Why did the US fear Communism so much?

[Pers]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pers

edit: i don't know what's worse...the attrocities of communism...or the attrocities caused by our current fascist regime which believes military spending should be top priority. What was the last superpower to focus the majority of their spending on military? I'll give you a hint. we've been talking about them a lot in this thread. And what was the cause of their collapse? a weak economy because they spent everything on weapons. well at least i have the satisfaction of knowing some rich weapon company shareholder is getting richer as we speak. and why do i have that satisfaction? because that shareholder is an AMERICAN. yes.. god bless the US even if it means the death of innocent people and the future of our children.

If you think our current government is "fascist," you need a history lesson even more than the OP.

The USSR fell because their oppressive socialist system could not support their military build up, not because of the buildup itself.

at this point.. we need to just set aside our differences and move on. cause quite frankly... me and you.. we'll never agree.

You may be surprised. I too disagree with many things the current admin has done. But to call them, or our current government "fascist" fringes on lunatic fanaticism in and of itself. You destroy all credibility and thus render your argument null and void.

It would be the same if a right winger labeled every left winger a "communist."

Rhetoric loses the debate in the mind of logical people, every time.

wow i actually am surprised because i find myself agreeing with you more and more. I understand the importance of crediblity ...yet i've realized that no matter what... over a message board, you don't have much credibility to begin with. So i really don't hesitate to insult/and generalize so much maybe it's due to immaturity?

anyway... the emotions i have towards bush and has posse of thugs couldn't be expressed in words i'd feel comfortable using over the internet since ashcroft is probably tuning in Although you may consider me to be loony and outrageous - i stand steadfast and adamant about my fascist claim

Hey, that's your right. But realize that by expressing yourself that way, you lend more help to your opposition than to those you support.

yea good point... maybe i'll grow out of it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Pers


edit:

It would be the same if a right winger labeled every left winger a "communist."

i'm not calling every right winger a fascist...i'm merely suggesting the bush affiliated ones are. aka neo-conservatives

Another thing that makes you look like a partisan loon. The use of "neo-con." Bush is surrounded and supported by OLD guard conservatives. There is nothing new about them.

Just remember that if you are trying to sway people, insulting them is the least effective way to do it. By calling the Bush admin "Fascist," you call all his supporters the same simply by association. Thus you immediately and irrevocably destroy any chance of swaying anyone... including fence sitters.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pers


edit:

It would be the same if a right winger labeled every left winger a "communist."

i'm not calling every right winger a fascist...i'm merely suggesting the bush affiliated ones are. aka neo-conservatives

Another thing that makes you look like a partisan loon. The use of "neo-con." Bush is surrounded and supported by OLD guard conservatives. There is nothing new about them.

Just remember that if you are trying to sway people, insulting them is the least effective way to do it. By calling the Bush admin "Fascist," you call all his supporters the same simply by association. Thus you immediately and irrevocably destroy any chance of swaying anyone... including fence sitters.

lol i already said i agree with you.. but it's not like i'm chairman of kerry's campaign. i'm just doing this for fun Kerry is a close second on my To-hate list.

 

[Platypus]

Luckily I...I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
I can assure you that it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh...women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
But I...I do deny them my essence.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pers


edit:

It would be the same if a right winger labeled every left winger a "communist."

i'm not calling every right winger a fascist...i'm merely suggesting the bush affiliated ones are. aka neo-conservatives

Another thing that makes you look like a partisan loon. The use of "neo-con." Bush is surrounded and supported by OLD guard conservatives. There is nothing new about them.

Just remember that if you are trying to sway people, insulting them is the least effective way to do it. By calling the Bush admin "Fascist," you call all his supporters the same simply by association. Thus you immediately and irrevocably destroy any chance of swaying anyone... including fence sitters.

lol i already said i agree with you.. but it's not like i'm chairman of kerry's campaign. i'm just doing this for fun Kerry is a close second on my To-hate list.

So should Edwards. The man is a glorfied ambulance chaser. He and his firm made tens of millions running around suing innocent doctors blaming them for children born with cerebral palsy. And it was all proven to be a farce. Did he give one cent back? Nope.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pers


edit:

It would be the same if a right winger labeled every left winger a "communist."

i'm not calling every right winger a fascist...i'm merely suggesting the bush affiliated ones are. aka neo-conservatives

Another thing that makes you look like a partisan loon. The use of "neo-con." Bush is surrounded and supported by OLD guard conservatives. There is nothing new about them.

Just remember that if you are trying to sway people, insulting them is the least effective way to do it. By calling the Bush admin "Fascist," you call all his supporters the same simply by association. Thus you immediately and irrevocably destroy any chance of swaying anyone... including fence sitters.

lol i already said i agree with you.. but it's not like i'm chairman of kerry's campaign. i'm just doing this for fun Kerry is a close second on my To-hate list.

