[danielpalos]

I would like to take this time and opportunity to "blame the right" for requiring a work ethic from the Iron Age; I have learned how to use not only a hammer, but also a sickle, as a result.

[park]

Dear Political Forum friends,

Recently on the news, it has come to my attention that there are groups of Anti-Capitalists that are rioting in the streets of Ameican states. These are my thoughts:

Stop. You have many countries to go to (Russia, North Korea, hell even China) so please don't ruin it for us Americans that are proud to be Capitalists. China almost has a better economy than America, so let us enjoy it while we can.

If you don't like our way, then leave. Go spit in another countries bucket. Capitalism is what makes America what it is the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Let me know what you think.

God Bless America.

About 40 million Americans can't afford a health insurance.There are jobless and homeless Americans,why should they like capitalism?

[Csareo]

Those nations are not communist. China's socico-capitalist, Russia fascist, North Korea Fascist. True Authoritarian communist countries include Laos, Vietnam, and to a lesser extent, Cuba.

[Dagoth Ur]

China is Market-Socialist (that means: Capitalist economy, socialist society, transition to Socialism after the Accumulation of Productive Forces makes it viable) not socio-capitalist. Russia is state capitalist to a degree but with Neoliberal elements and is by no means even sort of fascist, North Korea is barracks Communism (and again not fascism). You don't seem to know what most of these terms mean really.

Additional Pro-tip: Fascists are those people who are employed by the bourgeoisie to quell any worker's rebellion that threatens their power over society.

[fuser]

^ What? No. Fascist is anything I don't like. Bloody cats are fascist.

[KurtFF8]

True Authoritarian communist countries include Laos, Vietnam, and to a lesser extent, Cuba.

How are Vietnam and Laos "more communist" than Cuba? And if we're getting into specific definitions of course, you must mean "socialist country" rather than "communist"

[Leninist]

^ What? No. Fascist is anything I don't like. Bloody cats are fascist.

This is excellent.

However there are no fascist countries in existence, Russia is just nationalistic and ready to invade its neighbors, which in the context of world history is nothing special.

How are Vietnam and Laos "more communist" than Cuba? And if we're getting into specific definitions of course, you must mean "socialist country" rather than "communist"

I believe he is saying Cuba is less authoritarian than Laos or Vietnam, although I am not sure if that's true. I would think that Cuba, what with the US being right there and constantly trying to overthrow it, would have a larger security apparatus. However, I am not sure.

[KurtFF8]

Cuba does have quite an extensive security apparatus and is often criticized by the ultra-left for being "authoritarian" which is why the "holier/more left than-thou socialists" claim it cannot be socialist. This is of course silly, but it's something that groups like the ISO throw around nonetheless.

[Classicliberal]

It's odd that one of the worlds first explicitly secular country, founded by deists, who signed the treaty of tripoli that said explicitly (And I do quote directly from the treaty) said that this is not a christian nation.

Only about three founding fathers could be considered anti-clerical Deists: Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin. The vast majority of the founding fathers were of some Protestant sect, most being Anglican, Presbyterian, or Congregationalist. Now certainly the Christian religion and faith of the Founders' was of a fairly different stripe then the Christian Right of present; however, to characterize the Founder's as a bunch of Deists is dishonest, they were all born, bred, and well-versed in the Bible and many had deep personal convictions to it.

I agree certainly the United States was revolutionary in its definitive codification of the principle of "freedom of religion" and its clear rejection of a State religion, but to call it "explicitly secular" is like overstating your case by a factor of ten. The American state might be nominally secular--which is a good thing--but its people have been anything but--there has always been a strong Christian culture surrounding and influencing that "secular" state. Moreover, with the Treaty of Tripoli you conveniently left out an incredibly important clarification:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

From the full quote in regards to the "not a Christian nation" phrase, it's pretty clear Adam's was trying to emphasize that the United States did not have a sectarian government; and additionally, that the United States government did not hold fundamental religious convictions that would predispose it to go to war with Muslim nations on the principle of that animosity. Thus, the Treaty of Tripoli is only really relevant in the context of what it applied to--the diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Tripolitania. Furthermore, I think your also confusing the American regime, the governmental structure of the Republic as laid out by the Constitution, which is explicitly secular insofar as not establishing a religion is concerned, and the American nation: the large aggregate of people that have existed in the various part of the contiguous land mass which is known as the United States and those aforementioned peoples' shared culture and history. Basically, for most of the United States' history, its people have been pretty Churched and Christianized and that has played an indomitable part in its history and culture; hence, the characterization of the U.S., at least historically, as a "Christian Nation".

Thomas Jefferson even committed the high blasphemy of completely rewriting the bible to remove any mention of anything even smacking of something miraculous (including the whole Jesus being the son of god, virgin birth, Resurrection stuff.)

Honestly, Jefferson was all over the place with regard to his religious beliefs; he was certainly not an orthodox Christian but he ascribed to litany of religious monikers or identities, including 'nominal Christian' over his lifetime. His Bible exploits, to note, came only later in life when he had left the presidency and politics for the most part and had more time and privacy to further explore the subject. However, I hardly see how this is relevant to the historicity of America being a "Christian nation" if we define a nation, as the aggregate cultural temperament of its people. Thomas Jefferson's religious convictions are only relevant if he somehow secularized the American nation during his tenure as president, yet he in fact tried to build up his Christian credentials to dissuade critics that he wasn't Christian enough to serve as President of the United States, which would be fairly paradoxical thing to do in a "explicitly secular" nation. Moreover, in both his Inaugural Addresses he references God in the Christian jargon of the era.

The US was founded as one of the most progressive countries ever, and modern conservatives want to drag it backwards through time to a place that never existed.

