Will America Go Communist?

[georgephillip]

Russia would have collapsed without U.S. aid: Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (Book Review)

I suspect you are correct.
Without US support Russia would have fallen to Hitler. The Nazis would have seized the oil reserves in the Caucasus on their way to linking up with Japan, possibly in India. The US supplied much needed hardware and foodstuffs while the Russians supplied twenty million dead civilian and soldiers. Both allies contributed to Germany's defeat.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, all of them are not true about health care costs.... .because there is no fix for a socialized system. There is no fix for Medicare. There simply isn't. It has to be reformed, or eliminated. You can't fix socialism.

You can't fix a for-profit medical insurance system that "earns" shareholder ROI by denying needed medical procedures:

A majority of Americans with employer-based health insurance don't mind if it changes to Medicare for All — as long as they can keep their current coverage

"Over 59% of respondents who receive health insurance through their employer said in a new INSIDER poll they would be fine if that plan changed, as long as it meant no change in coverage."

Sure you can.

In fact, for-profit medical care has worked the world over. Even to this day, in some of the countries that have government care, private for-profit care is thriving.

The only difference is, that the poor are almost shut out from good care.

The reason is, because with gov-care, you can't market to low-income people, so no such services for middle to low income patients exists.

So only the people who can afford quality care, can get good care. The poor are just left to die.

Take for example, Germany. Germans pay high taxes, for their government-care system. Yet nearly most of the country has private insurance on top of the government-care, because gov-care sucks. They all admit this. If you want good quality care you have to buy private insurance... of course you still pay the high taxes for the crap government care.

And for the poor class, the high taxes make it difficult to pay for private insurance. So your system destroys the poor.... which ironically you claim to be helping, by making them poor with high taxes.

And you see that around the world. Canadian Health Care: Private Health Insurance
Canada now has private insurance provided by many companies.

Why? I thought Canada health care covered everything?
Timely Medical | Timely Surgery at Affordable Prices

How come people are paying money to get health care through for-profit brokers like this company? Well actually the reason is in the name.... Timely Medical.

People wait years in Canada, to get services that in the US would take days.

For-profit medical care has been saving lives from gov-care system around the world for literally decades. Take for example, medical tourism. People talk about US patients going for abroad for health care, which is true.

But are they going to socialized systems? Or even more capitalist systems? Answer: more capitalists systems.

They are not going to government run hospitals in Europe, or elsewhere. They are going to free-market for-profit capitalist hospitals. The 3 largest medical tourism hospitals in Singapore, are all free-market for-profit capitalist based hospitals. Hospitals not under the control of government, not heavily regulated and subsidized.

In short, Americans going for medical tourism, are going to health care providers that are less socialized than our own. The US health care system is highly regulated, highly controlled, and highly subsidized.

It might be less socialized than say Canada, that's true. But it is more socialized than medical tourism hospitals around the world. I'll give you a quick example... Medical tourism hospitals, do not pay for Medicaid and Medicare, that US hospitals do. Thus they don't have to cost shift the burden of government patients, on private patients. Thus it's cheaper to get care at medical tourism hospitals.

 

[Andylusion]

Russia would have collapsed without U.S. aid: Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (Book Review)

I suspect you are correct.
Without US support Russia would have fallen to Hitler. The Nazis would have seized the oil reserves in the Caucasus on their way to linking up with Japan, possibly in India. The US supplied much needed hardware and foodstuffs while the Russians supplied twenty million dead civilian and soldiers. Both allies contributed to Germany's defeat.

So quick question.... why didn't Russia have the material goods, the industrial power, and the supply chains required to fight a war?

Socialism perhaps?

In Ellman’s view, therefore, the undoubted sufferings experienced by thepeasantry in the early years of collective farming did not reflect any contributionthey were making to feed and fuel industrial development, but resulted from aseries of “pure losses” (in both human and animal terms). The costs of industrialgrowth were born by the industrial working class, in particular by the millions whichit recruited from the countryside as industrial employment expanded (Ellman 1975)​

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/1978_cc_postprint.pdf

Socialism wiped out tons of agricultural production, harmed the peasants they claimed to be helping, and also forced people in manufacturing, when they were there against their will, and not efficient at their jobs they didn't want.

 

[Andylusion]

Further, it was the Soviets that started WW2. Maybe you forget, but the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, where they agreed to carve up Poland between the Soviets and the Nazis. It was that move, that started WW2.

No, it wasn't.
Hitler's invasion of Poland "started" WWII in Europe while Japan's invasion of China began the conflict in Asia and Mussolini's incursion into Ethiopia initiated the African front. A deeper dive reveals the Federal Reserve's and Bank of England's roles in financing Hitler's takeover long before his party came to power.

