California's Assembly Votes To Allow Communists To Hold State Jobs - Polidicks

[QUOTE]California may end a decades-old ban on members of the Communist Party working in its government, after the state Assembly approved a bill that would delete references to the party from its employment requirements. The bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, said that California's laws should focus on individuals' actions and evidence rather than political affiliations and what he termed "empty labels."[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/09/527586682/california-assembly-votes-to-allow-commu"]http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/09/527586682/california-assembly-votes-to-allow-commu[/URL]

[QUOTE]"This bill is blatantly offensive to all Californians," said Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, who said his constituents include people who fled Vietnam's Communist regime. "Communism stands for everything that the United States stands against." Allen concluded, "To allow subversives and avowed Communists to now work for the state of California is a direct insult to the people of California who pay for that government." Assemblyman Randy Voepel, R-Santee, also opposed the bill, noting America's history of going to war to combat communism. "There are 1.9 million veterans in California," Voepel said. "Many of us fought the communists. They are still a threat. We have North Korea, that wants to do us in. We have China, who is a great, great threat to the United States."[/QUOTE] I did not realize the Cold War was still ongoing.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52210844]I did not realize the Cold War was still ongoing.[/QUOTE] The first Cold War ended in 1991, But this 'new' second 'Cold War' is more than against Russian's spread influence of right-wing authoritarianism and world dominance than anything else.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52210844]I did not realize the Cold War was still ongoing.[/QUOTE] Jesus it is absolutely insane to think that there are people out there who still think that 'subversives' are a danger to the US. People with different political opinions should be discriminated against because of North Korea and China being a 'great, great thread to the United States'? Just what?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52210844]I did not realize the Cold War was still ongoing.[/QUOTE] It still kind of is, just without the ideological trappings. [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52210904]Jesus it is absolutely insane to think that there are people out there who still think that 'subversives' are a danger to the US. People with different political opinions should be discriminated against because of North Korea and China being a 'great, great thread to the United States'? Just what?[/QUOTE] Government propaganda and the threat of nuclear apocalypse hanging over your head for 40 years will do that to you :v:

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52210905]Government propaganda and the threat of nuclear apocalypse hanging over your head for 40 years will do that to you :v:[/QUOTE] neither of those have really stopped, they're just more subtle now

lmao at the legislator who used North Korea/China/Vietnam as an example of communism. what does "members of the communist party" mean? there are dozens of communist political parties in the US. If they're voting to allow members of CPUSA to run it doesn't really mean much since they're just socdems at this point. EDIT: the same legislator (Randy Voepel) who thinks NK/China/Vietnam are communist also says "climate change is a good thing" because it hurts our enemies on the equator (when referring to the Middle East) and had this to say about the homeless [QUOTE] Voepel blamed homeless residents for stripping copper out of a Santee park. “I served two tours in Vietnam. And I’m getting attacked here by the Viet Cong, stealing my copper, and I don’t like it,” Voepel said, waving a copper bar at the camera.[/QUOTE] how the actual fuck do these people get elected?

To be fair while I'm against banning people from holding political office merely because of their political views, at the same time: is it a good idea to give a democratic office to those who are anti-democratic?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52211020]To be fair while I'm against banning people from holding political office merely because of their political views, at the same time: is it a good idea to give a democratic office to those who are anti-democratic?[/QUOTE] communists/socialists aren't anti-democratic by any means.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52211020]To be fair while I'm against banning people from holding political office merely because of their political views, at the same time: is it a good idea to give a democratic office to those who are anti-democratic?[/QUOTE] Just depends on what communist ideology is closest to have Democracy as a serious idea for people.

[QUOTE=nulls;52211035]communists/socialists aren't anti-democratic by any means.[/QUOTE] I know socialists aren't but I don't understand how any country so far that has been communist has not been a real democracy in the slightest.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52211020]To be fair while I'm against banning people from holding political office merely because of their political views, at the same time: is it a good idea to give a democratic office to those who are anti-democratic?[/QUOTE] It isn't, but then what counts as anti-democratic? If you disagree with the idea of people vote on who to lead the country? If you think that "some people" shouldn't be allowed to vote?

