Thank you for that wonderful response. Yes, sometimes I think it is a cynical view, but in the end human nature gets in the way of an equitable system. It’s sad that we have to call it “human nature” because that suggests that inequity and greed are something that is innate and is something that we cannot rise above.

Perhaps there will be a time when humanity will sufficiently advance to rise above greed and inequity. I sincerely believe this is a possibility (though I know nothing of its probability) because we are able to recognize that there is greed and inequity and we seem to recognize that it is wrong.

As noted in the primary entry, communism is not practical due to human nature. But it is not just communism that is adversely affected by human nature. So are fascism, socialism, capitalism, corporatism, and “whateverism”. So are democracy, republicanism, monarchy, oligarchy, and every other form of government. Human nature is selfish – for money and goods, for power and prestige, for ease and pleasure, for honor and glory. That selfishness infects all, from those at the highest levels to the lowest. When that selfish nature gains more of one’s “fair share” (whatever that is), it invents all manner of justifications for having it, as well as contempt for any who would suggest it wrong. When it is denied what it believes is at least one’s fair share, it breeds animosity, jealousy, and contempt.

Capitalism under a republican form of government (what the USA has had, at least in theory, since 1789) seems to have been the most practical, for it tends to check and balance the selfishness of one person or group against that of others. But as history has shown, it has not fully succeeded. As John Adams said, as much as he favored our system, it will not work without a moral people.

The voluntary communism of the early Christian church worked because their selfishness was countered by a spiritually engendered love. I believe this, in part, demonstrates the need, whatever the political or economic structure, for the influence of spiritual argument and guidance away from selfishness and toward its opposite: love. Not the emotion or feeling of love, as in romance, but the consciously adopted attitude of giving of one’s self for the benefit of others. Not that atheists are incapable of love nor that Christianity has a monopoly on it (as a Christian I lament much of what has been done in the name of Christianity), but that without something stronger than laws, human nature will spoil every system.

Thank you! Yes, that’s something I’d like to write about sometime.

“Americans won’t let it happen.” How naive of you.

Well, I have more faith in the American people.

Just because a pundit disagrees with a policy by calling it socialist doesn’t mean that it is NOT socialitst.

Actually, it does. See, \words\ have \meanings\. So if you call a dog a cat, it doesn’t actually make it a cat. So if you call something that is not socialist, socialist, it doesn’t actually make it socialist.

And he doesn’t mean that the government is now socialist just because taxes go way up or down. We know that a lot of things have to happen for this to be a communist or facist nation, but what you don’t seem to realize is that is doesn’t have to happen all at once.

That’s just a conspiracy theory. All democratic governments have elements of socialism. If you really hate socialism then maybe you don’t need the police department, or the fire department, or the interstate system. Just because there are elements of socialism in a country, it doesn’t that it is catastrophically sliding towards socialism.

Do you think Madison or Jefferson ever envisioned gay marriage?

How does gay marriage equal socialism? Furthermore, what exactly is wrong with gay marriage? You hate it simply because it doesn’t agree with your religious beliefs. It seems to me that instead of arguing, you’re simply throwing around random talking points, and hoping they connect. We can only speculate what Jefferson or Madison would say. But since both Madison and Jefferson were deist (not Christian) we can probably assume that they would not subscribe the semitic religions’ condemnation of homosexuality. Furthermore, since both Madison and Jefferson stood for the rights of individuals I would also think that they would support the rights of homosexuals (since they are human beings as well).

And no American communist would be stupid enough to label his ideas as communist, even though they are.

This is a conspiracy theory and a logical fallacy. Check out the \No True Scotsman\ fallacy.

Radical change could happen over night (Hiyroshima) or it could take a while (slavery). But if we are not vigilant against it, if we don’t say enough is enough, and if we allow enough socialist policies to pass, one day we will wake up and realize too late that we are indeed a socialist nation.

So are you against the Hiroshima bombing and are you against the ending of slavery? This is nothing but paranoid speculation a la Glenn Beck. I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying we need to be vigilant about. You seem to forget that while the ignorant Tea Partiers keep screaming about Big Government, they all seem to ignore the fact that the biggest expansion of executive power happened under the Bush Administration. You also seem to forget that it was the Bush administration that initiated the bailout.

So when you say that redistribution of wealth is not a socialist policy, you are either stupid or you have a vested interest in socialist policy.

Wow, that’s such a strong argument! You’ve made an ad hominem argument followed by an assertion that you have failed to back up with anything. Sorry, that’s not how arguments work.

You’re right, redistribution by itself will not do much. But do you honestly think radical democrats will be satisfied with that? Do you think that they don’t want to make it permanent, and then add more socialist policies?

You’re speculation without providing anything to back up your speculations. We can all speculate till the cows come home, but that doesn’t do anything.

Where does it end? Spain used to be a major player in world politics. And Argentina. And what are they now? Sure, they’re still there, but for what? Don’t tell me that we should just let this policy slide or that policy slide.

I think you’re woefully misinformed about Spain and Argentina. Specifically you’re misinformed about the effect despotic and dictatorial governments can have on a country.

If a policy is socialist, we should not let it pass. We should not give socialist another puzzle piece to making America a communist or facist state.

Alright, then the next time your house catches on fire, don’t call the fire department. See, that’s because it’s \socialist\. Also, the next time a burglar breaks into your house and threatens your family. Don’t call the police department. That’s also \socialist\. Oh, and the next time you need to travel across a state, don’t use the interstate because that’s also \socialist\. You also seem to be mixing up fascism with socialism. Like I tried to make it clear in my post, they are two different concepts. So simply screaming about \OMG FASCISM\ doesn’t make it so. You actually need to point out specific instances to back up your argument. But you seem to have learnt your style of arguing from the camp of Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck, unfortunately, is an opinionated idiot and an ignorant buffoon — so you won’t learn much from him.

It’s great that you’re all for moderation. But the people to the left of you are not. And it seem that, in these times, the only counter for one radical, is another radical.

The problem with radicals is that they think that everyone outside their spectrum is another radical. Of course, that is the only way they can justify their radical thoughts. This is because radical thoughts are never logical and are never based in fact (even if they are, it is based on a severe and often dogmatic re-interpretation of a fact which eventually renders the radical’s argument null and void). I mean, just go through your arguments once again. You’ve made a lot of assertions, but haven’t provided anything to back them up other than simply saying \it is because it is\.

Secondly, this blog post was by no means meant to be a formal analysis of political and economic systems. So I’m sorry if I disappointed you by a lack of references; perhaps you would like to check out some scholarly treatises on the subject. I was going for a tongue-in-cheek and layman’s explanation of these different political/economic systems and why those on the extreme right have no idea what they are talking about.

However, I do not think you detailed socialism correctly. From the above paragraphs, it sounded very much related to Communism. Yet Socialism does not result in Communism, just the opposite. Socialism “lets off the steam” of capitalism, as one writer put it. When you said the bail-out was designed to “alleviate some problems,” that is, by definition, socialist. That is not necissarily a bad thing, either. Socialist acts are any acts that economically support the bottom and help to establish some sort of equality. This is why giving the lower class tax money that the upper class paid in the first place is, indeed, socialism. In that regard, the U.S. is socialist. We have been socialist since the great depression. Admittedly we are not as socialist as we could be, but it is technically incorrect to say that the American people will never let us be anything but capitalist; socialism is exactly what many of the American people are driving for.