[besson3c]

Why are/were Americans generally afraid of and/or threatened by communism and communist stuff to the extent in which they were? I've never quite understood this...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Always found the backlash against things considered to be "socialist" interesting, considering how many other things America borrowed from the Native Americans (including, of course, democracy).

(But communism = teh evil)

[Dork.]

Well, there was this thing called the Cold War, when the US and the USSR were the world's superpowers with competing ideologies, and both sides had enough nukes to destroy the world several times over. Some folks haven't forgotten that.

Also, does this help at all?

[besson3c]

The Cold War I'm aware of, but the whole Red Scare thing is what I don't understand.

Why should we be afraid of people "infiltrating" our government so long as they can be voted in and out of office, and so long as changes made to our laws also have to be voted upon? If our values and existing laws are superior (and I think that they are superior to Communism and all of the others "ism"s), what do we have to be afraid of?

As far as the notion of infiltration by force, these scares seem to be to have been more about ideology than pure military might... Am I mistaken here?

[imitchellg5]

You're 100% correct that the scare was related to ideology. Maybe I'm biased, but I think that America, back then, and especially now was addicted to capitalism and the idea of property. For many, the idea of Communism simply meant that you didn't own property, and to a society built off of English (and to a certain degree John Locke's) principles, that's a frightening thought.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

You're 100% correct that the scare was related to ideology. Maybe I'm biased, but I think that America, back then, and especially now was addicted to capitalism and the idea of property. For many, the idea of Communism simply meant that you didn't own property, and to a society built off of English (and to a certain degree John Locke's) principles, that's a frightening thought.

It sure is frightening, but was it seen as a probable outcome? If so, what was the rationale?

[Chongo]

a couple of vids for you viewing pleasure
YouTube - The Bloody History of Communism (1 of 14)
PBS - Communism: The Promise and the Reality - 01 - Red Flag

[el chupacabra]

The number 1 reason was simply that communism was a good marketing excuse to rally people up in support of being enemies with Russia. Russia and the US were fighting for economic control of the world; and Russia's system had the potential to be far superior at organizing, maneuvering and controlling people...They have no problem with sacrificing individual rights for the greater good or in the name of efficiency.... which could be used against us. In Communism your society is like the borg, nobody wins, yet they're an all powerful weapon to be feared and reckoned with.

The 2nd reason: Maybe some of our politicians really did see it as a threat to their, or 'our' individual wealth and liberty at the time. Now days I cant really see our politicians caring much about us.

[ironknee]

it's like "youth in asia"

sounds strange...sounds unamerican

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The Cold War I'm aware of, but the whole Red Scare thing is what I don't understand.

Why should we be afraid of people "infiltrating" our government so long as they can be voted in and out of office, and so long as changes made to our laws also have to be voted upon? If our values and existing laws are superior (and I think that they are superior to Communism and all of the others "ism"s), what do we have to be afraid of?

Such things were never meant to be and shouldn't be simply left to the "system" to take care of. It's one of the reasons why freedom of speech is so important.

There are basically two ways that something like communism could take over in our country or any country: violent revolution/takeover or a philosophical transition (which can lead to revolution). I don't think the former was ever a worry here, but I think that the latter requires us to be vigilant. It is why we should never hesitate to criticize and resist those that wish to change our country for the worse. Freedom of speech isn't just about the free expression of "differing but equally valid opinions", it's also about being free identify and expose evil for what it is so that we can discredit it or destroy it.

[OldManMac]

People are suspicious of those who are different, whether it's because of race, political ideologies, religious beliefs, etc. It's always been this way. There is a fundamental change occurring in America now, which is one of the key reasons behind the birth of the current Tea Party movement. 2010 is the first year in America where more "non white" babies were born, and that upsets the traditional white male, who's run this country with an iron fist since its beginning. In order to attempt to hold on to power, he has to resort to propaganda, such as using the word "socialism" over and over, even though he often doesn't understand what it means (that's not really all that important to him anyway, as all he knows is that it's a bad word), which in turn whips up loyal minions, who can't figure out by themselves what's happening.

This isn't the first time history, nor will it be the last, when we look at each other with a jaundiced eye.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As far as the notion of infiltration by force, these scares seem to be to have been more about ideology than pure military might... Am I mistaken here?

When the Communist movement first started, the conflict was all about ideology. imitchellg5's observation about private vs. communal property is particularly astute.

