war rally organized by the communist group International ANSWER in 2006:
http://answerla.org/pic/2006/06-03-18-demo/dayof/maxine-waters-0677-med.jpg

Just to show it's not the only time she asscocated with this group, she also spoke at an ANSWER rally in 2007: http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8423

And in 2004: http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8423 and http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8423 The 2004 links both point to the 2007 event - needs fixing.

Now, just because she's on ANSWER's speed dial whenever they need a speaker at one of their events doesn't prove anything...Well, it proves they like what she's got to say, else they wouldn't invite her over and over. You can be sure they wouldn't invite Ann Coulter to talk to them. It also proves that Waters doesn't have any particular philosophical objection to ANSWER's purpose, else she wouldn't accept their repeated invitations.

But she's not a commie, because you're a red-baiter if you say so.

[Tailgater]

Well isn't it implied in the OP? One woman says the word socialising and off is BPSCG almost starting another witch hunt.

Does this woman have any weight in the government, or even in her party?

I think BPSCG went to get a reaction with an overboard comment and got a bunch of overboard comments in return. Kind of like saying he's "starting another witch hunt". As far as the heart of the thread, she didn't just say socialize, she said she would take over his company. Now, what a Dem would do with an oil company would hardly equate to lower gas prices, and BPSCG has a point there.

As far as her weight, she has a enough to grill oil company execs and spew stupidity on a national stage. Other than that, she has one vote when it's required. Besides that, I'd put her at about 137.

[Cleon]

The 2004 links both point to the 2007 event - needs fixing.

Well, it proves they like what she's got to say, else they wouldn't invite her over and over.

Whether it was run by communists or not, ANSWER is/was an anti-war organization. The rallies they organized were about ending the war, not about establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Waters is/was against the war.

So yes, they liked what she had to say. Well, duh. Quite a few congresscritters have spoken at ANSWER rallies, as well as veterans, actors, and religious leaders.

That doesn't mean they're communists. That means they're against the war.


You can be sure they wouldn't invite Ann Coulter to talk to them.

Well, yeah, seeing as how Coulter is for the war and everything. It would be rather odd for an anti-war rally to have a pro-war speaker. :rolleyes:


It also proves that Waters doesn't have any particular philosophical objection to ANSWER's purpose, else she wouldn't accept their repeated invitations.


Well, yes, I don't recall her being shy about her opposition to the war. It doesn't particularly surprise me that she's speak at an anti-war rally.


But she's not a commie, because you're a red-baiter if you say so.

Your grasp of logic is exceeded only by your grasp of history.

At least you've gotten away from the "Cleon made the word up" bit. That was just sad.

[BPSCG]

Well isn't it implied in the OP? One woman says the word socialising and off is BPSCG almost starting another witch hunt.That's a lie and you know it.

I said she was a communist.

I did not say she should be expelled from the House of Representatives.
I did not say she should lose her House committee positions.
I did not say she should be jailed.
I did not even say the people of her congressional district should vote her out, though I would shed no tears if they did.
I did not say she should be muzzled; in fact, I am a strong proponent of free speech, because, as Congresswoman Waters ably shows, free speech makes it easier to spot the idiots.

In short, I did not say she should lose one single right that every American citizen has.

And yet you call my OP a witch hunt. I'm not surprised to hear that ugly lie from the usual suspects here, but I confess I am surprised to hear it from you, Pardalis; you're usually much better than this.

[Pardalis]

That's a lie and you know it.

That's was my impression.

I said she was a communist.No, you accused her of being one.

I did not say she should be expelled from the House of Representatives.
I did not say she should lose her House committee positions.
I did not say she should be jailed.
I did not even say the people of her congressional district should vote her out, though I would shed no tears if they did.
I did not say she should be muzzled; in fact, I am a strong proponent of free speech, because, as Congresswoman Waters ably shows, free speech makes it easier to spot the idiots.

In short, I did not say she should lose one single right that every American citizen has.No, but you did refer to McCarthy, and that is what I found offensive.

As an American, you cannot possibly condone what he did.