Modern conservatives are a reaction to the New Left, and the threat they see from the cultural changes that have occurred in the United States since the 1960s. Sure, if 'modern conservatives' are arguing for a biblically based theocracy, then they are attempting to drag the country to a time that never existed, but if they reacting to supplementation of traditional cultural values with post-modernist values there really not--as stated the American public has always been predominately christianized that's simply history.

What, definitively, never existed was this conception of yours that all the Founders' were a bunch anti-clerical Deist progressives; to the contrary, there were mostly Protestant Christians of their time, and more importantly men of (Anglo, with a few principles borrowed from the Frenchies) Enlightenment political thought.

Founding Father quotes:

Washington:

It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.

Adams:

The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.

Jefferson:

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.

Hardly Deists.

[Leninist]

The founding fathers weren't particularly progressive. The American revolution was by no means a social revolution, more of a revolt by the national bourgeoisie against foreign monarchy. I also understand that at the time most "Americans" including the founders were by birth British, before someone tries to point it out.

[Classicliberal]

The founding fathers weren't particularly progressive. The American revolution was by no means a social revolution, more of a revolt by the national bourgeoisie against foreign monarchy.

I would agree, which is why the American revolution is sometimes considered, paradoxically, a "conservative" revolution; though, I think it is important to note there was, indeed, a large social undercurrent, among the greater masses, that was ripe to be mobilized in support of that initial revolt by those wealthy, propertied men. That is, British colonial governance after the 7 Years War: poorly implemented excise taxes and the eventual suspension of civil liberties--the quartering of troops in private homes, among other things--only served to, in a Marxist sense, solidify class consciousness between the bourgeoisie and greater masses in a struggle against the British Crown.

As for the larger question of Pro-Communists in America, if the 50 years of ideological struggle that was the Cold War and its numerous covert stand-offs; 2 major conventional military conflicts, Korea and Vietnam; and constant threat of M.A.D. with the Soviet Union don't point it out for you, the United States has some major baggage with anything remotely related to "socialism", "communism", or "marxism".

[The Immortal Goon]

There was a very revolutionary element in the American Revolution. Thomas Paine, for instance, was in many ways a proto-Jacobin in the way he wrote that all wealth should be nationalized and distributed evenly. There were lots of masses that wanted to go help the Jacobins, and Jefferson himself was an advocate for the most radical French ways of looking at some things. He's often credited, for instance, with the term, "Empire of Liberty," but that was actually Citizen Genet, who attempted to create a single republican identity in every republican country that did away with national borders. Theoretically, it would have started with the US, France, Haiti, and Ireland. Of course, this was utopian thinking. The US and France both had a problematic relationship with Haiti at best; and Ireland was still firmly part of England's sphere of influence. Not to mention that the United States did have a conservative element that wanted to move wealth more than anything else. As did the French, who had Thermidor just around the corner.

[Xlarissa]

I'm a Communist who lives in the US, and this is where I come from. So where would I "go back to" exactly?

Agreed. I share the same beliefs as you and was born in California

[Leninist]

There was a very revolutionary element in the American Revolution. Thomas Paine, for instance, was in many ways a proto-Jacobin in the way he wrote that all wealth should be nationalized and distributed evenly. There were lots of masses that wanted to go help the Jacobins, and Jefferson himself was an advocate for the most radical French ways of looking at some things. He's often credited, for instance, with the term, "Empire of Liberty," but that was actually Citizen Genet, who attempted to create a single republican identity in every republican country that did away with national borders. Theoretically, it would have started with the US, France, Haiti, and Ireland. Of course, this was utopian thinking. The US and France both had a problematic relationship with Haiti at best; and Ireland was still firmly part of England's sphere of influence. Not to mention that the United States did have a conservative element that wanted to move wealth more than anything else. As did the French, who had Thermidor just around the corner.

Well I'm not saying there weren't radicals (no negative connotation intended) but the people who controlled the American revolution and managed to lead the majority of the masses were in general only slightly progressive, for example they, considered ending slavery when they wrote out the constitution and such. More revolutionary undercurrents were undeniably present, and broke through in the case of Bacon's revolt, but led to nothing.

[mikema63]

I think a bit more is made about the founding fathers not ending slavery than is really there.

There wouldn't be country if they had.

[Dagoth Ur]

I agree with Mike but I can understand what Leninist is trying to say. The majority of the founding fathers ended up supporting federalism and the toning down of bourgeoisie radicalism. Hence support for Washington and Hamilton. Not that they really had any other viable choice.

[Strangelove]

I agree with Mike but I can understand what Leninist is trying to say. The majority of the founding fathers ended up supporting federalism and the toning down of bourgeoisie radicalism. Hence support for Washington and Hamilton. Not that they really had any other viable choice.

Or, really, support for the Constitution itself. I mean, that was mainly backed by coastal bourgeois merchants. Mostly over the issues of the state's ability to put down an insurrection and facilitate interstate/international commerce, but also weakening the power of the House of Representatives (then the only elected body) in favor of the Senate and President. Plus, it codified all of that and the right to private property in general as "the public good."

But it's kind of predictable that won out. The Anti-Federalists were a weird combination of: A) Southern slaveholders who feared loss of control over their property by a stronger central government, B) angry petit-bourgeois tax protestors like Daniel Shays who probably would've destroyed the new country had they won (the ideological ancestors of today's Paulbots ), C) rural working-class and petit-bourgeois communitarians/radicals who objected to the Constitution for class reasons and the state suppressing their demands, and D) ambivalent on-the-fence bourgeois people like Jefferson and Franklin who sympathized with B and C for ideological reasons but ultimately agreed to the Constitution. They all had no clear overarching plan, all hated each-other, and just couldn't mobilize like the Federalists.

As far as the OP goes:

[U185]

Also, you are speaking to a Lawyer, please show some respect.