Communism vs Socialism

[Stevicus]

That is a really fascinating view of history.
When 2 sides are at war, it takes 2 sides
to negotiate peace.
What I remember from back in the day....
Reagan and Gorbachev: Shutting the Cold War Down
When Gorbachev and Reagan Bonded, the Cold War Thawed
How Reagan Bankrupted the Soviet Union...

In the third paragraph of the first article, it quotes Reagan:

Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. “Mr. Gorbachev,” he said, “deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country.”

So, if Reagan says that Gorbachev deserves most of the credit, why won't you believe him?

The Cold War wasn't an actual, real war, so there was no negotiation for ending. The closest we came was in negotiating the Two Plus Four Treaty which cleared the way for the reunification of Germany. But that was after Reagan was out of office.

I see Reagan as a thoughtful man, who realized that his
strident anti-communist stance was dangerous & unnecessary.
Reversing his previous course, he approached detente methodically.
He exhibited an openness, flexibility, & pragmatism that was
sorely lacking in a President like Trump. Of course, Gorbachev
was necessary for peace to happen. I credit both of them.
(BTW I never voted for Reagan.)
Many others deserve credit, in particular, Susanne Massie.
The Lady Who Warmed Up the Cold War
She had no formal position in government, so her role has
been largely forgotten. Yet detente might not have happened
without her.

Actually, I would credit Nixon with détente, which helped to warm relations with the USSR. Reagan ended it and set back US foreign policy 20 years. We never had détente with Russia since then. Even after the fall of the USSR and the end of Communist rule, the US attitude towards Russia has been largely negative.

 

[Valjean]

I once worked for a rail brake manufacturer (Knorr Bremse).
One problem I saw with Amtrak was that it spent much $$$
creating tracks suitable for high speed rail. The problem was
that fed regulations required allowing heavy freight trains on
the same tracks. This rendered them unsuitable for high speed.

Health care....I recall it being far far cheaper back in the 70s,
before the regulatory environment became more restrictive.
Companies I worked for provided it for free with no co-pay.
Obamacare saw a big increase in costs.

It wasn't regulation that drove healthcare prices up.
Obamacare was about access and coverage, not price reduction. Nevertheless, the Republicans did everything they could to sabotage it, and succeeded in driving prices up -- which they blamed on Obamacare itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the third paragraph of the first article, it quotes Reagan:



So, if Reagan says that Gorbachev deserves most of the credit, why won't you believe him?

The Cold War wasn't an actual, real war, so there was no negotiation for ending. The closest we came was in negotiating the Two Plus Four Treaty which cleared the way for the reunification of Germany. But that was after Reagan was out of office.



Actually, I would credit Nixon with détente, which helped to warm relations with the USSR. Reagan ended it and set back US foreign policy 20 years. We never had détente with Russia since then. Even after the fall of the USSR and the end of Communist rule, the US attitude towards Russia has been largely negative.

Reagan giving Gorbachev most of the credit doesn't
mean Reagan deserves none, as you claimed.
I think it's time to agree to disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

It wasn't regulation that drove healthcare prices up.
Obamacare was about access and coverage, not price reduction. Nevertheless, the Republicans did everything they could to sabotage it, and succeeded in driving prices up -- which they blamed on Obamacare itself.

Nonetheless, health care prices have risen greatly since
the 70s. They immediately greatly increased under
Obama as many providers weren't allowed to compete.
Blaming Republicans doesn't change that.

 

[Kooky]

Socialism:
People own private property.
The people own the means of production.

Communism:
People don't own private property.
The people own everything.

socialism
[ soh-shuh-liz-uhm ]
noun
1 a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
2 procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3 (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com

 

[Kooky]

Reagan giving Gorbachev most of the credit doesn't
mean Reagan deserves none, as you claimed.
I think it's time to agree to disagree.

Reagan definitely deserves credit for repeatedly attempting to destroy unions and labor rights in the US, that's for sure.

I don't think Communism is that well defined. Is a monastery Communist? A Hutterite colony? A Bruderhof community? A Family?

That depends on whether a) you're American, and b) you like it.

 

[Kooky]

Talking to the Cubans that I know who still live there... no

It was Cuba selling all their goods to Russia, not allowing the people to own animals, the killing of those who resisted and the taking away of all property. Not to mention that you were put in jail in you had American dollars and you were relegated to low wages "for the good of the country". That is "you are all equal and so equal wages" - except if you were in the upper government of course.

That sounds like what happened in America when the White people invaded and enslaved everyone. Are we sure the US isn't a communist society?

 

[Revoltingest]

Reagan definitely deserves credit for repeatedly attempting to destroy unions and labor rights in the US, that's for sure.

Evidence?
I don't believe that Reagan, having once been a union leader
himself, would want to destroy "unions & labor rights" as you
claim. To reduce the power of unions....that I'd believe

 

[Revoltingest]

That sounds like what happened in America when the White people invaded and enslaved everyone. Are we sure the US isn't a communist society?