And yet you call my OP a witch hunt. I'm not surprised to hear that ugly lie from the usual suspects here, but I confess I am surprised to hear it from you, Pardalis; you're usually much better than this.I usually agree with you on foreign policy, but in this thread you come across as being scared of one person's ideas. Why is that? You should be able to discuss her ideas without the fear mongering about communism.

Again, it's one person in your government, with very little to no weight. Have some perspective.

[David Wong]

So... at 15,000 posts, is BPSCG the most prolific troll on the site?

The red-baiting is such hamfisted flamebait that I'm surprised anyone bothers responding.

Why is there anyone who doesn't have him on ignore by now?

[WildCat]

The 2004 links both point to the 2007 event - needs fixing.
Fixed. :blush:

[BPSCG]

Whether it was run by communists or not, ANSWER is/was an anti-war organization. It's a communist anti-war organization. Click here to buy a Che Guevara t-shirt from their website (http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr007=6dixkinn12.app6a&abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=5651&news_iv_ctrl=1621).

That doesn't mean they're communists. That means they're against the war.They are communists who are against the war.

Well, yeah, seeing as how Coulter is for the war and everything. It would be rather odd for an anti-war rally to have a pro-war speaker. :rolleyes:And it would be rather odd for a communist organization to have a non-communist come to rally the troops. But as WildCat says, Waters is on ANSWER's speed-dial.

At least you've gotten away from the "Cleon made the word up" bit. That was just sad.You need to pay more attention to your own posts and those directly addressed to you. I never said you made the term "red-baiting," up; I believe you were saying WildCat was accusing you of it (I glossed over that part).

I did, however ask you, repeatedly, what you meant by "red-baiting." And I'm still waiting for an answer.

[ravdin]

Whether it was run by communists or not, ANSWER is/was an anti-war organization. The rallies they organized were about ending the war, not about establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Actually, ANSWER tends to protest both capitalism and militarism at their rallies. They also don't seem to mind militarism if it's done by Hamas terrorists, or Al Qaida, or North Korea, or Venezuela... so long as it's not on behalf of the United States or one of our allies.

A bit of a derail, I know. ANSWER was founded by the World Worker's Party and is most definitely a communist organization- but I fully agree with you that Waters isn't necessarily a communist because she has agreed to speak at a few of their rallies. I might be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she's a useful idiot.

[BPSCG]

The red-baiting is such hamfisted flamebait that I'm surprised anyone bothers responding. What do you mean, "red-baiting?"

[BPSCG]

I might be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she's a useful idiot.High praise indeed! :goat

[Cleon]

It's a communist anti-war organization.

No, it's an anti-war organization. That's what it was set up for, that's what it does/did. (Tenses confused, because I honestly don't know if ANSWER is still active or not.)

ANSWER did not advocate for communism. They advocated ending the war.

ANSWER did not organize communist rallies, they organized rallies to end the war.

Slapping them with the "communist" label, even in bold letters and italicized, doesn't change that.


And it would be rather odd for a communist organization to have a non-communist come to rally the troops. But as WildCat says, Waters is on ANSWER's speed-dial.

ANSWER had a lot of speakers. The vast majority of which are not and have never been communists.

This is called "guilt by association," a favored tactic of witch hunters and demagogues.


I did, however ask you, repeatedly, what you meant by "red-baiting." And I'm still waiting for an answer.

It has been answered, repeatedly, yet you ignored it.

I will again use Lonewulf's words to describe it:


It means accusing someone or a group of having far more leftist standing than they appear to; such as, say, labeling someone a "communist" because they take a few stances that can be called socialist stances.

Martin Luther King was accused of being a communist, for just the same reason; an attempt to smear his name. This is an example of "red baiting".


As is what you are doing to Maxine Waters.

[Cleon]

Actually, ANSWER tends to protest both capitalism and militarism at their rallies.

Actually, ANSWER had speakers about a wide range of subjects. Very few of whom agreed with WWP or WWP's politics.

[Darat]

What was the vague part of "the government will take over your company"?

socia......what?

Well since she didn't provide any details of exactly what she meant, how it would be accomplished and so on - yep vague is the right word.

[Tailgater]

So, she sounds like a pig and rolls around with pigs, but she's really a duck?

[Darat]

It is, but to break things into "communist ideals" and then say someone is a communist based on their allegiance to one of them is absurd.