After WWII, when the USSR solidified its status as the major counterbalance to the Western world (and also "took" a bunch of land in Eastern Europe into its sphere of influence), the military power of both sides definitely mattered. Both sides knew that attacking each other directly would be suicide, but funded proxy wars all over the world in order to reduce the other's sphere of influence.

So, when talking to people whose formative years were in between WWII and the end of the Cold War (which is pretty much everyone over, say, 40*), I would think they definitely had a notion at some point that Russian Communists would have taken over the US by force given the opportunity, if they managed to do it in such a way that didn't trigger a nuclear war. And even though History has moved on, this motion may still inform their thinking on Communism to some extent.

*this age threshold arbirtarily declared by me, YMMV!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The Cold War I'm aware of, but the whole Red Scare thing is what I don't understand.

Why should we be afraid of people "infiltrating" our government so long as they can be voted in and out of office, and so long as changes made to our laws also have to be voted upon? If our values and existing laws are superior (and I think that they are superior to Communism and all of the others "ism"s), what do we have to be afraid of?

As far as the notion of infiltration by force, these scares seem to be to have been more about ideology than pure military might... Am I mistaken here?

You have to keep in mind that the first Red Scare, following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, coincided with a period of rising immigration to the United States from Eastern Europe, much more confrontational labor strikes and a general (for the time) "radicalization" of labor activists (see Industrial Workers of the World). There was a lot of popular anxiety about the possibility of what happened in Russia happening here.

The Red Scare of the 1950s grew out of a series of actual documented/confessed cases of espionage, the Soviets' development of the atomic bomb, and events around the world seemingly putting the U.S. and its allies under siege (especially "losing" China). It's worth pointing out that the main anxiety, as embodied in Senator Joe McCarthy, was not so much about elected officials being secret communists, but about officials in the growing, somewhat mysterious at the time, federal foreign policy and national security bureaucracy (primarily the State Department).

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

There are basically two ways that something like communism could take over in our country or any country: violent revolution/takeover or a philosophical transition (which can lead to revolution). I don't think the former was ever a worry here, but I think that the latter requires us to be vigilant.

I'm not so sure about that. Wasn't there a lot of tension about the Cuban Missile Crisis and worry about Communist Cuba being so close to our south door? I seem to recall a lot of rhetoric about vigilance, etc.

Also:
Amerika (TV miniseries) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[besson3c]

smacintush: I just don't buy the notion that our philosophical ideals are fragile.

Thanks for the historical information guys!

[ghporter]

In the early 20th Century, anxiety about Communism sort of followed on the heels of concerns about violent anarchist groups, particularly since these groups tended to be "imports." An example would be Sacco and Vanzetti, who were Italian immigrants and followers of Italian anarchist Luigi Galleani, who advocated the use of violence to bring down the social system. The public reaction to the crime these two men were eventually executed for highlighted a particular kind of xenophobia. People began to believe that "outsiders" were untrustworthy because they might just be bomb-carrying anarchists, particularly if they came from somewhere other than "nice" places like France and (at least parts of) Germany.

The quite bloody history of the Bolsehvic/Communist revolution in Russia was even more troubling; the Communists were now seen as bomb throwers, out to bring down American traditions and institutions to further world revolution. More xenophobia ensued-"keep 'em out!!!" for the protection of our way of life...

In the 1950s, there were basically two very different Red Scare issues. There was the very real possibility that the Soviets would take military action to export their revolution-they managed to effectively annex all the countries between Russia and West Germany, they tried to overthrow Greece by armed means, and they helped the Chinese Communists cement their hold on an enormous amount of land and a huge population.

Then there was the cynical issue-Joe McCarthy wanted publicity and power, and he stooped to the lowest form of trickery to get both. (The old "when did you stop beating your wife" questioning technique was heavily used by this slimeball.) He was voracious in his quest for power, attacking every government institution, suggesting that the entire US government (except for his office, of course) was controlled or infiltrated by agents directed by Moscow. When he charged that the US Army was also rife with Communists, he ran into some people who would not be bullied; at McCarthy's own televised Senate hearings, Army attorney Joseph Welsh asked (on camera!) "Have you no sense of decency?" Welsh managed to bring down McCarthy, but the witch hunts and black lists remained.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

smacintush: I just don't buy the notion that our philosophical ideals are fragile.

Thanks for the historical information guys!

Not fragile…like glass. Malleable or corruptible. Especially when most people don't care about such things and thus don't understand the philosophical underpinnings of their political beliefs.

It's how we went from no safety nets to spending more than a trillion a year on entitlements, how we went from very few regulations to this monstrosity of over 130,000 pages, and how we went from very few taxes to working for 1/4 of the year just to pay federal income taxes.

