The fetishization of "Freedom."

You must be talking about the communist agenda that made it’s way through congress in
in1963
www.uhuh.com...

Text
Communist Goals
Documention below
congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

edit on 30-5-2012 by redneck13 because: b

Originally posted by Mkoll
Compared to historical observations you did pretty damned well, I think.

You forgot the tens of millions of deaths imposed on those who disagree in any way, however.

Sounds all too familiar, doesn't it?

But remember, your point is easily defeated when we employ the communist false rationalism of separating methods and means from the ultimate aim. This is a safeguard frequently used in order to keep worldviews from shattering, but it also has the further advantage of giving servants of tyranny a clean conscience.

A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is statistics. – Josef Stalin

reply to post by METACOMET


Yes , Stalin., Time for a tribute for all the great things communism has done in the world
A Tribute to Communism

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by ANOK
And what is the communist agenda? Can you explain it all for us please?

I'll take a shot at that...

The desire to plan the lives of others coupled with a monopoly on the force necessary to impose that plan on unwilling subjects, put into the hands of a centralized bureaucracy of self serving busybodies, all for the good of society?

How'd I do?

Where do you get that from? That is not communism. Sounds like someones propaganda.

In fact that is a pretty accurate description of the system we have now in the US and most of the rest of the world.

Capitalist have a monopoly on the force to impose their plans on the rest of us due to their economic power, supported by a centralized bureaucracy of self serving busybodies, all for the good of a minority privileged class of private owners.

You seem to think actions of someone self labeled is the definition of that label. If I were to call myself a Christian, and openly worship the devil, would you then consider Christianity devil worship? Of course you wouldn't because you know better, so neither should you think communism is defined by the actions of those who claimed to have been communist but practiced something completely different.

There have been no true communists countries, they were all called communist for political reasons, not because the term described their economic systems. Russia, North Korea, China etc., are about as far from communism as they could be. Their economies were a mixture of nationalism, and capitalism with totalitarian states.

Communism and socialism are economic systems just like capitalism, not political systems. Anarchists are traditionally socialist, or communist. How can that be if they both were political systems?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.

No socialist, or communist, wants what you are claiming. If they do they are either confused to lying.

Socialism is divided into three main trends: reformism, anarchism and Marxism.

www.marx2mao.com...

Socialism being the common/worker ownership of the means of production. The main difference between Marxism and anarchism is the path to free association. Marxism being a political route, and anarchism being the direct action route. Marxists believe a transitional period is necessary, of nationalism with a revolutionary worker controlled government in order to increase production. The dictatorship of the proletariat.
It was a temporary period that would lead to communism. Anarchist thought that unnecessary and wanted immediate change to socialism, and eventually communism.

All left wing ideologies want the same thing, free association of producers...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

The capitalist class has had the power since it replaced feudalism, and has done all it can to demonize the true left, and create a pseudo-left in government that is really just a more liberal right. Neither the establishment of east, nor the west, wanted worker ownership, and both appropriated left-wing terms to propagandize the people.

Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by METACOMET

 

Yes , Stalin., Time for a tribute for all the great things communism has done in the world
A Tribute to Communism

You can't blame an economic system for what people do.

True socialism and communism have nothing to do with political leaders and their agendas.

We're not interested in putting people in power, we are about an economy that is more beneficial for the majority of people. Socialism puts the power in the hands of the people, not the state. The state can only get powerful through the centralized wealth accumulation of capitalism, then the state is controlled by capitalists economic power for their own benefit.

Hitler considered himself a Christian, so by your logic Christians must be Nazis.

It is a well-known fact communism is not a sustainable vehicle for the growth and enrichment of any society. It is to treat every citizen as the same, no citizen is the same. There is no incentive to excel above others, to beet the odds and create in any monetary form. In fact, it is just the opposite, if you are to outperform through diligent or intelligents you are seen as rising above the system itself and are stifled under the heading enemy of the state. However, capitalism rewards those that excel through monetary gains, a by-product of which is innovative concepts, inventions, cures, improved efficiency, and most importantly a voice through which the system can be challenged as apposed to the supreme leader scenario. To give a thought to Hitler being a Christian is similar to saying Islam is a peaceful religion. You are just so far off base there is no point in arguing with you, you are beyond any hope. Perhaps you may consider moving to China or N. Korea where everything is fair.

Originally posted by redneck13
It is a well-known fact communism is not a sustainable vehicle for the growth and enrichment of any society.

No, it is a well known myth created by those who appose losing their power and wealth.

It is to treat every citizen as the same, no citizen is the same.

That is not communism.

I suggest you read a book, or two, instead of just believing those who have a vested interested in demonizing any social movement of the people. Yes communism, socialism, came from the people, not politicians.

The idea of socialism came from the industrial workers in the industrial revolution, where work conditions were really bad and pay really low. The workers realised they would be better off if they owned and controlled their mills, and factories themselves. All the rest of the crap that has been done under the same of communism is not communism, but the powers that be doing all they can to keep the workers from actually creating a worker owned and controlled economy.

If only you would look at this with an open mind, and not from the conditioning you have been subjected to by your capitalist overlords. What happened in the past by governments in the name of communism, was not communism, just like Hitler was not a socialist, or democratic eastern Germany was not democratic. Governments lie in order to control the people, especially between the two world wars when the working class became very politically powerful. The workers in the UK set up their own government, the Labour Party in the 1920's. Can you see that happening now?