...snip...

UserGoogol it isn't! Communism is a stateless political ideology, the state ceases to exist. Anyone advocating that the government take over an industry is not, by definition, advocating a communist ideal.

[Cleon]

So, she sounds like a pig

No.


and rolls around with pigs,

Nope.

but she's really a duck?

Nice try, though.

[Pardalis]

What if she's a platypus? That may be a problem.

[Tailgater]

Well since she didn't provide any details of exactly what she meant, how it would be accomplished and so on - yep vague is the right word.

This liberal will be about socializing--would be about, basically, taking over and the government running all of your companies.


vague
Adjective
1. not expressed or explained clearly
2. deliberately withholding information
3. (of a sound or shape) unable to be heard or seen clearly
4. (of a person) not concentrating or thinking clearly
5. not clearly established or known

Nope, that was pretty clear. The "how" is irrelevant. The threat of intent to achieve a goal was pretty clear.

[Cleon]

What if she's a platypus? That may be a problem.

Well, she's a Democrat, so perhaps "chameleon" would be more accurate...

[Tailgater]

Nice try, though.

Thanks. For the record, I wouldn't call her a commie, but I take those comments pretty seriously when said in that setting, basically as a threat. I don't consider her speaking for answer a connection either, because those rallies attract loons of every type. Yes Par, I saw the 911 was an inside job sign.

[BPSCG]

No, it's an anti-war organization. That's what it was set up for, that's what it does/did. (Tenses confused, because I honestly don't know if ANSWER is still active or not.)

ANSWER did not advocate for communism.It's an organization that was founded by the International Action Committee of the communist Workers World Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party).

ANSWER did not organize communist rallies, they organized rallies to end the war.And when the KKK invites you to a barbecue, well, they're just another civic organization.

This is called "guilt by association," a favored tactic of witch hunters and demagogues.No, this is called, "lying with dogs, rising with fleas."

So let's see. Congresswoman Waters speaks regularly at antiwar rallies organized by communist groups, and threatens to try to have the oil industry nationalized.

But thinking she might herself be a communist - well, that's just crazy.

I will again use Lonewulf's words to describe it:

It means accusing someone or a group of having far more leftist standing than they appear to; such as, say, labeling someone a "communist" because they take a few stances that can be called socialist stances.I don't believe you used Lonewulf's words to describe it before, so your use of the word "again" above is superfluous. But, moving on:

I think Congresswoman Waters has given good evidence that she is a communist. Even some of those here who disagree with me agree that she's certainly far to the left, some disagreeing only in that they think she's a "useful idiot" rather than an out-and-out communist. So it's hard to see how I've accused her of "having far more leftist standing than she appears to," since she could not get much farther left than she is.

Question: Do you think communism is evil?

[ravdin]

Actually, ANSWER had speakers about a wide range of subjects. Very few of whom agreed with WWP or WWP's politics.

I was speaking of rallies in the Bay Area that I have personally witnessed. I'm sure you're right that ANSWER has been able to attract a wide array of useful idiots to speak on their behalf. But my impression is based more on a rabble of so-called antiwar protesters bearing signs denouncing capitalism and the "occupation" of Israel than the guest speakers (who, as you have noted, have little to do with the organization).

[Darat]

Nope, that was pretty clear. The "how" is irrelevant. The threat of intent to achieve a goal was pretty clear.

Well 3 and 5 and possibly 2 don't seem to apply however all the rest certainly do so I take it you were saying you were wrong and you agree with me that what she said was vague?

[Darat]

...snip...

I think Congresswoman Waters has given good evidence that she is a communist.

...snip...

What evidence? Her statement that this thread was apparently started to discuss (if taken absolutely literally to mean that she would have the government take over and run an industry) advocates a non-communist ideal.

[Tailgater]

Well 3 and 5 and possibly 2 don't seem to apply however all the rest certainly do so I take it you were saying you were wrong and you agree with me that what she said was vague?

4. (of a person) not concentrating or thinking clearly

I'll meet you halfway and agree on 4.:D

[Cleon]

It's an organization that was founded by the International Action Committee of the communist Workers World Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party).


Wow, that's wrong.