Or how we went from blacks not being "fully human" to a black man with an African sounding name becoming President for that matter.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why are/were Americans generally afraid of and/or threatened by communism and communist stuff to the extent in which they were? I've never quite understood this...

Because we value personal freedom.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Not fragile…like glass. Malleable or corruptible. Especially when most people don't care about such things and thus don't understand the philosophical underpinnings of their political beliefs.

It's how we went from no safety nets to spending more than a trillion a year on entitlements, how we went from very few regulations to this monstrosity of over 130,000 pages, and how we went from very few taxes to working for 1/4 of the year just to pay federal income taxes.

Or how we went from blacks not being "fully human" to a black man with an African sounding name becoming President for that matter.

We've also evolved a great deal as a civilization, and not just America, but many other democratic countries as well, so I don't necessary understand the "things were better way back then" argument either, if that is what you are saying? You noting that we have a black guy with a funny name as president is testimony enough that it's really hard to compare civilizations. I don't see how it can be said that we are malleable because of the changes in the role of all governments over the years.

In fact, as access to information has increased, I would say that we are less malleable than ever before.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by chabig 

Because we value personal freedom.

That's like saying that ice cream is a tasty desert - not really saying anything that just about anybody in the world would feel differently about. Because we do, and because our government is designed to separate powers and ensure our freedom with all of these checks and balances, could it not be argued that we should be the least afraid of communist ideology sweeping the nation more than any other country?

[ghporter]

At the turn of the 20th Century, when Communism was first becoming a real political force, it was viewed as something kind of odd-suggesting that the workers of the world could wrest control of the means of production from the fat cat industrialists and the "bourgeois" (upper middle class) who ran things just didn't fit with American experience. Then there was this big revolution in Russia. Not only did they assassinate the czar and his family, they uprooted traditions, particularly people following their family's traditional trade. This sort of personal freedom was indeed quite cherished, especially in the early part of the century, as people in the US began migrating from mostly rural, farm-based communities to cities. As the ideological base of Lenin's brand of Communism became apparent, it also became apparent that "the workers of the world" wound up trading fat cat bosses for party bosses-for even more loss of personal freedom.

A lot of people today seem to think that nobody before 1980 had any sort of contact with world news; this is absolutely incorrect. A high school graduate in 1920 could have probably beaten most modern liberal arts graduates in breadth of knowledge of the world, the arts, and importantly, knowledge about world politics. While news wasn't instantaneous, it was quite available then, and people from Manhattan Island to Manhattan, Kansas kept abreast of this kind of information. It scared the crap out of a lot of Americans that these "dirty, unemployed plotters" could take over a huge country and in the process change the course of world history. Was the US next?

Later, it wasn't "Communist" ideology that was feared; it was Stalinism (shoot everyone who disagrees with you, and a few that agree with you, just in case) and Maoism (if they disagree with you, put 'em to work on a rice farm 3000 miles away from everything). Using the label of Communism, these two formed cults of personality that were truly awesome-and frightening.

[subego]

My history of Russian Revolution is a bit hazy, but didn't they replace the monarchy with an authentic democracy, and then it was those guys who got sacked by the communists?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We've also evolved a great deal as a civilization, and not just America, but many other democratic countries as well, so I don't necessary understand the "things were better way back then" argument either, if that is what you are saying?

It's got nothing to do with "how they were back then." It's got to do with having the right philosophy.

You noting that we have a black guy with a funny name as president is testimony enough that it's really hard to compare civilizations. I don't see how it can be said that we are malleable because of the changes in the role of all governments over the years.

In fact, as access to information has increased, I would say that we are less malleable than ever before.

"Compare civilizations" There are still people alive (and in power I might add) who remember a time when blacks couldn't share a lunch counter or a bathroom with whites in parts of the country.

I mentioned these things because they represent a shift in philosophy brought about deliberately. They represent how the philosophy of a nation can be subverted by deliberate efforts.

I would also argue that it is not all evolution, much of what has been done is devolution. The concept of individual freedom as a right, and a very limited government who has no rights was a new and unique one. The end of the 19th century brought about a movement that is regressive to the era of powerful "elites" who view freedom as a privilege that can and should be limited based upon the opinions of those in power.

[brassplayersrock²]

“Do your own homework."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's got nothing to do with "how they were back then." It's got to do with having the right philosophy.



"Compare civilizations" There are still people alive (and in power I might add) who remember a time when blacks couldn't share a lunch counter or a bathroom with whites in parts of the country.

