-->
@3RU7AL
There is no such thing as "private property" in the united states.
Only for the ultra-rich.
Peons like you and me are fucked.
There is something that doesn't make sense to me
Posts
Total:
69
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no such thing as "private property" in the united states.Only for the ultra-rich.Peons like you and me are fucked.
This sounds eerily familiar.
-->
@TheUnderdog
--> @oromagiCommunism means local people own their own local means of production without any consideration of class, currency, or state- a kind of anarchist economic utopia.This is a primitive economy; an economy with no currency. You need a common currency to facilitate trade.
Communists actually promoted communism as a return to a more primitive economy. Marx argued that communism was the natural state of human economy before the agricultural revolution- when churches and kings built walls to control the surplus and therefore control the people. Marx believed that all surpluses created inequalities, that the creation of surplus was itself the destructive force in human history. Communists essentially argued that once classes were removed goods and services would be voluntarily diffuse internationally according to ability and need without any statist interventions. Like most anarchists and utopians, Communists argued that humans must return to a far more primitive state to achieve happiness. Keep in mind that in the 1840's most of the food the English ate was still produced within 50 miles. The idea that a couple of valleys in California could produce 2/3rds of US vegetables was simply unimaginable.
Russian dictators killed those tens of millions, not communism or any other ideology.The dictators killed those tens of millions because they fell in line with communist ideology, which is to kill all the capitalists.
The first rule of communism is that the people control the means of production which means that the people must assemble in some democratic venue and decide how the means of production will go forward. You can't have socialism or communism without a strong democracy in place- it simply does not exist. The people of the Ukraine did not hold a vote and decide to forcibly remove all their wheat to Moscow- that was Stalin's decision alone and one man alone cannot be communism not matter how often he uses the word. Stalin also held regular elections and claimed to be a democrat but no person who understand what democracy means would credit Stalin with democratic ideology. Likewise, once you learn the meaning of communism, no person would credit Stalin with such an ideology. There was never a time when some Chinese community decided to start making iPhones. That decision was made by classic capitalists in the upper echelons of the Chinese autocracy.
I've never met a real communist (someone who both understands what communism means and thinks it is a practical, modern economic strategy) on this or any other site.Everyone on this thread that is saying communism is a good ideology is a communist.
Not one person in this thread has advocated for communism. All but one have explicitly criticized communism.
The right denounces Nazism(while allowing it to exist under the 1st amendment) and since they denounce Nazism, they aren't Nazis.
Trump explicitly defended Nazis after Charlottesville- "good people" he called them. Swastikas and Nazi ideology was prominently displayed during the Republican assault on the Nation's capitol on Jan 6th. but I find little criticism from the right for such displays.
Most Americans would prefer starvation to slavery.I don't think this is accurate, as starvation is more painful than almost any labor.
You should read about Valley Forge.
So, you can say, "I support racism"You can say, "I support the Klan"You can't say "let's kill black people"Wylted got banned because he according to his ban was, "Repeatedly glorifying hate groups"(Wylted (debateart.com)) among other things. If you glorify Rand Paul, you support Rand Paul. Hate groups would be like the KKK. You shouldn't be banned for supporting the KKK, or whatever hate group he supported. Even you said, "You can say, "I support the Klan"".
Wylted's ideology changed hourly. Wylted didn't get banned because he said he supported the Klan, he got banned because he said whatever he thought might be most offensive to people. There's someone on this thread who used SS Grupenfurher Heinz Reinefarth as his profile picture for months- probably the human who personally killed more Jews than any other human in history and that's what Reinefarth is best known for so the portrait pretty explicitly communicates the idea of "kill jews" without much chance of meaning something else. I think the portrait represents a more explicit representation of anti-semitism than any of Wylted's trolls and rather than condemnation, mods actively protect his expression from any contradiction by me. Therefore, I am entirely confident that just loving Nazis or the Klan is not sufficient to merit a ban on this site.
There is no objective, sensible opinion in the world that would call the idea of local ownership by local small govt. worse than the idea of executing black people because they won't stay slaves.The results of communism resulted in 71 million people dead, entire nation's economies destroyed, and hundreds of millions of people starving in the streets.
That is false. There has never been an example of Communism, as defined by Marx or by the dictionary in human history. You can't have communism without democracy first and no real democracy has ever fallen for that pie-in-the-sky utopian bullshit. You are promoting anti-Russian US government propaganda from the mid-20th century.
The results of KKK lynching people results in a few thousand black people dead and a few million black people segregated (which isn't as bad as starving). The KKK is less extreme than communism, so if communism is allowed on DART, so is glorifying the KKK.
Communism was one of hundreds of 19th century utopian ideas that excited a lot of Western thinkers in the wake of the US and French revolutions. Although the label of communist got tossed around a whole lot in the 20th century, none of the people using that label seemed to uphold the basic ideas of communism and the few people who actually read the Communist Manifesto with comprehension sided with democracy during the cold war. I have no doubt that Marx and Engels would have condemned Stalin and Mao as corrupt fascists disguising their violence as economic revolution. Vladimir Putin used to call himself a Communist and now calls himself a Capitalist without any apparent change in philosophy or methodology. President Xi calls himself a Communist while actually driving the most radical shift to capitalism in human history. I strongly doubt Putin or XI ever once considered the opinion of the proletariat, even though that is the most foundational aspect of Communism.
-->
@oromagi
You can't have socialism or communism without a strong democracy in place
Well stated.
-->
@n8nrgmi
communism is about living in commune.
hippies lived in communes. They were not communists. Communism pitted the proletariat agains the bourgeois, with Marx thinking that these were the only two elements of production of any product or service. As labor, the proletariate already had 40% of the gross revenue pie before Marx, and Marx [Communism] entirely ignores that R&D, production planning of process, raw materials purchasing and logistics, tooling, maintenance, marketing, and customer service are all necessary added elements of industry, and that the bourgeois does not take the other 60% in net profit. He's lucky to end up with 1 or 2%. Marx has no idea about running a company; he never ran one, which is why socialism and communism fail wherever they are tried within a half-century, on average. Further, show me the country that started with marxism. You can't run a country with the philosophy that you use other peoples' money to run the show when there is none but by taking over a capitalist systems, then run it to the ground because Marx never even ran a lemonade stand.
Communes. You're joking, yeah?
-->
@fauxlaw
nothing you say contradicts my point. communism is about trying to maximize social good for everyone. i agree that it fails as an economic system, but the intent is good. it's fair to say communism is based on the idea of a commune.... that's why it has the name that it does.
communism is about trying to maximize social good for everyone.
No, it's about setting A maximum social good for everyone. If you are born with talent or ambition, you have to find another place to live and be happy.
-->
@n8nrgmi
trying to maximize social good for everyone.
Good intentions???
The road to good intentions is paved with hell. Give me good results. That has proof, not intentions.
Go back and review the first few minutes of 1984's "Ghostbusters," when the Aykroyd and Murray characters regret the loss of their university grant in paranormal studies. Murray is nonchalant. Aykroyd, more practical, tells him, "I've been in the private sector. They expect results." Amen. Academia, like Marxism, is all bout good intentions, but the results? Ehhh.
-->
@TheUnderdog
You can judge a philosophical ideology by it's intentions, and communism in theory is Utopic.
But communism descends into chaos and non-communism, the moment it hits the streets.
Because people, simply are not equal.
I'm not sure if there has ever been a truly effective non-hierarchical social system.
Can you think of one?
The USSR and China for example, never have been communist states in practice....Only falsely so on paper.