Your assertion may be true about note abouyt Communism on the video, it may not. I haven't found it, and you say it's obscured. Folks used to say you could see one of the little people hanging himself in The Wizard of Oz though I never saw that either. I did ask the source for your information, and while you've offered more of the same sort of information, the source is still unidentified. Time? Newsweek? Washington Post? Economist? BBC? CBC? Christian Science Monitor? Times of London? Jerusalem Post?
Any publication could be correct, of course, though some tend to be more accurate historically than others.
But the notion of "from each according to their ability and to each according to their need," roughly speaking, should not be thought of as being under exclusive Communist ownership, should it? Marx, for all the gaudy fashion in which he turned his back on rteligion, was certainly influenced by it in this regard. As in Judaism, the community has a responsibility to its membership. Traditionally one of the highest obligations is the ransom of members from cap[tivity. You can see this in some of the writings of Maimonides back in the 12th century, as he clarifies much of the earlier work in the talmud and midrash. Sickness is not all that different than a state of being held captive, I believe, in classical thought.
Certainly, you'd have trouble denying support and succor to any member of a faith community within the classical Christian community.
This is a contradiction that the modern conservative movement in the united states has trouble dealing with, in my opinion. Perhaps wrongly, of course, since I am neither a Christian no a scholar of Christianity, merely an interested amateur. But to claim that the community of faith has a right to impose law and obligation in one area ó abortion policy, for example ó and not another ó making sure that everybody is treated in a fashion that their health may be maintained at its best ó seems to be contradictory. It needs to be rethought to be more consistant in itself.
As it stands, it seems consistant only to the comfort of the believer and not to the demands of the faith.
My own thoughts are that we need to provide a basic level of care for all the folks in this country, and that failure to do so is economic silliness. It undercuts our ability to be competitive with foreign products.
If people are foolish enough to become upset when they hear that a basic level of this support is called "communism," then they are slaves to pavlovian responses. They are the same people who are likely to line up with money in their hands to buy cars that are advertised as "sexy." Or to burn books which may be advertised the same way.
I don't particularly like the word "sheeple." But it seems to me that these are exactly the folks who would line up to fill the bill, simply because they haven't allowed themselves time to think things through for themselves.
Who should I care who came up with a particular piece of the truth, or something that comes usefully close to it? And why should I reject a piece of the truth simply because I don't like the person who says it, or the way that it's said. I can think for myself and put it in a way that fits more exactly. If there are knee-jerk liberals, T-bear, and we both know that there are, then there are knee-jerk conservatives and knee-jerk partisans of every sort. The problem isn't with the political point of view, it's with the knee-jerk reflexive reaction that goes with it.
If I can't identify a decent conservative idea and make use of it, what kind of fool am I? Civil Liberties, for example, shouldn't be either liberal or conservatrive; it should be human, and yet here we are in an era where Civil Liberties is identified as part of a Liberal Agenda. And torture is regarded as a practical American conservative solution. What kind of foolishness is that?
And the notion of folks having an obligation to take care of their neighbors is regarded as Liberal foolishness instead of basic human virtue.
Here's a notion of basic frontier values for you, T-bear, let your friends and neighbors die because it'll cost extra money to help them survive. The government already wants too much from us, so letting members of the community die is perfectly fine. In fact, they need to prove that they have any right to my help before I'll even consider helping, because I have a deep down feeling that they don't really deserve to live.
Thems the old fashioned American values this country was founded on, right?
Perhaps some other America, but not the one that my ancestors came to.