So should Edwards. The man is a glorfied ambulance chaser. He and his firm made tens of millions running around suing innocent doctors blaming them for children born with cerebral palsy. And it was all proven to be a farce. Did he give one cent back? Nope.

loool.. for some reason... edwards making 30 million off of frivolous lawsuits doesn't bother me as much as bush financing the contra's to put samosa (evil dictator) back into power using cocaine money. or...the bush's undertable deals with the saudis...accounting for a much larger sum of money than 30 million dollars. edwards is practically a saint.

edit: i have an impassioned undying disgust for bush and his fellow relentless aholes.
i hate kerry because he is a hypocrite. he is everything bush is but in diguise. to hell with both of them

oh and regarding the contras..i was refering to bush sr. as he served director of the Central Terrorism ...bleh i mean Intelligence Agency.

 

[cquark]

Then go look at the history of Russia after 1918. Communism in its practiced form has proven to be not only unsustainable as an economic system, but a system that severely restricts the freedoms and liberties that this nation was built upon.

Russia was an authoritarian state where the people had few rights and were afraid of the secret police and being sent to Siberia before 1918. Communism didn't create those problems. As for it being a viable economic system, it's obviously not in the long term, but it's worth reading war production figures for major participants in WW2 (see Overy's Why the Allies Won) and see how the Soviets hugely outproduced the Nazis in tanks, planes, and pretty much every area of armaments, despite losing the majority of their prewar industrial region in 1941.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: cquark

Then go look at the history of Russia after 1918. Communism in its practiced form has proven to be not only unsustainable as an economic system, but a system that severely restricts the freedoms and liberties that this nation was built upon.

Russia was an authoritarian state where the people had few rights and were afraid of the secret police and being sent to Siberia before 1918. Communism didn't create those problems. As for it being a viable economic system, it's obviously not in the long term, but it's worth reading war production figures for major participants in WW2 (see Overy's Why the Allies Won) and see how the Soviets hugely outproduced the Nazis in tanks, planes, and pretty much every area of armaments, despite losing the majority of their prewar industrial region in 1941.

Communism on any large scale quickly becomes authoritarian. That's why EVERY attempt at communism has been a huge human rights disaster.

 

[JDub02]

This country was founded on individual freedom and liberty ... communism takes that away in favor of state control.

Aside from that, communism is a failure .. enough said.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: dmurray14
hokay,

So I have to write a little paper on why the US feared communism so much in the 50s-80s, but in all honesty I'm not exactly sure I know why. The first thing that comes to my mind is that it was the wealthy that feared it most, obviously because it involved them losing a lot of money and power. Usually, it is the wealthy who are in control, so that would explain all the propoganda against communism. But why, specifically, did the middle class fear it? Because the wealthy told them to do so? What made them listen? How about the poor? Did they fear it just because it's what everyone else feared? I'd be really interested to hear what everyone thinks about this, and it will probably help me to write a more informed paper.

Dan

Communism takes away the governing power away from the people, and gives it to a group that makes laws and enforces it as they see fit. They also take away any form of commerce, and are in charge of running business in the country - the people work for the government owned businesses, and get their paycheck from them.

Communist countries treat their people like cattle/slaves - the people are their to support the communist government, not vice versa. What happens is that the people become poorer than ever because there is no commercial competition to force prices of goods to stay low - and the government leaders end up the richest people in the country because they can have whatever they want without any checks/balances.

Since people in communisms are treated so low, the governments tend to not value their lives and typically enforce population controls just by killing people.

Stalin

Communisms also fear religion because it tends to be a counter-control. So the communist government removes any right of religion from people, and kills those who practice a religion. This has been the case in both Russia and China.

Communism was created as the next step beyond Socialism (another system that has never proven to work). Basically the political leaders do not believe people are intelligent/capable enough to govern themselves, so they control them. They use a socialistic approach by making everything equal for everyone (but themselves), but take it one step further by running the businesses and setting the paychecks. Unfortunately many people can't even pick their job - they are forced into work camps.

What a bunch of BS - I lived in a so called communist country - what u say here is just the result of opposite indoctrination - compared to the indoctination we were subjected to

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: cquark

Then go look at the history of Russia after 1918. Communism in its practiced form has proven to be not only unsustainable as an economic system, but a system that severely restricts the freedoms and liberties that this nation was built upon.

Russia was an authoritarian state where the people had few rights and were afraid of the secret police and being sent to Siberia before 1918. Communism didn't create those problems. As for it being a viable economic system, it's obviously not in the long term, but it's worth reading war production figures for major participants in WW2 (see Overy's Why the Allies Won) and see how the Soviets hugely outproduced the Nazis in tanks, planes, and pretty much every area of armaments, despite losing the majority of their prewar industrial region in 1941.

Communism on any large scale quickly becomes authoritarian. That's why EVERY attempt at communism has been a huge human rights disaster.

