Communist Goals, according to Congressional record

[Chris of Zewe]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 17 2005, 08:49 PM']okay then.  socialists centralize government, capitalists centralize business... both ignore the basic Catholic social justice principle of subsidarity
[right][snapback]727883[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Catholicism and justice...what an odd cominbation...

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 17 2005, 08:34 PM']you make the fatal assumption that I believe in capitalism.
[right][snapback]727864[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i believe in capitalism as long as the goverment has strict regulations on it.

[Don John of Austria]

Yes the Communist won, it is a falalcy to think that " we won the Cold war and so defeated communism" We defeated the Soviets not the Communist. Our county is virtually communist now--- it is certainly classless. Now just to stave off the miriad of people who will yell about it. The fact that money alone determines your "class" shows instantly that the clss system is dead. Classes where not determined by the status of your bank account.

[Theoketos]

1. That list is scary as heck.

2. Communism is not bad because every one works for the good of all. In fact that is its good point. (That and value for Labor)

3. Where is fails, and what makes the list so scary is that the diginity of the person is sacraficed for the common good. The end does not justify the means.

4. Communism and that agenda is most whack because it denies transcendant truth.

[p-hawk]

I saw one of the new series on EWTN, can't think of the name of it right now, and this guy mentioned that in the Fatima messages Mary said "Russia would spread her errors throughout the world." Voila, here it is. Sure, not every place is politically communist, but man those errors sure are everywhere.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Sep 17 2005, 11:35 PM']i believe in capitalism as long as the goverment has strict regulations on it.
[right][snapback]728018[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't believe in strict regulations of the government at all. you're attempting to curve one potentially bad thing with an even worse thing- beaurocratic controls.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='p-hawk' date='Sep 18 2005, 03:15 PM']I saw one of the new series on EWTN, can't think of the name of it right now, and this guy mentioned that in the Fatima messages Mary said "Russia would spread her errors throughout the world." Voila, here it is. Sure, not every place is politically communist, but man those errors sure are everywhere.
[right][snapback]728603[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
oh wow - now this is food for thought
Our Lady's message is still unfolding? possibly very true

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 18 2005, 02:33 PM']I don't believe in strict regulations of the government at all.  you're attempting to curve one potentially bad thing with an even worse thing- beaurocratic controls.
[right][snapback]728630[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
well the governement already basically controls a lot of businesses. Especially like the air lines. Have you heard of FAA regulations? Also the government has mail contracts with a lot of airlines too. My mom tells me a lot of this stuff.......she is a manager for american airlines.

I was mainly talking about the government regulations on wages and such. I hear they are talking about raising the minimum wage up to 8 dollars an hour. That would be good. If i were controlling the government i would regulate the prices so corporate america doesnt go jacking there prices up to make up for the new minimum wage. I think those corporatations that do that should be bulldozed down.

[infinitelord1]

i despise corporate america as it is......i think there should be more government regulations in certain areas like wages and price rates.
You know........i come from an area of the united states where the united auto workers pretty much says what goes. I think that is bad too, but i love to see the people fight back against corporate america. My dad is a construction welder for delphi electronics (a division of General Motors). He makes like 100K a year doing blue collar work. Most people call him a shop rat. They feel he is getting payed too much for what he does. Basically he works about 2 hours of his shift and the other 6 hours he reads literature and such. Must be nice. I love seeing that stuff..........he may not deserve that much money, but i would rather see him make out good than making 10 dollars an hour working around machinery risking his life. He has told me about numerous accounts of people dying in there.

Have you heard about the meat packing company's which fast food corporations buy there meat? That is evil stuff.

[Aloysius]

ehh... you're too heavy on government power in your opposition to corporations tending towards infringing upon property rights. even minimum wage stuff is too regulatory for my taste, the raising of the minimum wage really isn't necessarily going to help people (someone else could explain the negative effects a lot better than I could)

I don't have a well refined practical policy to suggest at the moment (I've been working out ideas in my head for a bit though)... I just can't stand government meddling in the affairs of private property and trade, it not only never works but it is a dangerous philosophy of power-to-the-state that ultimately hurts the individual and small business.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 19 2005, 12:06 PM']ehh... you're too heavy on government power in your opposition to corporations tending towards infringing upon property rights.  even minimum wage stuff is too regulatory for my taste, the raising of the minimum wage really isn't necessarily going to help people (someone else could explain the negative effects a lot better than I could)

I don't have a well refined practical policy to suggest at the moment (I've been working out ideas in my head for a bit though)... I just can't stand government meddling in the affairs of private property and trade, it not only never works but it is a dangerous philosophy of power-to-the-state that ultimately hurts the individual and small business.
[right][snapback]729879[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yea but dont you think that if there was no government regulation on corporations it would hurt small businesses? The government currently regulates monopoly's and such. Also, imagine if therre were no minimum wage.

