Evangelion

On another forum I have been discussing American politics with a fellow from Texas.

During the course of our exchange, he came out with the following:

Somewhat puzzled, I responded:

• How odd. I can't begin to imagine how the Republican party could be seen as a form of communism!

His reply:

I personally believe that this is wildly inaccurate. It relies on flawed definitions, oversimplifcations and equivocation fallacies. None of the policies he has mentioned are exclusively "communist", and social security can hardly be equated with "redistribution of wealth" (particularly in the communist sense.) It merely exists as a stopgap for low income earners. It doesn't even come close to achieving financial egalitarianism (the rationale behind communism's redistribution of wealth.)

That's my answer in a nutshell, but I would be interested to know what others think. Do you believe that his comparison is a fair one? Does the logic add up? Are his conclusions accurate? Is it legitimate to characterise the Republicans and Democrats as "...different forms of communism" on the basis of the argument submitted here?

Thankyou in advance for your contributions.

ex-idaho

I would wager that this guy is a big fan of Micheal Savage.

I disagree with the premise of his argument but it obviously has some sense of truth to it. Both parties do favor certain socialist policies like welfare be it corporate or public, and medicare and social security.

In my opinion though the most damning single thing would be the conspiring of the two parties to eliminate the development of so called third parties. We have seen this with Perot and Nader being kept out of the discussion and debates through legal tactics.

Perhaps you should introduce this guy to a dictionary so he has an accurate definition of the word communism.

Evangelion

Thankyou for your swift response, ex-idaho.

I don't know about that yet, but I can confirm that he is an NRA member who "would have voted Libertarian" in the last election. (Figures.) By the same token, however, he is a fierce defender of Dubya. (Also figures.) McCain was, apparently, too left-wing for his tastes.

I agree that both parties do favour certain policies that we might call "socialist policies" (or, to be more accurate, social welfare policies), but this does not make them "communist." The essence of communism is total state control over public services, financial egalitarianism, and the rejection of a capitalist monetary system. The Republicans and Democrats simply do not fit these parameters.


Agreed. But again, there's nothing "communist" about this, is there? It seems to me that a two-party system is almost inevitable in western democracy.

I am about to do that.

He's not going to like it.

copernicus

Let's see now. How are libertarians and communists alike?

They are both in favor of radical social change. They both oppose US government policies and would like to see its governmental system largely dismantled. Both think that there is virtually no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. Both feel discriminated against by the two-party system. Both believe that humans can ultimately live in harmony with little or no government interference. Both oppose government handouts to large corporations. Both oppose environmental restrictions that impede economic development.

Yep, libertarianism is just another form of communism.

RED DAVE

The above is a statement of such appaling right wing ignorance that it is almost impossible to reply rationally. All the programs above are nothing more than expressions of the mildest liberalism, such as, say, that of Dean, let alone radicals, communists or socialists. It has got to the point where any fruitcake can say anything in the media and get away with it because of the absence of any journalistic standards and the cowardice of US intellectuals.

(Look up the actual programs of real parties (available on the Internet.)

Socialist Party program - 2000



RED DAVE

Evangelion

*snip*

That was not the question.

Please answer the question.

Evangelion

Thankyou for your response, Red Dave.

Evangelion

96 views and 6 responses (including my own.)

I need more input, people! Sure, the answer's obvious, but I still need to hear it from you.

And (which is more to the point) so does my opponent. :banghead:

Misso

"A couple of issues"? It's like my a teacher of mine said when asked what the stance of several parties (left and right) would be on the issue of safety: "there should be more of it" If you make massive generalizations like this, of course parties are the same.
If the two parties both want medicare, then why is still a large part of the US population without medical insurance? If they are looking for real redistribution of wealth, why is there mass-poverty.
The guy is completely ignoring the most important factors of communism: abolishing of the capitalist system, and a collectivization of the means of production. What he discribes are hardly more than Fordian measures to prevent the people that make your cars from dying, and to allow them to buy your products so that there will remain a market for your products. In the end it's still capitalism, it's just dressed up to make it look nice & social.

If I were you I'd just laugh at him and tell him to go look for a solid and accepted definition of communism.

Evangelion

Thankyou Misso. I agree with your analysis.