Well yes, that's true. Maybe you missed it, but socialists were generally in favor of National Socialism. They applauded Hitler for funding schools, infrastructure, and social programs for the poor. Sound familiar?

Again, I pointed out that Hitler only invaded, because Soviets agreed to split Poland between them.

That's not up for debate sir. That is a historical fact.

 

[zaangalewa]

Further, it was the Soviets that started WW2. Maybe you forget, but the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, where they agreed to carve up Poland between the Soviets and the Nazis. It was that move, that started WW2.

No, it wasn't.
Hitler's invasion of Poland "started" WWII in Europe while Japan's invasion of China began the conflict in Asia and Mussolini's incursion into Ethiopia initiated the African front. A deeper dive reveals the Federal Reserve's and Bank of England's roles in financing Hitler's takeover long before his party came to power.

Well yes, that's true. Maybe you missed it, but socialists were generally in favor of National Socialism. They applauded Hitler ...

No. And not only socialists did not applaude Hitler.

-----
Drückebergergasse (English: "Shirker's Alley") is the popular name for Viscardigasse, a small curbless pedestrian street in Munich, Germany. The street is officially named after the Swiss Baroque architect Giovanni Antonio Viscardi, but took its nickname from the 1930s, when locals could circumvent the nearby Nazi memorial to the martyrs of the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, thus avoiding the requirement to render a Hitler salute to the guarded structure.

souce: Drückebergergasse - Wikipedia
-----

-----
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.


Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.


Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.


Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller
-----
The quotation stems from Niemöller's lectures during the early postwar period. Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings. Much controversy surrounds the content of the poem as it has been printed in varying forms, referring to diverse groups such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Trade Unionists, or Communists depending upon the version. Nonetheless his point was that Germans had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people. He felt this was true in particular of the leaders of the Protestant churches (of which the Lutheran church was one denomination).

Source: Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."
-----

 

[zaangalewa]

Andylusion

By the way: Hitler did not fund schools (in the opposite he had destroyed schools and youth organizations), he did not fund infrastructure but he modified infrastructure for paramilitary and military structures and he made no social programs for the poor. He stressed everyone with work - so no one had time to think. In general he made debts to finance his politics. And he robbed the assets of the German Jews.

 

[Thunderbird]

C'mon face the facts.

Ignorance is NOT bliss.

Capitalism, Fascism and World War 2

"There is a close and often ignored relationship between fascism and capitalism.

"German corporations financed Hitler's rise to power and were rewarded by slave labor.

"Krupp, I.G. Farben and other corporations used Jewish and Slavic slave labor.

"Alfred Krupp called girl babies born to his slaves 'useless feeders' because they were not as strong a potential worker as were boy babies.

"These girl babies were gassed."

Your “source” is a Communist crank. Hard to take you seriously.

Your “source” is a Communist crank. Hard to take you seriously.

Can you refute any of his content, like this, for example:

Capitalism, Fascism and World War

"The CIA used Nazi war criminals like Klaus Barbie, Walter Rauff, Otto Skorzeny and others in South America to impart their knowledge of torture techniques and concentration camps to the police and militaries there.
.

Do you have any hard evidence?

And let's not forget Communist atrocities: Don’t Erect a Monument to Che | National Review

 

[georgephillip]

Do you have any hard evidence?

CIA FOI request.

THOSE WHO HELPED KLAUS BARBIE | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

"Jack Anderson
WASHINGTON POST
21 October 1984

"Those Who Helped Klaus Barbie
Klaus Barbie, the notorious Nazi war criminal
chose escape after World War II was arranged
by U.S. Army intelligence agents, is awaiting
trial in France for crimes against humanity.

"As the Gestapo chief in France's 'second city,' he earned the title 'Butcher of Lyon.'"

 

[Thunderbird]

Do you have any hard evidence?

CIA FOI request.

THOSE WHO HELPED KLAUS BARBIE | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

"Jack Anderson
WASHINGTON POST
21 October 1984

"Those Who Helped Klaus Barbie
Klaus Barbie, the notorious Nazi war criminal
chose escape after World War II was arranged
by U.S. Army intelligence agents, is awaiting
trial in France for crimes against humanity.

"As the Gestapo chief in France's 'second city,' he earned the title 'Butcher of Lyon.'"

You claimed the CIA used Nazi war criminals in South America to impart their knowledge of torture techniques and concentration camps. Where is your evidence?

 

[georgephillip]

Consider: Historians Debunk the 1619 Project

Your link:

"'On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain "in order to ensure slavery would continue,’” stated the letter. This is clearly a false assertion. No historical records support it."

Actually, conservatives among the "founding generation" in this country were concerned that England was moving towards abolition of slavery, and that threat to private fortunes largely determined the "patriots" preferences for independence:

The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Origins of the United States of America - Zinn Education Project

"We should understand that July 4th, 1776, in many ways, represents a counterrevolution.