I mentioned these things because they represent a shift in philosophy brought about deliberately. They represent how the philosophy of a nation can be subverted by deliberate efforts.

I would also argue that it is not all evolution, much of what has been done is devolution. The concept of individual freedom as a right, and a very limited government who has no rights was a new and unique one. The end of the 19th century brought about a movement that is regressive to the era of powerful "elites" who view freedom as a privilege that can and should be limited based upon the opinions of those in power.

This is definitely changing the topic, but I really have a hard time with the argument that we have devolved because we are less free.

All of this talk about how great freedom is, how we value it (often implying that non-Republicans/Libertarians don't), etc. often just seem like empty platitudes to me. We don't live in a truly free society, we accept that we need government to provide some basic things, and I don't think that we have found a way to live in anarchy and in complete, absolute freedom. Agreed?

The real debate simply involves the best balance between public/private sectors, but I often feel that it isn't advanced or contributed to in a positive way with all of this ra ra pro-freedom, we love freedom, isn't freedom great sort of talk. Like I said, being a "freedom loving American" (a term I'm sure Sarah Palin and the like use frequently rhetorically) is akin to saying that ice cream is a tasty desert. We all like freedom and feel strongly about it. The fact that people are opinionated about politics to have these discussions in the first place is probably a testament to freedom in general. The real discussion is simply about balance.

Going back to the communist thing, would you care to explain to me how being afraid or protective against a competing ideology like communism is rational? To me, fussing over communism is like fussing over the presence of the Amiga in the world of computers, if only the Amiga could somehow not only gain in popularity but also take over regardless of what computer users actually want.

[stumblinmike]

DEVO rules!!!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A lot of people today seem to think that nobody before 1980 had any sort of contact with world news; this is absolutely incorrect. A high school graduate in 1920 could have probably beaten most modern liberal arts graduates in breadth of knowledge of the world, the arts, and importantly, knowledge about world politics. While news wasn't instantaneous, it was quite available then, and people from Manhattan Island to Manhattan, Kansas kept abreast of this kind of information. It scared the crap out of a lot of Americans that these "dirty, unemployed plotters" could take over a huge country and in the process change the course of world history. Was the US next?

As much as we complain about how our news sources are biased now, there was no such thing as unbiased news back then. Radio wasn't all that widely available in 1920 (although it would be in 1930), so people were mainly getting their news from newspapers, who got their international news by telegraph. And it was generally understood that newspapers would present the news according to the political slant of their owners. So if the newspaper owner in Manhattan, Kansas was scared about a Communist revolution in the US, it would show through in the articles, which may make the readers there more inclined to be scared of the prospect of Communinsts in the US.

Your average High-School graduate back then may have been well-versed in some aspects of world news, but likely only what the local editor thought was interesting, and only in the point of view that he wrote in. (Which, I suppose, isn't all that much different than today....)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

So, when talking to people whose formative years were in between WWII and the end of the Cold War (which is pretty much everyone over, say, 40*), I would think they definitely had a notion at some point that Russian Communists would have taken over the US by force given the opportunity, if they managed to do it in such a way that didn't trigger a nuclear war. And even though History has moved on, this motion may still inform their thinking on Communism to some extent.

As far as we were concerned, the only thing stopping them was the threat of nuclear annihilation.

The general consensus was if the tanks started to roll on central Europe, NATO would last about a week before they'd have to bring out the big guns.

Likewise, historically speaking, the fact that Europe hasn't tried to rip itself apart in the last 65 years is a complete anomaly.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Going back to the communist thing, would you care to explain to me how being afraid or protective against a competing ideology like communism is rational? To me, fussing over communism is like fussing over the presence of the Amiga in the world of computers, if only the Amiga could somehow not only gain in popularity but also take over regardless of what computer users actually want.

Because it means a bit more to your day-to-day life than what computer you use. Check out what Wikipedia says about the immediate aftermath of the Russian Revolution. A lot of stuff happened that you don't see every day. And that doesn't even count all the nasty stuff that Stalin did later.

[BadKosh]

We may have more information available, but how good is it?
Is it propaganda, or mis-information in support of someones agenda?
More importantly, how useful and relevant is it?
Is it the information and facts we need to make the right decision?

