FDR's Progressive Doctrine vs The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic's Constitution

[ihopehefails]

I still don't know what you're talking about. I said nothing about Governments.

What if 30 people came to your door, and dragged you off to prison? Not government agents, but a mob of people? Do you not see an inherent contradiction to your own will?

I don't see a contradiction between my own will, the will of others (including the 30 people), and the will of every person in a society being any different than the will of the people since the will of people simply encompasses the will of every individual.

My point is, what if everyone else's will (aside from your own) contradicts your will?

That would depend on the nature of the contradiction itself. If it is that two people disagree on what movie to see on a friday night then no one's will is being violated if each person sees to separate movies but if the contradiction occurs when I have purchased tickets to a movie and another person believes that the tickets I have purchased are somehow his then the law can settle the dispute based on legal ownership based on natural law of societies.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't see a contradiction between my own will, the will of others (including the 30 people), and the will of every person in a society being any different than the will of the people since the will of people simply encompasses the will of every individual.

My point is, what if everyone else's will (aside from your own) contradicts your will?

That would depend on the nature of the contradiction itself. If it is that two people disagree on what movie to see on a friday night then no one's will is being violated if each person sees to separate movies but if the contradiction occurs when I have purchased tickets to a movie and another person believes that the tickets I have purchased are somehow his then the law can settle the dispute based on legal ownership based on natural law of societies.

So you rely on Government to protect your freedoms.

 

[ihopehefails]

Once again, where do you get that don't object to Communism?

I object to people using terms they don't understand to try and make a point. I can say that I do object to Communism, because I know what it means. Here's a little hint for you:

Communism is NOT the same thing as Socialism is NOT the same thing as Marxism.

Now, why don't you learn what each of those words means, and then we can get back to the topic at hand.

EDIT TO ADD:

The point that Hitler was trying to make was, in his opinion, what kept Marxism from being as great as National Socialism was the inherent democratic nature of Marxism.

United Soviet Socialist Repubics
National Socialist

He wasn't talking about Marxist but Social Democrats and he was saying National Socialism is what social democrats could have been if it gave up its peaceful ways of achieving its goals. The goals were the same but the two differed in methods.

National Socialism us what Marxism could have been if it had freed itself from its absurd, artificial connection with the democratic system

Then why would he say Marxism? I'm sure he, unlike you, knew the difference.

And once again, you miss the point. The point is, if you actually knew any of the tenets of Marxism, you know that the ideal Marxist state is not a totalitarian dictatorship, rather a self-governing group of free individuals. Communism, on the other hand, is a form of government, one that almost always ends up being a centralized power structure. None of that is true of Marxism. Basically, what Hitler was saying is that if those pesky Marxists had stopped letting people be free, then they would have achieved the greatness that was National Socialism.

I believed Marx believed in dictatorships that should rule over people.

 

[ihopehefails]

My point is, what if everyone else's will (aside from your own) contradicts your will?

That would depend on the nature of the contradiction itself. If it is that two people disagree on what movie to see on a friday night then no one's will is being violated if each person sees to separate movies but if the contradiction occurs when I have purchased tickets to a movie and another person believes that the tickets I have purchased are somehow his then the law can settle the dispute based on legal ownership based on natural law of societies.

So you rely on Government to protect your freedoms.

Only because human nature isn't good enough to do that for us because if we were perfect then the guy who owns the tickets and the guy who thinks he does would eventually realize who is the correct owner of the tickets.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

United Soviet Socialist Repubics
National Socialist

He wasn't talking about Marxist but Social Democrats and he was saying National Socialism is what social democrats could have been if it gave up its peaceful ways of achieving its goals. The goals were the same but the two differed in methods.

National Socialism us what Marxism could have been if it had freed itself from its absurd, artificial connection with the democratic system

Then why would he say Marxism? I'm sure he, unlike you, knew the difference.

And once again, you miss the point. The point is, if you actually knew any of the tenets of Marxism, you know that the ideal Marxist state is not a totalitarian dictatorship, rather a self-governing group of free individuals. Communism, on the other hand, is a form of government, one that almost always ends up being a centralized power structure. None of that is true of Marxism. Basically, what Hitler was saying is that if those pesky Marxists had stopped letting people be free, then they would have achieved the greatness that was National Socialism.

I believed Marx believed in dictatorships that should rule over people.