First of all, you're referring to Ramsey Clark's group, the International Action Center, which is not--technically--part of WWP, but largely run by them.

Second, that doesn't refute what I said. I already acknowledged the role of WWP members in ANSWER; ANSWER was essentially started and (to an extent) run by WWP.

However, ANSWER organized anti-war rallies, not communist rallies. Their purpose was to build anti-war demonstrations, not spur Bolshevik revolution.

Their speakers included a wide range of people from various different political views. Maxine Waters spoke at some rallies, so did John Lewis. Is he a communist, too?


No, this is called, "lying with dogs, rising with fleas."Guilt by Association.


So let's see. Congresswoman Waters speaks regularly at antiwar rallies organized by communist groups,Regularly? When was the last one?

How many times, exactly, has she spoken at an ANSWER rally, versus at a United for Peace and Justice or Win Without War rally?


I don't believe you used Lonewulf's words to describe it before, so your use of the word "again" above is superfluous.You believe incorrectly (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3744094#post3744094). You need to pay more attention to your own posts and those directly addressed to you.


I think Congresswoman Waters has given good evidence that she is a communist.You think incorrectly.

Nationalization of an industry != communism. Advocating such does not make one a communist, any more than advocating atheism does.

Speaking at an anti-war rally, even if it was organized by communists wearing little Mao hats and singing the Internationale, does not make one a communist.


This "evidence" is, at best, circumstantial, and certainly nothing approaching "good."

What you are doing is dictionary-definition red-baiting. While I'm sure it helps you relive your youth of the 50s, it was insipid then, and it's insipid now.

[Tailgater]

If you go with the stateless definitition of communism, then there really never is a true communist country?

[Cleon]

I was speaking of rallies in the Bay Area that I have personally witnessed.

...And I was speaking of multiple rallies in D.C. that I personally attended.

But my impression is based more on a rabble of so-called antiwar protesters bearing signs denouncing capitalism and the "occupation" of Israel than the guest speakers (who, as you have noted, have little to do with the organization).So you're thinking that some of the people who come to the anti-war demonstrations are more reflective of the people organizing it than the speakers? :confused:

That just doesn't make any sense. Between them, at least the guest speakers are chosen or invited by the organizers.

[ravdin]

So you're thinking that some of the people who come to the anti-war demonstrations are more reflective of the people organizing it than the speakers? :confused:

That just doesn't make any sense. Between them, at least the guest speakers are chosen or invited by the organizers.

Well, yes. Many of the protesters are also invited, and organized, by ANSWER. It's a fair assessment that when they are carrying signs bearing the ANSWER logo (e.g. "I Was A Gangster For Capitalism"), they are representing ANSWER's views.

[Cleon]

Well, yes. Many of the protesters are also invited, and organized, by ANSWER.

Only in the sense that ANSWER people put out flyers, and organized buses where they could.


It's a fair assessment that when they are carrying signs bearing the ANSWER logo (e.g. "I Was A Gangster For Capitalism"), they are representing ANSWER's views.

Well, ANSWER buys a metric ****-ton of signs and leaves them around for people to pick up. That's the limit of ANSWER's involvement, there.

[Darat]

If you go with the stateless definitition of communism, then there really never is a true communist country?

It's not going with anything that is just part of what the stated ideology of communism is.

To directly answer your question - of course there hasn't been!

You have to remember that communism is bonkers; saying that it is no more bonkers than all the other modern political ideologies, whether that be capitalism*, libertarianism, liberalism, or anarchy or any other -ism.

There have never been any "true" examples of any country following any of the more modern political ideologies because none of them actually work in the real world.


*ETA: Yes I do know capitalism isn't strictly speaking a political ideology but it is often used as if it is as can be seen from its introduction into this thread.

[gtc]

I think it is clear from this thread that the lady in question could be a communist given her support for nationalising the oil industry and her speaking at communist run events. However, this is not sufficient to show that she is a communist.

I also think it is evident that Cleon uses the term red-baiting as an attempt to shut down debate rather than to describe the act of 'accusing someone or a group of having far more leftist standing than they appear to' and he has form for this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93646). In that thread he accussed me of 'red-baiting' for pointing out George Galloway's support for marxism and his disappointment at the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Cleon]

I think it is clear from this thread that the lady in question could be a communist given her support for nationalising the oil industry and her speaking at communist run events. However, this is not sufficient to show that she is a communist.