"That is to say that what helped to prompt July 4th, 1776, was the perception amongst European settlers on the North American mainland that London was moving rapidly towards abolition.

"This perception was prompted by Somerset’s case, a case decided in London in June 1772 which seemed to suggest that abolition, which not only was going to be ratified in London itself, was going to cross the Atlantic and basically sweep through the mainland, thereby jeopardizing numerous fortunes, not only based upon slavery, but the slave trade."

 

[georgephillip]

This is dumb...No, Communism will NEVER take a hold in America, not during our lifetimes that is....Communism has been the cause of mass death and destruction of freedom for centuries...Capitalism has been the engine of freedom...period.

"That is to say, merchants then descended upon the African continent manacling and handcuffing every African in sight, with the energy of demented and crazed bees, dragging them across the Atlantic, particularly to the Caribbean and to the North American mainland.

"This was prompted by the fact that the profits for the slave trade were tremendous, sometimes up to 1,600 or 1,700 percent.

"And as you know, there are those even today who will sell their firstborn for such a profit."

The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Origins of the United States of America - Zinn Education Project

 

[Thunderbird]

Consider: Historians Debunk the 1619 Project

Your link:

"'On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain "in order to ensure slavery would continue,’” stated the letter. This is clearly a false assertion. No historical records support it."

Actually, conservatives among the "founding generation" in this country were concerned that England was moving towards abolition of slavery, and that threat to private fortunes largely determined the "patriots" preferences for independence:

The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Origins of the United States of America - Zinn Education Project

"We should understand that July 4th, 1776, in many ways, represents a counterrevolution.

"That is to say that what helped to prompt July 4th, 1776, was the perception amongst European settlers on the North American mainland that London was moving rapidly towards abolition.

"This perception was prompted by Somerset’s case, a case decided in London in June 1772 which seemed to suggest that abolition, which not only was going to be ratified in London itself, was going to cross the Atlantic and basically sweep through the mainland, thereby jeopardizing numerous fortunes, not only based upon slavery, but the slave trade."

Ha ha ha slavery wasn’t abolished in the British Empire until 1833. You’ve really got to start reading something other than leftist propaganda.

 

[Thunderbird]

This is dumb...No, Communism will NEVER take a hold in America, not during our lifetimes that is....Communism has been the cause of mass death and destruction of freedom for centuries...Capitalism has been the engine of freedom...period.

"That is to say, merchants then descended upon the African continent manacling and handcuffing every African in sight, with the energy of demented and crazed bees, dragging them across the Atlantic, particularly to the Caribbean and to the North American mainland.

"This was prompted by the fact that the profits for the slave trade were tremendous, sometimes up to 1,600 or 1,700 percent.

"And as you know, there are those even today who will sell their firstborn for such a profit."

The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Origins of the United States of America - Zinn Education Project

Actually most slaves were captured by other Africans and sold to the Europeans. A number of African kingdoms grew wealthy on the trade.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

Ha ha ha slavery wasn’t abolished in the British Empire until 1833. You’ve really got to start reading something other than leftist propaganda.

This form of slavery, which had existed in the colonies, never had existed in Europe, where it was christianized. Christians never abolished slavery - but the Christian lifestyle was not compatible with slavery. England stopped modern slave trades in the colonies in 1807 and did forbid modern slavery in 1833.

When Americans speak about slavery then you speak about the very special form of slavery of the colonialism, which finds a parallel structure in the so called "impovershiment of the masses" during industriaIization. The modern problem is in this context: Everyone needs money to be able to exist. No one is any longer able to live independent. Somehow we all became meanwhile slaves of the god money and the moral of this god: Who is rich is good, who is poor is bad. Example: Rich migrants are welcome in the USA - poor migrants are not welcome there.

 

[Thunderbird]

...

Ha ha ha slavery wasn’t abolished in the British Empire until 1833. You’ve really got to start reading something other than leftist propaganda.

This form of slavery, which had existed in the colonies, never had existed in Europe, where it was christianized. Christians never abolished slavery - but the Christian lifestyle was not compatible with slavery. England stopped modern slave trades in the colonies in 1807 and did forbid modern slavery in 1833.

When Americans speak about slavery then you speak about the very special form of slavery of the colonialism, which finds a parallel structure in the so called "impovershiment of the masses" during industriaIization. The modern problem is in this context: Everyone needs money to be able to exist. No one is any longer able to live independent. Somehow we all became meanwhile slaves of the god money and the moral of this god: Who is rich is good, who is poor is bad. Example: Rich migrants are welcome in the USA - poor migrants are not welcome there.

You make some good points.

Slavery and the Early Christianity

The Abolitionists

Remember Jefferson signed a bill also in 1807 ending the African slave trade with the U.S.