In the late 1950's the USSR put the first man in space, beating the US, right on the heels of Sputnik. It became a competition between east & west. Both sides had spies everywhere. Some of the best secrets lasted a few years before turning up on the other sides desks. We saw the Commies rolling over little countries, by force, while we were making military alliances. The slowness of the Commies at producing similar technologies to the west is what killed them. They stole a B29 and copied it, and they got hold of plans for the Pratt & Witney J-58's used in the Blackbirds, but they couldn't build either the engine or the planes we could. while the Commies wasted resources being heavy-handed to their populaces' they didn't have the bucks to pay for their common good, and by the 1980's they were broke, and too corrupt, and too trapped in the philosophical dead-end. They had spent all of the money. Did pure corruption end the USSR? Was it the logical end to that form of government? Was it our capitalism and free flow of technologies and information that beat them? Now the Muslims want to rule the world.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Was it our capitalism and free flow of technologies and information that beat them? Now the Muslims want to rule the world.

I think this post just gave me whiplash.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

As much as we complain about how our news sources are biased now, there was no such thing as unbiased news back then. Radio wasn't all that widely available in 1920 (although it would be in 1930), so people were mainly getting their news from newspapers, who got their international news by telegraph. And it was generally understood that newspapers would present the news according to the political slant of their owners. So if the newspaper owner in Manhattan, Kansas was scared about a Communist revolution in the US, it would show through in the articles, which may make the readers there more inclined to be scared of the prospect of Communinsts in the US.

Your average High-School graduate back then may have been well-versed in some aspects of world news, but likely only what the local editor thought was interesting, and only in the point of view that he wrote in. (Which, I suppose, isn't all that much different than today....)

Another consideration here, though, is that most cities had several newspapers, and many people read more than one every day. Local editors really only had control of local news-Hearst would not have liked it if the editor at his Topeka paper messed with European news differently from the way the editor in Toledo did. This led to something similar to today's network TV news situation: the publisher's ideas about major events were really clear to everyone. So when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot, just about everyone got just about the same details and just about the same spin-and readers were well aware that "this paper" had a pro-European slant, while "this other one" was more pro-American (and thus isolationist too).

Historical revisionists like to blame Hearst for the outbreak of the Spanish-American war, but the truth is that public opinion had been against the King and the way his governors did things for decades. The way Hearst had made syndicated news available widely and fairly quickly simply made it easier for the public to get events in a timely fashion. The timeliness of the news of the explosion of the Maine helped Americans know that it had happened long before the Spanish were able to try to explain it away (and a real, scientific explanation of the disaster had to wait for most of a century). But by that time, Americans had become quite used to big news being freely available just about everywhere. From about 1880 on, local newspapers would post their front page news (which was usually all real news) in their office windows, sort of as a preview for all to read; while big events took hours to reach smaller towns, the news got there just as effectively as it does today. Without the excess stuff, like "analysis" and "commentary" and blogging.

Today, we may know a lot more individual data points about a lot more things, but I think as a society we are all much less capable of managing this information. It's hard to weed out all the fluff and nonsense and concentrate on real news because there is almost no real "news only" media anywhere. It's all "infotainment."

In the 1890s, a typical high school graduate would have known the basics about Greek and Roman mythology, European and American history (albeit with the then contemporary slant) from at least the Renaissance to current, would have taken at least one foreign language (and been functional in it) and often also had some class work in Classical Greek and/or Latin, would have had enough basic physics and chemistry to actually thoroughly understand the basics (as known then), and would have been able to compose and hand-write a multipage paper on any number of subjects with accurate spelling and punctuation as well as technically proper English usage. Which would tend to blow past a 4th year liberal arts major today. But in 1890, finishing high school was something that most people did not have the opportunity to do-they were busy working on the farm or in the shop, and would have at most finished "grammar school." (And they still would have been way more functional and accurate with English, spelling, punctuation and grammar than most college students today.) Today's non-technical, non-professional college graduate is basically on a par with a high school graduate back then-at least in terms of preparation and functional skills.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why are/were Americans generally afraid of and/or threatened by communism and communist stuff to the extent in which they were? I've never quite understood this...

Because throughout the 20s and 30s, communism was just another "alternative political lifestyle" like national socialism or fascism. A good number of the "Great Unwashed" in this country actually saw communism as a way out of the backbreaking poverty levels that had accumulated before WWII, and there was a good number of elites that saw it as a way to continue controlling those folks (disregarding the Russian experience). Once all the rescue fantasies died down and folks saw what REALLY went on under those regimes, the fervor for communism cooled off quickly. Stalin and Mao showed us how things were supposed to work, and the intelligentsia backed off pretty fast because they knew who would be cleansed first.