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52211097]It isn't, but then what counts as anti-democratic? If you disagree with the idea of people vote on who to lead the country? If you think that "some people" shouldn't be allowed to vote?[/QUOTE] That's the tricky part of course. Which is why you can't prevent people from voting or being voted in because of their political views. But you always need to ensure the person you're voting for respects democracy.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52211068]I know socialists aren't but I don't understand how any country so far that has been communist has not been a real democracy in the slightest.[/QUOTE] Because most countries people paint as communist/socialist are little more than an authoritarian single-party government with a state-controlled economy & Marxist paint job. This is not what socialism nor communism is meant to be. Communism is more or less a post-scarcity society where that can only come after decades of successful socialism. It's not meant to be authoritarian or anti-democratic at all. I'd even say it's meant to be more democratic than basically any Western country.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52211020]To be fair while I'm against banning people from holding political office merely because of their political views, at the same time: is it a good idea to give a democratic office to those who are anti-democratic?[/QUOTE] But the Republicans have been in office for years.

[QUOTE=nulls;52211129]Because most countries people paint as communist/socialist are little more than an authoritarian single-party government with a state-controlled economy & Marxist paint job. This is not what socialism nor communism is meant to be. Communism is more or less a post-scarcity society where that can only come after decades of successful socialism. It's not meant to be authoritarian or anti-democratic at all. I'd even say it's meant to be more democratic than basically any Western country.[/QUOTE] "But that's not real communism" ^ response postulated by idiots who can't separate theory from practice when it conveniently comes to the far-left. [QUOTE=Geikkamir;52211494]Except it literally isn't. Most of those countries employ little to no actual communist policy. This isn't a "no true scotsman" situation or something, they genuinely don't practice nearly any elements of a communist society other than taking the name.[/QUOTE] (that's my point)

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;52211401]"But that's not real communism" ^ response postulated by idiots who can't separate theory from practice when it conveniently comes to the far-left.[/QUOTE] Regarding someone who has no scottish ancestry, has never lived in or nor been in scotland - is he scottish because he says he is? Similarly, NK/China/Cuba/USSR are/were authoritarian states. Communism seeks to abolish the state. All 4 of these countries had a state-controlled economy that relied on exchange of money for a good/service. Communism seeks to give workers control of production and eliminate the need for currency. All 4 of these countries had a huge social/economic divide between the average citizen and people holding high positions in government. Communism seeks to dissolve all forms of socioeconomic class. Yet somehow, these nations are called communist because they had symbolism associated with communism.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52210844]I did not realize the Cold War was still ongoing.[/QUOTE] It is, but communists are not a part of it, and mostly consist of people who fundamentally misunderstand basic economics, so this law is dumb. The people who murdered innocent Vietnamese are not the same "communists" as the college professors and young idealistic hippies in California.

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;52211401]"But that's not real communism" ^ response postulated by idiots who can't separate theory from practice when it conveniently comes to the far-left.[/QUOTE] Except it literally isn't. Most of those countries employ little to no actual communist policy. This isn't a "no true scotsman" situation or something, they genuinely don't practice nearly any elements of a communist society other than taking the name.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52211459]It is, but communists are not a part of it, and mostly consist of people who fundamentally misunderstand basic economics, so this law is dumb. The people who murdered innocent Vietnamese are not the same "communists" as the college professors and young idealistic hippies in California.[/QUOTE] I see this argument often but I have never seen anyone explain it. How do Marxists misunderstand basic economics?

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;52211562]I see this argument often but I have never seen anyone explain it. How do Marxists misunderstand basic economics?[/QUOTE] Dont you know? Disagreeing with capitalism automagically makes you a libcuck that can't do basic economics!!1

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;52211401]"But that's not real communism"[/QUOTE] Real communism is impossible on a large scale. Equality and distribution is easy when you only have a couple hundred people at most. A couple hundred million, and the system will be extremely corrupt as well as totally ineffective.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52211020]To be fair while I'm against banning people from holding political office merely because of their political views, at the same time: is it a good idea to give a democratic office to those who are anti-democratic?[/QUOTE] Both 'true' Communism and Socialism are both supposed to be extremely democratic and the previous failings of terrible totalitarian states is no fair representation as I'm sure you've heard parotted a million times over. RE large scale Communism being effective, it is pointless talking about the specifics of a utopia within the restrictions of our current system. You surely must have an idea of what utopia would be like to then take whatever logical steps you can to get there.