I also think it is evident that Cleon uses the term red-baiting as an attempt to shut down debate rather than to describe the act of 'accusing someone or a group of having far more leftist standing than they appear to' and he has form for this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93646). In that thread he accussed me of 'red-baiting' for pointing out George Galloway's support for marxism and his disappointment at the fall of the Soviet Union.

:rolleyes:

[ravdin]

Only in the sense that ANSWER people put out flyers, and organized buses where they could.

Well, ANSWER buys a metric ****-ton of signs and leaves them around for people to pick up. That's the limit of ANSWER's involvement, there.

We've strayed pretty far off track. I'm not sure why you would want to defend ANSWER, but that's another topic.

We seem to agree that Maxine Waters isn't necessarily a communist just because she has spoken at a couple of ANSWER rallies. Let's leave it at that.

[Darat]

Bold by me:

I think it is clear from this thread that the lady in question could be a communist given her support for nationalising the oil industry ...snip...

...snip...

Can you explain to me how you can draw even a provisional conclusion that someone could be a communist from a statement in which they advocate a policy that is a not a communist policy?

[gtc]

Bold by me:



Can you explain to me how you can draw even a provisional conclusion that someone could be a communist from a statement in which they advocate a policy that is a not a communist policy?

I am genuinely curious why you think that communists have not advocated and implemented nationalisation? Surely Cuba, China and the Soviet dominated countries nationalised their industries?

[Cleon]

We've strayed pretty far off track. I'm not sure why you would want to defend ANSWER, but that's another topic.

I'm not trying to defend ANSWER. (Really, I mean it.) I'm only trying to be accurate.

Believe me, if you wanted to get into a discussion of the ins and outs of ANSWER, I could give you a whole laundry list of issues I have with them (as well as UFPJ, for that matter).


We seem to agree that Maxine Waters isn't necessarily a communist just because she has spoken at a couple of ANSWER rallies. Let's leave it at that.

Fair 'nuff.

[Darat]

I am genuinely curious why you think that communists have not advocated and implemented nationalisation? Surely Cuba, China and the Soviet dominated countries nationalised their industries?

I've mentioned this in previous posts, communism is an ideology that has at its core a stateless society, in other words there is no government to control anything.

[dudalb]

I've mentioned this in previous posts, communism is an ideology that has at its core a stateless society, in other words there is no government to control anything.


In which case it has been a miserable failure when it has been tried.

[BPSCG]

Wow, that's wrong.

First of all, you're referring to Ramsey Clark's group, the International Action Center, which is not--technically--part of WWP, but largely run by them.

Second, that doesn't refute what I said. I already acknowledged the role of WWP members in ANSWER; ANSWER was essentially started and (to an extent) run by WWP.

However, ANSWER organized anti-war rallies, not communist rallies. So even though ANSWER was founded by communists and run by communists, it's not a communist group.

Nationalization of an industry != communism. Advocating such does not make one a communist, any more than advocating atheism does.

Speaking at an anti-war rally, even if it was organized by communists wearing little Mao hats and singing the Internationale, does not make one a communist.Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims with ducks, etc.

While I'm sure it helps you relive your youth of the 50s, it was insipid then, and it's insipid now.Jeeze, how old do you think I am? I barely remember the 50s.

[BPSCG]

*ETA: Yes I do know capitalism isn't strictly speaking a political ideology but it is often used as if it is as can be seen from its introduction into this thread.I started to write a post on this point a few times and tore it up, but your comment is as good a launching point as any for it.

Is it my imagination, or do European political parties tend to conjoin their politics and their economics? When I hear names like "Social Democrats" or whatever I wonder why they have to identify their economics.

In the U.S., it's pretty much given that almost every person running for political office - certainly every one running under the aegis of one of the two major parties - is a capitalist, or would at least claim to be if asked. Obviously, how capitalist varies - at one extreme you have Ron Paul and at the other you have Maxine Waters, who actually falls off the edge. But pretty much everyone claims to think capitalism is the best system we have. So you don't see shadings of political parties that pull economic philosophies into the party names.