So there was a real threat here, domestically, for a very long time. It's still here if you ask me - some people always want to take from their neighbor if they can.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Because throughout the 20s and 30s, communism was just another "alternative political lifestyle" like national socialism or fascism. A good number of the "Great Unwashed" in this country actually saw communism as a way out of the backbreaking poverty levels that had accumulated before WWII, and there was a good number of elites that saw it as a way to continue controlling those folks (disregarding the Russian experience). Once all the rescue fantasies died down and folks saw what REALLY went on under those regimes, the fervor for communism cooled off quickly. Stalin and Mao showed us how things were supposed to work, and the intelligentsia backed off pretty fast because they knew who would be cleansed first.

So there was a real threat here, domestically, for a very long time. It's still here if you ask me - some people always want to take from their neighbor if they can.

Okay, but regarding your last paragraph I don't understand where the line is drawn between policy that is not purely market driven, and flat out communism? For instance, if somebody supported the Obama health care plan, something like it, or even a single payer system, in my opinion it would be hyperbole to say that if we were to implement this that we'd be a communist nation. For starters, there are many other countries that have programs like this that are not communist. For some people, it seems to be implied that we flirt with flat out communism every day.

I think that we are laughably far away from communism. We deal with policies that adopt systems and tactics you might find in a communist government, which I think is what you meant, but that does *not* mean that the threat of communism taking over is heightened - wealth redistribution is nothing new.

It is *so* very hard to take any politician that cannot seem to get past putting rhetoric, hyperbole, and fear mongering over accuracy seriously on both the left and right. It is absolutely fair game to be against these programs that redistribute wealth or borrow from the Communist playbook, and it is fair to call them out, but a little accuracy would be nice!


Regarding your initial comments, was Communism really neck and neck with Free Market Capitalism in the minds and hearts of people, or was it just a stronger version of what it is today (minuscule)?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Regarding your initial comments, was Communism really neck and neck with Free Market Capitalism in the minds and hearts of people, or was it just a stronger version of what it is today (minuscule)?

No, from what I understand we were pretty close to socialism at least, if not communism, hence Roosevelt's compromises in the 30s to appease The Left. And there were plenty of regular folks who thought it was just another party, like being a Democrat or Republican, just as there were workaday Nazis here AND in Germany.

With as many people on food stamps as we have now, and as many receiving government aid of various kinds, we're a lot closer to communism than you think. The best evidence is the way that the folks inside the beltway (in EITHER party, but especially the Dems) think that they know best and just do whatever they want to.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

it would be hyperbole to say that if we were to implement this that we'd be a communist nation.

What they're worried about is a tipping point. It's not a linear scale to gradually build us into the soviet union, it's a build-up of power among the latent communist revolutionaries until they have the power to jump right to the finish line, through force. All the other communist dystopias we have to look at had a violent revolution. Because of this it's logical that if you're going to stop communism in this country, what you're stopping is going to be a violent revolution. So you don't judge your position against the end of the revolution (full-blown communism), you judge it against the beginning of the revolution, where only a minority actually want communism but they have the (physical and political) power to force it on everyone else.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

With as many people on food stamps as we have now, and as many receiving government aid of various kinds, we're a lot closer to communism than you think. The best evidence is the way that the folks inside the beltway (in EITHER party, but especially the Dems) think that they know best and just do whatever they want to.

Sorry, that is absolute nonsense.

Talk to people who have actually lived under Communist governments and you'll see why. For instance, a Tibetan friend of mine had to write essays in school about how great the Chinese government was, worked in a "work unit" in housing provided by the government (as did everybody else), and of course we all know about the great Chinese Firewall.

We have freedom to practice whatever religion we want, freedom to vote, freedom to work where we want doing what we want, freedom to earn as much money as we want (with caveats), freedom to live where we want, freedom of the press, freedom of information, freedom to learn, freedom to form unions, freedom to protest, freedom of speech, freedom to own and bare arms... This is just getting started, but this is all different under an actual Communist government.

We are miles and miles away from Communism, to think otherwise is absolutely absurd and/or ignorant, I'm sorry.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What they're worried about is a tipping point. It's not a linear scale to gradually build us into the soviet union, it's a build-up of power among the latent communist revolutionaries until they have the power to jump right to the finish line, through force. All the other communist dystopias we have to look at had a violent revolution. Because of this it's logical that if you're going to stop communism in this country, what you're stopping is going to be a violent revolution. So you don't judge your position against the end of the revolution (full-blown communism), you judge it against the beginning of the revolution, where only a minority actually want communism but they have the (physical and political) power to force it on everyone else.

That's an interesting point. How were the conditions prior to these revolutions similar to ours then?