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;52211562]I see this argument often but I have never seen anyone explain it. How do Marxists misunderstand basic economics?[/QUOTE] marxist theory at its core relies on several outdated and/or unfalsifiable concepts that ultimately render the theory broken - especially its stress on historicism [QUOTE=nulls;52211440]Regarding someone who has no scottish ancestry, has never lived in or nor been in scotland - is he scottish because he says he is? Similarly, NK/China/Cuba/USSR are/were authoritarian states. Communism seeks to abolish the state. All 4 of these countries had a state-controlled economy that relied on exchange of money for a good/service. Communism seeks to give workers control of production and eliminate the need for currency. All 4 of these countries had a huge social/economic divide between the average citizen and people holding high positions in government. Communism seeks to dissolve all forms of socioeconomic class. Yet somehow, these nations are called communist because they had symbolism associated with communism.[/QUOTE] intellectuals-yet-idiots prefer theory over practice for some reason, ignoring the fact that trying to fit a theory to reality is the opposite of what you should be doing anybody who says "it works in theory" should be punched

I won't argue that communism can ever work in practice within my lifetime or even the next few centuries. I won't argue that it even is a solid idea in theory. But I don't see the problem in defending an idea for what it's supposed to be rather than what it is thought to be after a historical failure to put it into practice. And this can be applied to literally any idea. It's like arguing that democracy explicitly means only choosing between different sides of same coin, usually whoever is the lesser evil, rather than actually having a say in how society is run.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52212608]I won't argue that communism can ever work in practice within my lifetime or even the next few centuries. I won't argue that it even is a solid idea in theory. But I don't see the problem in defending an idea for what it's supposed to be rather than what it is thought to be after a historical failure to put it into practice. And this can be applied to literally any idea. It's like arguing that democracy explictly means only choosing between different sides of same coin, usually whoever is the lesser evil, rather than actually having a say in how society is run.[/QUOTE] there's examples of democracy working in practice though (Switzerland) point me an example of communism working

I think the rise of automation will be a huge game changer so whether a particular economic system did or did not work in the 20th century won't be absolutely relevant in that context.

[QUOTE=nulls;52210955]lmao at the legislator who used North Korea/China/Vietnam as an example of communism. what does "members of the communist party" mean? there are dozens of communist political parties in the US. If they're voting to allow members of CPUSA to run it doesn't really mean much since they're just socdems at this point. EDIT: the same legislator (Randy Voepel) who thinks NK/China/Vietnam are communist also says "climate change is a good thing" because it hurts our enemies on the equator (when referring to the Middle East) and had this to say about the homeless how the actual fuck do these people get elected?[/QUOTE] republicans in california, so you're talking small enclaves of really right wing people

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52213615]there's examples of democracy working in practice though (Switzerland) point me an example of communism working[/QUOTE] There are no historical or current examples of communism working as intended. However, socialism has been properly achieved historically in Revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune (I guess those are the examples you would expect anyway) for a short time before getting crushed by outside forces. Currently, the Zapatistas are managing most of Chiapas in Mexico autonomously and successfully running a collective agricultural economy. And then there is Rojava. Their democratic confederalism is a variant of libertarian socialist municipalism as envisioned by Öcalan and Bookchin. While it's still in the framework of a state-like institution, it comes close to realizing the sort of society that social anarchists want.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52211068]I know socialists aren't but I don't understand how any country so far that has been communist has not been a real democracy in the slightest.[/QUOTE] had communism been born out of democratic, instead of autocratic traditions the world would be quite a different place, alas its also a great tool to enact dictatorships, though our own freedom™ system of government seems to be doing just as fine of a job since all our ethics oversight is run by the party behind the guy breaking the laws.