No. Don't listen to everything you hear on the radio.

There never has been a society that has lived up to Marx's ideal, which is why I'm not a Marxist. But the failings of Communism are human nature's fault, not Marx's.

Edit to add:

Here, do some reading for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That would depend on the nature of the contradiction itself. If it is that two people disagree on what movie to see on a friday night then no one's will is being violated if each person sees to separate movies but if the contradiction occurs when I have purchased tickets to a movie and another person believes that the tickets I have purchased are somehow his then the law can settle the dispute based on legal ownership based on natural law of societies.

So you rely on Government to protect your freedoms.

Only because human nature isn't good enough to do that for us because if we were perfect then the guy who owns the tickets and the guy who thinks he does would eventually realize who is the correct owner of the tickets.

Exactly my point.

 

[ihopehefails]

So you rely on Government to protect your freedoms.

Only because human nature isn't good enough to do that for us because if we were perfect then the guy who owns the tickets and the guy who thinks he does would eventually realize who is the correct owner of the tickets.

Exactly my point.

I don't think that was your point.

I just think government acts as a mediator between citizens because of its authority it has in society. Its the perfect tool for peacekeeping and enforcing people's ownership of property. When the government does this it acts for the benefit of individual citizens in protecting their interest either internally or externally but when government acts on its own will then it is no longer a neatral referee in society and favors any group that happens to be for its own agenda.

A good example is the wild west indians. The government wanted to build railroads across the west and the indian got in the way. As a result, it gave the whiteman who wanted to build railroads an advantage over the indian who wanted to keep their land. The government consistently favored the white settlers over the rightful claims of territory that the indians had. If the government was not interested in building railroads then it would have ruled in favor of the indians whenever there was a land dispute.

That is why we like to say that the government is the problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bad analogy. The government represented the settlers' interests because the whites elected the government. In the beginning the westward movement was haphazard. After the Mexican War, the federal government became actively involved in removing the Native Americans from the path of white settlement, not because the "government" want it, but because the whites wanted it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR was a Communist sock puppet. Why do you think he let Uncle Joe have Eastern Europe after WWII?

 

[Polk]

One could draw equally meaningless conclusions from comparing the platforms of the GOP and the Nazis.

 

[ihopehefails]

Bad analogy. The government represented the settlers' interests because the whites elected the government. In the beginning the westward movement was haphazard. After the Mexican War, the federal government became actively involved in removing the Native Americans from the path of white settlement, not because the "government" want it, but because the whites wanted it.

Yes the white settlers wanted it and made the government do it but they were wrong. The politicians then created policies that would move them towards the goal and it did not matter what minority got in the way (tyranny of the majority). Whenever government is bias towards one side or to the other it makes it impossible for any individual's interest to be weighed fairly by the government. Which is why a lot of western indian's property was not protected by the government.

 

[ihopehefails]

One could draw equally meaningless conclusions from comparing the platforms of the GOP and the Nazis.

I got a link to the platform to compare: Nazi Party Platform

Let me highlight sections that might sound familiar to most liberals:

11.
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

13.
We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14.
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16.
We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

18.
We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

19.
We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

21.
The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

The last one sounded similar to national health care if you ask me.

 

[Polk]

Actually, that last one is laws against abortion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but it is a historical fact that FDR and Stalin were good buddies. It's not surprising that FDR would copy much of the Soviet agenda. The Communist Party here in America was, of course, very supportive of the New Deal.

 

[Polk]

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but it is a historical fact that FDR and Stalin were good buddies. It's not surprising that FDR would copy much of the Soviet agenda. The Communist Party here in America was, of course, very supportive of the New Deal.

FDR and Stalin were not "good buddies". They lead nations that had a common enemy. That's not an expression of friendship. And no, the Communist Party was not supportive of the New Deal. They opposed it because they thought it would reduce their political viability. They only stopped their opposition because they felt a united front against fascism was needed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but it is a historical fact that FDR and Stalin were good buddies. It's not surprising that FDR would copy much of the Soviet agenda. The Communist Party here in America was, of course, very supportive of the New Deal.

FDR and Stalin were not "good buddies". They lead nations that had a common enemy. That's not an expression of friendship. And no, the Communist Party was not supportive of the New Deal. They opposed it because they thought it would reduce their political viability. They only stopped their opposition because they felt a united front against fascism was needed.