Edited September 19, 2005 by infinitelord1

[Aloysius]

I did not intend to get into such a practical discussion. Of course you are correct that in the current situation minimum wage keeps corporations from basically creating slaves... but it is very telling that you need such regulation on this beast of capitalism, this clearly illustrates that the way things are now is a force pushing in the direction of slavery and you need some counter force to keep it from getting there altogether.

but the counter-force of government regulation always in itself creates problems.

if you must regulate capitalism, then how good can capitalism really be? something that must be held back is obviously pushing the wrong way against a moral line.

Imagine it is like a beaver dam keeping a huge river from flooding a tiny village. (the beaver dam is the government, the river is capitalism, the village is the average joe shmoe worker man and/or the small business).

we created the river. then we created the beaver dam.

would it not be better if the river just were not created there at all? create a river that flows next to the village, so that the villagers can use it for water but it does no threaten their village.

capitalism wants the river there to run over the village.
communism wants to build a big beaver dam right on top of the village smashing it.
more moderate socialism would put the beaver dam where I described it as government regulation.

distributism puts the river in a wholly different place where it can be utilized by men of skill and determination to earn their own living by their own means.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 19 2005, 03:39 PM']I did not intend to get into such a practical discussion.  Of course you are correct that in the current situation minimum wage keeps corporations from basically creating slaves... but it is very telling that you need such regulation on this beast of capitalism, this clearly illustrates that the way things are now is a force pushing in the direction of slavery and you need some counter force to keep it from getting there altogether.

but the counter-force of government regulation always in itself creates problems.

if you must regulate capitalism, then how good can capitalism really be?  something that must be held back is obviously pushing the wrong way against a moral line. 

Imagine it is like a beaver dam keeping a huge river from flooding a tiny village.  (the beaver dam is the government, the river is capitalism, the village is the average joe shmoe worker man and/or the small business). 

we created the river.  then we created the beaver dam. 

would it not be better if the river just were not created there at all?  create a river that flows next to the village, so that the villagers can use it for water but it does no threaten their village. 

capitalism wants the river there to run over the village.
communism wants to build a big beaver dam right on top of the village smashing it.
more moderate socialism would put the beaver dam where I described it as government regulation.

distributism puts the river in a wholly different place where it can be utilized by men of skill and determination to earn their own living by their own means.
[right][snapback]730152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A discussion of economic policy should be a practical discussion. Economics is a practical science, not just a set of pie-in-the-sky ideals. If economics is not rooted in the real world, it is pointless.
I've argued with "distributists" before who would refuse to dicuss the specifics of how their goals would be achieved, acusing me of "pragmatism." This is just avoiding the issues.

Al, you claim "distributism" does not need government regulation (unlike "capitalism").
"Distributism" is is a term generally used to describe goals of destroying business monopolies and having each individual/family have control over his own property and means of production.
However, most of the debate over "distributism" concerns the means of achieving this end. The truth is that in practice, this would be achieved by government regulations of some sort on the economy. Most distributist, when pressed, say that this would be achieved by a code of taxes which would in essence tax monopolies out of existance. Taxation is a form of government regulation/interference. Whether this is just, good, or effective is another debate. Most distributists also suggest banning certain businesses deemed "usurous" or immoral. Some of the more extreme even want strict government regulation of technology and its uses (for instance, banning motor vehicles, except for emergency government use). In addition, some say the government should confiscate property of those who begin to have a monopoly (for instance, own two shops) and give the property to others (in short, a form of socialism).
(If you think I am making these things up, go to www.distributism.com.)

It is not clear if Al beleives in any of these practices - it seems he is more for a "libertarian" method of cutting taxes and such, which I am largely in favor ot. However, I think the means by which economic goals, no matter how noble, are to be met is an important one. And I think it is false to say that distributist goals would require no government action. (At least according to what I've heard from distributists who actually deal with such things).

The trouble in these debates is that words like "distributism" and "capitalism" are rather vague and nebulous, and need to be carefully defined before meaningful debate can take place. Specific policies need to be addressed, not just "buzz-words." Otherwise, the debate degenerates into mindless slogan slinging.

Edited September 19, 2005 by Socrates

[Aloysius]

All I was saying was that I don't want to get into a practical discussion here about what is necessary for the current system on the government level

I'm not discussing any way of acheiving this by government policy in the first place. As I mentioned before it has to be fuelled by the private sector. I too have debated these wayward distributists who don't realize they're just using socialist means to acheive their idea... and I generally have gotten them to admit they're compromising their values for one instance in order to acheive something they value. they're misguided.

anyway, I really don't have much opinions in regards to government policies other than wishing the government would just stay out, cut taxes, and stop trying to help us thereby screwing us over.