Or religious ones. What the hell is a Christian Democrat?

[Cleon]

So even though ANSWER was founded by communists and run by communists, it's not a communist group.

As I said...ANSWER organized anti-war rallies, not communist rallies. That was their purpose, nothing more, nothing less.


Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims with ducks, etc.

See earlier post (not mine) about platypi.

The mobility, vocals, and aquatic habits of this particular critter haven't been firmly established, yet.


Jeeze, how old do you think I am? I barely remember the 50s.

Do you really want me answer that? :D

[BPSCG]

I also think it is evident that Cleon uses the term red-baiting as an attempt to shut down debate rather than to describe the act of 'accusing someone or a group of having far more leftist standing than they appear to' and he has form for this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93646). In that thread he accussed me of 'red-baiting' for pointing out George Galloway's support for marxism and his disappointment at the fall of the Soviet Union.Heh. I missed that one. I was going to ask Cleon earlier if he thought there were any communists at all in the U.S. I guess I should ask if he thinks there are any anywhere in the free world.

[Cleon]

Or religious ones. What the hell is a Christian Democrat?

Jesse Jackson? :D

[WildCat]

However, ANSWER organized anti-war rallies, not communist rallies. Their purpose was to build anti-war demonstrations, not spur Bolshevik revolution.
No, the purpose is indoctrination of anti-war activists by exposing them to their propaganda under the pretense of a peace rally.

[Cleon]

Heh. I missed that one. Have to revise my earlier question to Cleon, which asked did he think there were any communists at all in the U.S. I guess I should have asked him if he thought there were any anywhere in the free world.

Of course there are communists in the US. Workers World Party, the Communist Party itself, and countless little tiny bizarre groups that act more like religious cults than political groupings*.

But I'm fairly confident that Maxine Waters, as left-wing as you may think she is, is not one of them.


(* If you ever find yourself near an anti-war rally and in need of entertainment, find someone selling a newspaper called "Workers Vanguard" and ask him/her what makes that newspaper different from the other newspapers people are selling. I guarantee you'll have a funny story to tell.)

[WildCat]

Heh. I missed that one. I was going to ask Cleon earlier if he thought there were any communists at all in the U.S. I guess I should ask if he thinks there are any anywhere in the free world.
Maybe we can start with the obvious and work from there.

Cleon, is this girl (http://www.zombietime.com/iraq_war_fifth_anniversary_protest/IMG_0502.JPG) (picture taken at an ANSWER-organized anti-war rally), in your opinion, a communist?

eta: selling the newspaper Cleon mentions above! One of the stories in which clearly shows they are recruiting from Democrats. ;)

[Cleon]

No, the purpose is indoctrination of anti-war activists by exposing them to their propaganda under the pretense of a peace rally.

Riiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

[Cleon]

Maybe we can start with the obvious and work from there.

Cleon, is this girl (http://www.zombietime.com/iraq_war_fifth_anniversary_protest/IMG_0502.JPG) (picture taken at an ANSWER-organized anti-war rally), in your opinion, a communist?

By sheer coincidence, see the post above yours. Especially the footnote. :D

I'll be back later. I'm off to write an email to Randi claiming my money....

[mrbaracuda]

What do you mean, "red-baiting?"

I think red-baiting is when you try to lure the bolsheviks out so you can tell the GeStaPo about it and denounce them! I'd sell Cleon to the GeStaPo any day. :D

No, the purpose is indoctrination of anti-war activists by exposing them to their propaganda under the pretense of a peace rally.
Riiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

I agree with Wildcat on this one. You can have anti-war rallies without tables full of Marx and Soviet flags, can't you?

No, it's an anti-war organization. That's what it was set up for, that's what it does/did. (Tenses confused, because I honestly don't know if ANSWER is still active or not.)
However, ANSWER organized anti-war rallies, not communist rallies. Their purpose was to build anti-war demonstrations, not spur Bolshevik revolution.

Mh, the books you find there (http://www.zombietime.com/global_day_of_action_march_18_2006/) are somewhat different than just some anti-war pamphlets. ;)

[Lonewulf]

So... at 15,000 posts, is BPSCG the most prolific troll on the site?Pretty much.