Strange that FDR referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe" if they weren't close.

Also regarding the New Deal, apparently I had my facts somewhat wrong. It appears they were against the New Deal at first, but later endorsed it.

 

[Polk]

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but it is a historical fact that FDR and Stalin were good buddies. It's not surprising that FDR would copy much of the Soviet agenda. The Communist Party here in America was, of course, very supportive of the New Deal.

FDR and Stalin were not "good buddies". They lead nations that had a common enemy. That's not an expression of friendship. And no, the Communist Party was not supportive of the New Deal. They opposed it because they thought it would reduce their political viability. They only stopped their opposition because they felt a united front against fascism was needed.

Strange that FDR referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe" if they weren't close.

Also regarding the New Deal, apparently I had my facts somewhat wrong. It appears they were against the New Deal at first, but later endorsed it.

But only did so because they saw the Nazis and other fascists as the larger threat.

 

[Bfgrn]

Rather than looking at the two back to back, and letting the abject fear of the word "USSR" and "Communism" make your argument, Why don't you tell me what you disagree with in FDR's Progressive Doctrine, and why?

Its veers from the constitution in such a way that puts decision making power into the hands of government that We The People are guaranteed to have for ourselves.

Who gets to decide what is adequate food?
Who decides what is adequate cloathing?
Who decides what is adequate housing?

Does the farmers right to sell his food at a rate that earns him "a decent living" conflict with my right for adequate food? who decides this?

Who decides what is a decent home, does everyone get the same exact home as me? If not why do they get better/worse homes with the same size family?

Who decides what level of health care is adequate for me?

I tell you I'd like to make those decisions for myself. The government has no constiutional authority to make these decisions for individuals, if it did FDR would not have needed to write a second bill of rights. There was a reason the founders didn't include these powers within our government, because they belong in the hands of the people not some washington fat cat beurocrats.

People have already mentioned that FDR used a belief system that was not in conflict with the Constitution. So I will not add on here. I would like to remind you that the USSR had a constitution of sorts that guaranteed many things they never delivered on.
Comparing the USSR and American leaders is comparing Apples + Oranges...both fruit, yet different in ways you fail to grasp or choose to ignore. Either way you end up looking like a fool.

Actually there IS a valid comparison between the USSR and America...

Lenin is to Stalin as Reagan is to Bush...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." Those socialist policies were never implemented.

"Stalinism is a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste.... at the expense of the working class." This is the exact opposite of what Marx and Engels were trying to accomplish, and is precisely what George W. Bush and the Republicans are working so hard for.

Most of the Republicans/conservatives/dittoheads I know are basically good people, but they're gullible fools who have spent more than 20 years burying themselves in lies needed to resolve the cognitive dissonance created by Reagan's betrayal. Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire", but as we've seen it wasn't much of an empire and most of the people in it aren't particularly evil. Khrushchev repudiated Stalin after he died in 1953, but wasn't strong enough to change the system or the cult worship that kept the dictatorship alive.

Republicans need to repudiate Reagan, but there is no one out there who has the guts to tell the truth. The GOP is reduced to whining, flag-waving and outright lying. The shame of being a conservative has never been greater.
Socialism vs. Communism

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One could draw equally meaningless conclusions from comparing the platforms of the GOP and the Nazis.

I got a link to the platform to compare: Nazi Party Platform

Let me highlight sections that might sound familiar to most liberals:

11.
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

19.
We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

21.
The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

The last one sounded similar to national health care if you ask me.

As you can see, American Librulism is the philosophy most closely associated with Hitler's National Socialism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but it is a historical fact that FDR and Stalin were good buddies. It's not surprising that FDR would copy much of the Soviet agenda. The Communist Party here in America was, of course, very supportive of the New Deal.

FDR and Stalin were not "good buddies". They lead nations that had a common enemy. That's not an expression of friendship. And no, the Communist Party was not supportive of the New Deal. They opposed it because they thought it would reduce their political viability. They only stopped their opposition because they felt a united front against fascism was needed.

FDR had real Communist spies advising him to hand over Eastern Europe to Uncle Joe and that's exactly what Stalin's sock puppet did, I don't think he needed the spies telling him to do what was in his Communist heart anyway

WWII ended so badly for the US and British that Patton called it a Strategic failure