America has built so much into its design to prevent this very thing from happening. I would say that Canada or any other number of countries is under a greater threat of Communism than the US is, although people there don't seem to be feeling nervous about this.

Why is it that it is said that we are the "freest country in the world" yet we are seemingly the most threatened? Seems like a logical disconnect to me, one that involves fear.

[The Final Dakar]

We view our freedom like virginity, and communism is engaging in carnal acts. However, no one can agree on what constitutes breaking our chastity, so we have people who fight legislation that is closer to 2nd base than home, metaphorically speaking.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's an interesting point. How were the conditions prior to these revolutions similar to ours then?

America has built so much into its design to prevent this very thing from happening. I would say that Canada or any other number of countries is under a greater threat of Communism than the US is, although people there don't seem to be feeling nervous about this.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think one of the greatest dangers is that the government and military is where the threat might come from. So because we have the biggest military (built up to protect us from communism), that might be exactly what we have to fear if some communist ideologue gains control of it.

America has built so much into its design to prevent this very thing from happening.

Well this is exactly why we have the mindset you're complaining about. We have protections like the constitution and limits on government and our fears lessons of history, and if we discard one of these, then we are more likely to let the others slip away as well. Protections that are built-in can also be built-out, and that is exactly what communist-phobes are afraid is happening, when they see social programs that you describe as in no way a communist nation. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, have you heard this expression?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Talk to people who have actually lived under Communist governments and you'll see why. For instance, a Tibetan friend of mine had to write essays in school about how great the Chinese government was, worked in a "work unit" in housing provided by the government (as did everybody else), and of course we all know about the great Chinese Firewall.

We have freedom to practice whatever religion we want, freedom to vote, freedom to work where we want doing what we want, freedom to earn as much money as we want (with caveats), freedom to live where we want, freedom of the press, freedom of information, freedom to learn, freedom to form unions, freedom to protest, freedom of speech, freedom to own and bare arms... This is just getting started, but this is all different under an actual Communist government.

We are miles and miles away from Communism, to think otherwise is absolutely absurd and/or ignorant, I'm sorry.

I think some folks here see the roots of communism in any plan to use tax money from some people and give it to others. Redistribution of wealth and all that. And it's hard to argue that food stamps, tax credits, and government aid that is given to poor folks aren't a form of wealth redistribution.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think one of the greatest dangers is that the government and military is where the threat might come from. So because we have the biggest military (built up to protect us from communism), that might be exactly what we have to fear if some communist ideologue gains control of it.

How would some communist ideologue take control of it?

Well this is exactly why we have the mindset you're complaining about. We have protections like the constitution and limits on government and our fears lessons of history, and if we discard one of these, then we are more likely to let the others slip away as well. Protections that are built-in can also be built-out, and that is exactly what communist-phobes are afraid is happening, when they see social programs that you describe as in no way a communist nation. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, have you heard this expression?

I'm not sure I understand your point here, but so that you understand mine, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be mindful and/or afraid of our freedoms being built-out, but this isn't warrant making inaccurate statements in the present about where we're at.

In the present our government is not a communist government, and we are not a communist nation. In the present there is no legislation being bandied about that will turn us into a communist nation. Saying that some of the policies make use of tactics found in a communist government and making this sort of intellectual argument is totally different than cranking the dial to 11 and using all sorts of scare tactics and hyperbolic rhetoric.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think some folks here see the roots of communism in any plan to use tax money from some people and give it to others. Redistribution of wealth and all that. And it's hard to argue that food stamps, tax credits, and government aid that is given to poor folks aren't a form of wealth redistribution.

I can see that... "The roots of" communism makes some sense. Maybe Americans are in a sort of fierce denial over the many forms of wealth redistribution that already exist and don't want to believe that our society is not truly free?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would some communist ideologue take control of it?

How does anything happen? How does your house start to be on fire? It just does sometimes.

I'm not sure I understand your point here, but so that you understand mine, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be mindful and/or afraid of our freedoms being built-out, but this isn't warrant making inaccurate statements in the present about where we're at.

In the present our government is not a communist government, and we are not a communist nation. In the present there is no legislation being bandied about that will turn us into a communist nation. Saying that some of the policies make use of tactics found in a communist government and making this sort of intellectual argument is totally different than cranking the dial to 11 and using all sorts of scare tactics and hyperbolic rhetoric.