The red-baiting is such hamfisted flamebait that I'm surprised anyone bothers responding.Pretty much.

Why is there anyone who doesn't have him on ignore by now?Uh...

Uhm...




...


I dunno. Because I'd be bored without people like him? Not even that's true...

[Cleon]

I agree with Wildcat on this one. You can have anti-war rallies without tables full of Marx and Soviet flags, can't you?

:confused:

Anyone can set up a table at one of these things. At the big ones, they even use it as a way to recoup some of the cost of the event by charging rent. There's usually a Libertarian table somewhere, and the Larouchies occasionally appear too.

[Lonewulf]

I guess rallies should work to silence any groups they don't agree with in their ranks?

And just when I thought these people were actually suggesting they *supported* freedom of speech, here they turn around and prove me wrong.

[Cleon]

Oh, and incidentally:


I think red-baiting is when you try to lure the bolsheviks out so you can tell the GeStaPo about it and denounce them! I'd sell Cleon to the GeStaPo any day. :biggrin:


You do know I'm Jewish, right? The above comment is many things, but it's not funny, my German friend.

[Earthborn]

What the hell is a Christian Democrat?This question is a very good example of how out of touch 'mericans are with -- well -- the world basically. What is a Christian Democrat? It is someone who is a proponent of what probably is the most successful political ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy) in the world, certainly of the free world.

Want more proof of the out of touchness of Usonians? Without realising it, one of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Dreher) reinvented it and gave it -- what can only be described as --a very silly name (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5256754).

[dudalb]

I guess rallies should work to silence any groups they don't agree with in their ranks?

And just when I thought these people were actually suggesting they *supported* freedom of speech, here they turn around and prove me wrong.

If a group is giving your cause a bad image,and distracting from the main message, your are damn right you ask them to leave .

[mrbaracuda]

Oh, and incidentally:



You do know I'm Jewish, right? The above comment is many things, but it's not funny, my German friend.

Oh, right, I forgot. I deeply apologize, my American friend. :(

[mrbaracuda]

With the SPD trying to overtake the CDU on the right during the SPD-Greens government, I don't see that.

Eh, dunno last time you checked, but the SPD is basically breaking apart with parts floating in endless space and a bigger part was fetched by the commies. The latest dumb thing the SPD pulled was getting Schwan into the race for Fed Pres.

Btw, what exactly makes you say they tried overtaking the CDU on the right anyway? Reforms? Afghanistan?

[Lonewulf]

If a group is giving your cause a bad image,and distracting from the main message, your are damn right you ask them to leave .Does this include Libertarians?

[quixotecoyote]

Want more proof of the out of touchness of Usonians? Without realising it, one of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Dreher) reinvented it and gave it -- what can only be described as --a very silly name (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5256754).

A very silly article as well. You'd think that for someone who's describing how he's found common ground with liberals, he'd have an idea of what liberals believe that goes beyond right wing caricatures.

[ddt]

Eh, dunno last time you checked, but the SPD is basically breaking apart with parts floating in endless space and a bigger part was fetched by the commies. The latest dumb thing the SPD pulled was getting Schwan into the race for Fed Pres.
I haven't seen the latest polls, but at the last federal elections, the SPD still had a very close call with the CDU; the Linke only got 7%, up from about 4% at the previous elections.


Btw, what exactly makes you say they tried overtaking the CDU on the right anyway? Reforms? Afghanistan?
First of all, the reforms. The SPD ideas weent further in breaking up the social security system than the CDU was willing to do at that time.

But Schilly's attempts at turning Germany into a police state are also well noted. I guess he got the inspiration for it in his younger years, when he was a RAF lawyer.

[WildCat]

I guess rallies should work to silence any groups they don't agree with in their ranks?
In the cases I cited, the rallies were organized by those groups.

And just when I thought these people were actually suggesting they *supported* freedom of speech, here they turn around and prove me wrong.
Who doesn't support free speech? I'm just disappointed that non-marxist anti war demonstrators (who do in fact make up the overwhelming majority) allowed their cause to be hijacked by marxists.

I wouldn't show up at a rally purporting to be for a cause I supported, no matter how strongly, if it were organized by a group I detest.