My point is that Russia was already authoritarian. So was China. You can't argue that Communism makes a country become authoritarian if it already was beforehand. You may be right, but you haven't presented a logical argument for your point. You need to find a non-authoritarian state that became authoritarian to make that argument.

 

[Ausm]

The government used the communist threat to accelerate the race to space in the late 50's to 60's. Once we developed spy sattelites we realized that russia was not quite the threat we assumed they were thus ending the cold war.


Sysadmin

 

[Vic]

Only an idiot or a thief would seriously consider communism to be a better system than a free system of government represented by the people. The US did not fear communism so much as it was appalled by it. Barbed-wire fences and armed border guards to keep the unhappy populace in, a complete absence of religious and personal freedoms, and an authoritarian government powerful enough that it can murder millions of its own citizenry without consequence. Yep, sounds like a paradise! :roll:

I don't know what the fsck they're teaching the kids in schools nowadays that makes them think communism and socialism are good systems, but they're not. Imagine national health care run by the government. Everyone is covered right? Sounds great, but your income taxes just went up 25%. Now imagine you're sick and your doctors tell you that you need a surgery, but the government bureaucrat in charge of bean-counting says no. You lose. Or imagine that the government doctor commits some type of major malpractice on you, ruining your life. You have no recourse, you're screwed. Woohoo, sign me up! :roll:

Communism and socialism are not about taking from the rich to give to the poor. That's just a pitch to trick you into buying. This has been proven time and again. What it is about is giving the government the power to control every piece of your life. And THAT is something to truly be afraid of.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: cquark

Then go look at the history of Russia after 1918. Communism in its practiced form has proven to be not only unsustainable as an economic system, but a system that severely restricts the freedoms and liberties that this nation was built upon.

Russia was an authoritarian state where the people had few rights and were afraid of the secret police and being sent to Siberia before 1918. Communism didn't create those problems. As for it being a viable economic system, it's obviously not in the long term, but it's worth reading war production figures for major participants in WW2 (see Overy's Why the Allies Won) and see how the Soviets hugely outproduced the Nazis in tanks, planes, and pretty much every area of armaments, despite losing the majority of their prewar industrial region in 1941.

Communism on any large scale quickly becomes authoritarian. That's why EVERY attempt at communism has been a huge human rights disaster.

My point is that Russia was already authoritarian. So was China. You can't argue that Communism makes a country become authoritarian if it already was beforehand. You may be right, but you haven't presented a logical argument for your point. You need to find a non-authoritarian state that became authoritarian to make that argument.

Both countries underwent communist revolutions and instead of becoming the communist ideal, became authoritarianism. The fact is, on a large scale communism IS authoritarianism. When all the people give up their individual rights, someone must lead them. That leader becomes the sole authority since the people no longer have the individual right to choose.

Communism, quite simply, is the total loss of individuality. In that case, the only thing that CAN result is an authoritarian government. Just as worker bees have a queen, communist citizens have a leader. But unlike the queen bee, humans are easily corruptible and that leader becomes authoritarian.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Sysadmin
The government used the communist threat to accelerate the race to space in the late 50's to 60's. Once we developed spy sattelites we realized that russia was not quite the threat we assumed they were thus ending the cold war.


Sysadmin

Um, what??? The cold war ended when the USSR imploded.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Also try looking at what happened right around the end of WW2 in regards to the sudden shift in loyalities. Prior to the end you could see propaganda posters with "Uncle Joe" (Stalin) up on them, as him and the allies were fighting fascism. Then almost suddenly, right after the war, there was this huge shift and a new enemy for america, and it was... Uncle Joe.

What Russia did in eastern Europe by swallowing up Poland and the other countries during its early expansion also probably fostered fears amongst the more educated.

The whole Godless-commies is another good area to focus on, yes.

I haven't heard what badmouse said about Russia specifically saying it would overthrow the US, but global communism had always been their goal since Lenin. Stalin just militarized it way more.

I read a bit on the communist regime in Grenada and what they did and why they were invaded, and it would probably be an excellent thing to bring up to show the fear and the war against communism. That and Cuba would be good areas to look at since they were communist influences right off the shore of america and largely seen as viable threats (the latter especially).

 

[OokiiNeko]

Amused said:

Communism HAS been fully implemented. It's been tried over and over again and each time with disastrous and deadly results. The problem is, it can NEVER be the idealistic system Marx and others envisioned. When the people give up their rights, they leave them open to being taken over by the first and cruelest dictator to come along.

Please name one society that fully implemented Communism.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
Amused said:

Communism HAS been fully implemented. It's been tried over and over again and each time with disastrous and deadly results. The problem is, it can NEVER be the idealistic system Marx and others envisioned. When the people give up their rights, they leave them open to being taken over by the first and cruelest dictator to come along.

Please name one society that fully implemented Communism.

The USSR and Cambodia both instituted full collectivism. The problem is, as I said, idealogical communism is impossible. In practice it becomes authoritarianism.