In the present our house is not on fire. In the present there is no plan to set our house on fire. Saying that candles make use of flames like the ones found in a house-fire and making this sort of argument is totally different than cranking it up to 11 and using scare tactics and hyperbole. But it's not unreasonable to get more worried about a house-fire breaking out with each additional candle that is lit. You don't even really know how many candles it takes before a house-fire will start, not even a ballpark, because each house-fire will be different, but even so you can still make a reasonable argument that each additional candle increases the risk of fire, there is a non-zero risk with each candle that it will be the tipping point.

See what I did there? Does it answer the question?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In the present our house is not on fire. In the present there is no plan to set our house on fire. Saying that candles make use of flames like the ones found in a house-fire and making this sort of argument is totally different than cranking it up to 11 and using scare tactics and hyperbole. But it's not unreasonable to get more worried about a house-fire breaking out with each additional candle that is lit. You don't even really know how many candles it takes before a house-fire will start, not even a ballpark, because each house-fire will be different, but even so you can still make a reasonable argument that each additional candle increases the risk of fire, there is a non-zero risk with each candle that it will be the tipping point.

See what I did there? Does it answer the question?

Not really. To follow your analogy in relation to the point I was making, what I was describing was people freaking out over the candles and raving about their dangers in some sort of manic, paranoid fashion... Freaking out is different than simply pointing out that we should mind the candles. That's my point.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would some communist ideologue take control of it?

You mean next time?

The Left has pretty much taken control of the government since 2006 (look at the growth of government and lobbying if you don't believe me) and it happened pretty quickly, and pretty painlessly.

Imagine if a populist came along that wanted to use people's hatred to scapegoat minorities or the disadvantaged instead of the middle-class and wealthy (who just ignore it, to their evident peril). This populist would be able to point to the last 4 years of policy and credibly show that The Left has taken us down a garden path. If the trend continues, someone to the right of Pat Buchanan will be on the Repub ticket next time. We don't even know who that will be yet, but they're out there.

That's what I worry about. When the pendulum swings back, because of the imperialist BS of the current executive and legislative branch composition, people are going to be ready for blood. I hope we'll be able to contain it, otherwise a large number of poor and disadvantaged people will end up killed in riots or displaced and more disadvantaged.

The working folks of this country are tired of double standards for some folks, tired of the lack of border enforcement, the undermining of health care benefits they've worked long and hard to get, the undermining of their 401(K) portfolios, the printing of money and the dilution of their home values. And someone with a little charisma will step up, and if that person is motivated poorly they might take advantage of the opportunity. I hope not, but this society is primed for upheaval, and not toward the left.

You don't have to be a genius to see the potential for this kind of thing (but, believe me, being a genius really pays off sometimes).

[besson3c]

Are you saying that since 2006 we have been guided largely by communist ideology? Is that your argument? If so, examples?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not really. To follow your analogy in relation to the point I was making, what I was describing was people freaking out over the candles and raving about their dangers in some sort of manic, paranoid fashion... Freaking out is different than simply pointing out that we should mind the candles. That's my point.

I'm guessing you have never lived with a clumsy, careless candle-lover. Sometimes freaking out is the rational response. If you have tried understatement and the other party still doesn't acknowledge the existence of a serious risk, citing for example that since the house has so many qualities of a non-burning house that even the basics of fire-safety are unnecessary, it might just be an appropriate time to lose your cool. Like what if the other party already demonstrated their lax fire safety skills when the Korean and Vietnamese restaurants they worked in both burned down

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why are/were Americans generally afraid of and/or threatened by communism and communist stuff to the extent in which they were? I've never quite understood this...

I think we have to differentiate between perception and reality here. What was actually happening was a competition for resources and dominance between two hegemonies (i.e. the US and the USSR). Having said that, most Americans were afraid of "communism" because they bought into the propaganda and hype promoted by American leadership. Fear is a powerful motivational force. And the bottom line is that the masses aren't as eager to support this actual competition when they perceive it to be about control of energy resources or sea lanes or mining operations. But when they perceive it to be about "freedom" and "preserving their way of life" then it's a different ball of wax.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm guessing you have never lived with a clumsy, careless candle-lover. Sometimes freaking out is the rational response. If you have tried understatement and the other party still doesn't acknowledge the existence of a serious risk, citing for example that since the house has so many qualities of a non-burning house that even the basics of fire-safety are unnecessary, it might just be an appropriate time to lose your cool. Like what if the other party already demonstrated their lax fire safety skills when the Korean and Vietnamese restaurants they worked in both burned down

You have a point, but freaking out is a good way to get people to pay attention, not necessarily to solve problems when it comes time to actually sit down and work on them. I think most of us are paying attention and do agree that there are economic problems.