[Mycroft]

Just as throwing balls in the air is not sufficient to be a juggler, nationalising private industry is not functionally or intentionally sufficient to be termed communist. Affirming the consequent is a fallacy for a reason, Mycroft. You know that full well.

That a desire to nationalise industries is not equivalent to being a communist has been explained numerous times in the thread, and it's the precise reason why you, and why BPSG, are wrong. Calling her communist is disingenuous, and smacks of red-baiting precisely because it's not true and because it's intended to undermine her policies by associating her with the historical ideologies of communism which it is manifestly obvious she does not subscribe to nor support.

A better analogy than juggling might be asking if a guy who kisses another guy is gay. While one kiss may not be enough for you to feel comfortable applying the label permanently, there is no denying that the action is a homosexual action. (please assume a romantic kiss for those pedants who want to tell me about all kinds of alternatives.)

In a similar way, you're right. Momentarily advocating nationalization of an industry is not enough to permanently label someone a communist. Further, nations who do nationalize industries do not instantly become communist nations, but the idea of nationalizing industries is in keeping with communist ideals and very much flies in the face of our American capitalist values.

This is a political issue, and in politics you need to allow for a little rhetorical license.

[ddt]

Is it my imagination, or do European political parties tend to conjoin their politics and their economics? When I hear names like "Social Democrats" or whatever I wonder why they have to identify their economics.
Because economics is one of the most important parts of a political platform. Because that's what defines "left" and "right".

I find a name like "social democratic party" or "labour party" a lot more descriptive than "democratic party" or "republican party". Are the democrats more democratic than the republicans, who secretly yearn for a dictatorship? Or are the republicans more republican than the democrats, who secretly yearn back to the days of George III? I mean, those names are utterly meaningless.

In practice, no European political parties - not even the ones calling themselves socialist - advocate abolishing the capitalist system, but they do advocate tighter government control over how (big) enterprises behave than, say, liberal or conservative parties.


In the U.S., it's pretty much given that almost every person running for political office - certainly every one running under the aegis of one of the two major parties - is a capitalist, or would at least claim to be if asked.is in the hands of lobbyists, and will take care that whatever funding is extended to Medicare will for the largest part be pocketed by Big Pharma.
There, fixed it for you. It's a bit off-topic, but it's a good example why many Europeans think both US parties are right wing. The latest changes to Medicare have more to do with funding of big business than with health care.


Obviously, how capitalist varies - at one extreme you have Ron Paul and at the other you have Maxine Waters, who actually falls off the edge. But pretty much everyone claims to think capitalism is the best system we have. So you don't see shadings of political parties that pull economic philosophies into the party names.

Or religious ones. What the hell is a Christian Democrat?
At least with European parties, it's clear what their platform is. When I'd vote for the Christian-democrat party, I know they'll bring that Christian ideology into their ideas about abortion or euthanasia; and I know they'll not let the jobless homeless too, buut they won't give them a dime more either. That's all in their party program. When I'd vote for the Labour party, I know they're in favour of giving the jobless a bit more so their kids won't fall into the same poverty trap, and that they're in favour of the current liberalized abortion and euthanasia rules.

Do you know that when you vote? Do your parties have a program at all? With 10 parties up in Parliament, I can at least vote for one that quite closely matches my preferences. Can you say the same with only a choice of 2?

[Nogbad]

In which case it has been a miserable failure when it has been tried.

This is true. In many ways a true communist state is an ideal and were it to be reached it would neither be unpleasant or oppressive. Marx considered the process would be attained through various stages including "dictatorship of the proletariat". As of yet no one has really got beyond because dictatorships (in the name of the proletariat rather than by in practice) tend not to give up the reins of power very easily.

With regards European politics, I think perhaps one can read too much into Party names. Social Democrats tend to be very middle of the road. Christian Democrats are right of centre but relatively mellow with it. The word Social being a very benign one in a European context. By and large, anything with the word National in it tends to be scarier. (The Scottish National Party being something of an exception in that it occupies a left of centre position and is inclusive in its outlook.)

Communists do stand in European elections and are of occasions elected. It is not a mainstream position but neither is it a slur nor a disreputable position.