 

[georgephillip]

Actually most slaves were captured by other Africans and sold to the Europeans. A number of African kingdoms grew wealthy on the trade.

What role did England's so-called Glorious Revolution in 1688 play in incentivizing greedy African elites to become complicit in one of western capitalism's most lucrative enterprises, i.e, "free trade" in Africans?

The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Origins of the United States of America - Zinn Education Project

"...(T)hat is to say, the so-called Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, which, among other things, involved a step back from the monarch—for the monarch, the king, and a step forward for the rising merchant class.

"This led to a deregulation of the African slave trade.

"That is to say, the Royal African Company theretofore had been in control of the slave trade, but with the rising power of the merchant class, this slave trade was deregulated, leading to what I call free trade in Africans."

America's "founding generation" basically called a truce to religious warfare by opening a new front with regard to race: Europeans vs non-Europeans.

MAGA?

White Supremacy Has Always Been Mainstream

 

[georgephillip]

Ha ha ha slavery wasn’t abolished in the British Empire until 1833. You’ve really got to start reading something other than leftist propaganda.

THE BLACK SOCIAL HISTORY:: BLACK SOCIAL HISTORY - AFRO-BRITISH " JAMES SOMERSET " IS A FAMOUS JUDGEMENT OF THE ENGLISH OURT OF KING'S BENCH IN 1772 - GOES INTO THE " HALL OF BLACK GENIUS "

 

[georgephillip]

When Americans speak about slavery then you speak about the very special form of slavery of the colonialism, which finds a parallel structure in the so called "impovershiment of the masses" during industriaIization. The modern problem is in this context: Everyone needs money to be able to exist.

From its very inception, capitalism has functioned to provide vast riches to a few by impoverishing the many.

Wage Slave : lostgeneration

"It's important to understand it's a qualitative comparison and not a quantitative one.

"Obviously modern life is far more humane than chattel slavery was.

"But the essential qualities remain the same: you work, you work because if you don't you'll starve or freeze or die of a toothache, and you work far more than is actually necessary to generate the wealth to maintain your lifestyle.

"You keep very little of the surplus you produce.

"The rest is kept by the ownership class."

 

[Thunderbird]

When Americans speak about slavery then you speak about the very special form of slavery of the colonialism, which finds a parallel structure in the so called "impovershiment of the masses" during industriaIization. The modern problem is in this context: Everyone needs money to be able to exist.

From its very inception, capitalism has functioned to provide vast riches to a few by impoverishing the many.

Wage Slave : lostgeneration

"It's important to understand it's a qualitative comparison and not a quantitative one.

"Obviously modern life is far more humane than chattel slavery was.

"But the essential qualities remain the same: you work, you work because if you don't you'll starve or freeze or die of a toothache, and you work far more than is actually necessary to generate the wealth to maintain your lifestyle.

"You keep very little of the surplus you produce.

"The rest is kept by the ownership class."

Communist dictators starve their people while more reasonable leaders help build the middle class.

A global tipping point: Half the world is now middle class or wealthier

Comparing middle class people with a nice car and home to slaves just make you look silly.

Feel free to condemn corrupt plutocrats who always want favors from the government but recognize that free markets have raised tens of millions from poverty into the middle class.

Some people support government programs that try to help working folk. Communists despise such reformers. Communists want only violent revolution and dictatorship and poverty for the people.

 

[georgephillip]

Feel free to condemn corrupt plutocrats who always want favors from the government but recognize that free markets have raised tens of millions from poverty into the middle class.

Markets based on ability to pay are created to engineer vast fortunes for a few while impoverishing a majority of productive workers.

Your link uses a ridiculously low poverty line figure ($1.90 a day) because that's the only way to convince people capitalism doesn't generate more poverty with each passing generation.

https://www.quora.com/Did-capitalis...pitalist-socialist-or-communist-less-relevant

"If we want to stick with a single international line, we might use the 'ethical poverty line' devised by Peter Edward of Newcastle University. He calculates that in order to achieve normal human life expectancy of just over 70 years, people need roughly 2.7 to 3.9 times the existing poverty line.

"In the past, that was $5 a day. Using the World banks new calculations, its about $7.40 a day. As it happens, this number is close to the average of national poverty lines in the global south.

"So, what would happen if we were to measure global poverty at this more accurate level?

"We would see that about 4.2 billion people live in poverty today.

"That’s more than four times what the World Bank would have us believe, and more than 60% of humanity.

"And the number has risen sharply since 1980, with nearly 1 billion people added to the ranks of the poor over the past 35 years.

"The UN’s sustainable development goals, launched in September, are set to use the $1.90 line to measure poverty.

"Why do they persist with this implausibly low threshold?

"Because it’s the only one that shows any meaningful progress against poverty, and therefore lends a kind of happy justification to the existing economic order (Hickel 2015)."