Actually, the initial invaders & conquerors were HIspanics,
who are now recognized as POC, not "white".

 

[Kooky]

Actually, the initial invaders & conquerors were HIspanics,
who are now recognized as POC, not "white".

I'm pretty sure the Pilgrims came from Britain, not Spain. And it seems like you are confusing Latinx people with Hispanic people, which are two different categories that sometimes overlap but also sometimes don't.

• "Hispanic" connotates an origin from Spain, Spanish culture, Spanish people or areas historically colonized by Spain.
• Latinx is a racial category within those areas, usually POC of mixed European and Native American descent.

For example, in Cuba, there live Hispanics who are of White, Black, Latinx, or of Mixed descent, whereas e.g. Hispanics from Argentina would be predominantly White or Native as that country was fairly sparsely populated before being invaded by Spain, and also wasn't a focal point of the slave trade like the Caribbean or Brazil had been.

I understand that this is not straight forward due to the way US law handles POC from Latin America (by ignoring Latinx as a separate racial category even while maintaining a separate category of "Hispanic"). It doesn't help that White Americans habitually confuse the two terms, thus mixing up their meaning and creating a further confusion of terminology.

As for "color", that's of course a term that has shifted a lot in America's history; for example, Hispanic settlers of Texas used to be considered White at the time of Texan independence , whereas recent immigrants from Mexico or Central America are typically treated as POC for reasons often pertaining to White identity politics and xenophobia.

It's a fairly complex subject, I'd say, certainly moreso than defining Socialism, which is actually pretty straightforward if you ignore American politics and know a lick of political history.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm pretty sure the Pilgrims came from Britain, not Spain.

That would be to ignore Hispanics.
Ref...
Spanish colonization of the Americas - Wikipedia
There are many groups guilty of the sin of violent & thieving conquest.
Not just the honkies.

 

[Kooky]

That would be to ignore Hispanics.
Ref...
Spanish colonization of the Americas - Wikipedia
There are many groups guilty of the sin of violent & thieving conquest.
Not just the honkies.

I was talking about the US. Sure, a substantial portion of the modern day US was originally conquered by Spain, such as Florida, Texas, or the West and Southwest. But when people talk about the colonization of the US, they commonly refer to the early attempts to seize North America via the Virginia and Plymouth colonies.

 

[Kooky]

There are many groups guilty of the sin of violent & thieving conquest.
Not just the honkies.

I'd say since the Age of Discovery and the Industrial Revolution enabled Whites to engage in a disproportionate amount of conquest, slavery and genocide all over the world, they ought to share a disproportionate amount of blame for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was talking about the US. Sure, a substantial portion of the modern day US was originally conquered by Spain, such as Florida, Texas, or the West and Southwest. But when people talk about the colonization of the US, they commonly refer to the early attempts to seize North America via the Virginia and Plymouth colonies.

Conquest took a long time.
And different conquerors favored different areas.

I wouldn't want to be the people who lived on land
that belonged to a malevolent stronger newcomer.
"Hey, we just discovered you. Now, get off our land."

 

[Kooky]

Conquest took a long time.
And different conquerors favored different areas.

I wouldn't want to be the people who lived on land
that belonged to a malevolent stronger newcomer.
"Hey, we just discovered you. Now, get off our land."

Sometimes, they got to live on the land they once owned, in order to work for their White masters.
This form of pseudo-feudal oppression was of course especially odious to the Enlightened British, who preferred to just wipe out those communities instead, in order to repopulate the now "virgin" land with more Whites.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sometimes, they got to live on the land they once owned, in order to work for their White masters.
This form of pseudo-feudal oppression was of course especially odious to the Enlightened British, who preferred to just wipe out those communities instead, in order to repopulate the now "virgin" land with more Whites.

You seem to have it in for just white people.
I'm not disagreeing about the wrongness of taking their land.

 

[Kenny]

That sounds like what happened in America when the White people invaded and enslaved everyone. Are we sure the US isn't a communist society?

Let me check my US History.... I'm sure the Puritans et all were enslaving ALL people... but I COULD be wrong. That's why the Civil war encapsulated the thought of enslaving ALL people.

 

[Kooky]

You seem to have it in for just white people.
I'm not disagreeing about the wrongness of taking their land.

I really don't see how I'm prejudiced for pointing out the widely accepted historical fact that the people who invaded and conquered America installed a racist political system that the people at the top continued to perpetuate for their own gain.

The economic and social system the European (there, better for your sensibilities?) invaders imposed on their victims was one based on racial prejudice and racial oppression. The White colonizers tried their utmost to keep Whites separate from Non-Whites, and the former in power and wealth.

 

[Revoltingest]

I really don't see how I'm prejudiced for pointing out the widely accepted historical fact that the people who invaded and conquered America installed a racist political system that the people at the top continued to perpetuate for their own gain.

To make it only about white people is telling.
The conquest was wrong because it was wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

What does it tell you, pray tell?

That you prefer to blame whites as opposed to others.
That would be to miss the larger picture.