Socialism and communism were ideas formed long before any government used those terms, and you have to go back to those times to understand what is really is, and then you can follow the historical path that leads to all the misunderstandings people have about it.

It's sad, especially on a conspiracy website, that people simply accept what they are told by governments when it comes to economic and political systems. Yeah everything else is a conspiracy, but not our economic system, oh no they don't lie about that. Our whole political history is a lie, and major working class involvement in it ignored in our history books.

"The idea of socialism came from the industrial workers in the industrial revolution where work conditions were really bad and pay really low. The workers realised they would be better off if they owned and controlled their mills and factories themselves. All the rest of the crap that has been done under the same of communism is not communism but the powers that be doing all they can to keep the workers from actually creating a worker owned and controlled economy. "


But they didn't have the talent to build the factory( the business), they only had their labour,
secondly they were not forced to work and thirdly could negotiate their compensation.

Originally posted by Zngland
"The idea of socialism came from the industrial workers in the industrial revolution where work conditions were really bad and pay really low. The workers realised they would be better off if they owned and controlled their mills and factories themselves. All the rest of the crap that has been done under the same of communism is not communism but the powers that be doing all they can to keep the workers from actually creating a worker owned and controlled economy. "


But they didn't have the talent to build the factory( the business), they only had their labour,
secondly they were not forced to work and thirdly could negotiate their compensation.

Well I don't agree, but that is not the point. Making a business takes money more than talent. But socialists were not about making a business, they were about being allowed access to the means to produce for their needs.

Whether it works or not was not the argument. Until people realise what communism and socialism actually is we will never get to debating how to implement them. It's nonsense to say it wouldn't work because it has worked, in Spain in the 1930's. In fact it worked very well with production rising 20%. It didn't fail because it didn't work, it failed against overwhelming opposition from Europes right wing (Mussolini, Hitler and Franco).

The fact is overwhelming it should hit you like a pie in the face.
There is only one country in the world now that is considered a super power.

I'll just leave this here:

Yes, definition of freedom is different in different ideologies (as are rights).

Some consider only negative liberty (and negative Lockian rights - freedom from external constraints) as valid, and reject positive liberty (rights). Others, more to the left, include positive liberty (positive rights - freedom from internal constraints) in the definition of freedom (and reject some negative rights). Among these, there are varying opinions about what positive rights are valid, and what negative rights are invalid.

And in practice there is a tradeoff between positive and negative liberty.

Let's be clear about what all this yammering on about "positive rights" and "negative rights" are. Positive rights are civil rights granted by governments. Presumably "negative" rights are unalienable rights that preexists governments.

All people have the right to life, this is not a "positive right" granted by government this is a right that preexists government. It follows that since all people have the right to life that they also have a right to defend that life. All people are born with the right to life, liberty, and property. Land, or real estate, is certainly property, but beyond this every persons own person is their property, and the labor by which they produce is their own property as well. It follows that since all people have the right to property, they have a right to defend this property. All people have the right to love and care for other people, and it follows they have the right to defend those others if needed.

Outside of defense, anything a person does that causes no harm is done by right. This is not government granted right, but unalienable right.

"Positive rights" are rights such as voting. Voting for government officials cannot possibly preexist government and is therefore a "civil right", or legal right. What can be granted legally can be legally taken away. Life, liberty, and property are not legal rights and cannot be legally, or lawfully taken away.

Those governments that use "positive rights" to restrict unalienable rights are not defending liberty. The concept of "positive rights" exists to justify notions such as divine right doctrine, or the hereditary right to rule subjects. Unalienable rights get in the way of divine right rulers, they get in the way of dictators, they get in the way of totalitarian regimes and they get in the way of democracies intent on restricting unalienable rights.

An intelligent discussion on freedom cannot be had without the discussion of unalienable rights. There is nothing inherently wrong with legal rights as long as these rights do not trample upon the unalienable rights of individuals.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Those governments that use "positive rights" to restrict unalienable rights are not defending liberty.

Negative liberty.

The concept of "positive rights" exists to justify notions such as divine right doctrine, or the hereditary right to rule subjects.

Thats like saying "the concept of negative rights exists to justify letting people starve or otherwise die because of lack of basic necessities, even when I am capable of helping them".

Both concepts of positive and negative rights are social constructs that can be used to justify good or bad.

There is nothing inherently wrong with legal rights as long as these rights do not trample upon the unalienable rights of individuals.

That depends on your definition of "right" and "wrong" - on your moral system. I think there are situations where it could be justified, under my utilitarian morality. Depends on what specific legal and negative rights are we talking about.

reply to post by Maslo


You're desperate in this one my friend. Arguing that positive rights are justifications for doctrines such as divine right is nothing at all like arguing that unalienable rights are exists to justify letting people starve or otherwise die because of lack of basic necessities, even when I am capable of helping them. Indeed, all people have the unalienable right to feed the starving, they have an unalienable right to help others who lack basic necessities, and need no legal right in order to do so. Are you suggesting that if you and other tyrants "allow" people to enjoy their unalienable rights that they will act as heartlessly as you are so histrionically implying?

Unalienable rights are not "social constructs" what is a social construct is the argument that unalienable rights are "social constructs". People do not have a right to life because a "social construct" made it so. People do not have the right to speech because a "social construct" made it so. People do not have the right to peaceably assemble because a "social construct" made it so.

Only the tyrants and sycophants of tyranny will argue that unalienable rights are in invention, apparently missing the irony of such a statement, or ignorant of what unalienable actually means.

Originally posted by redneck13
The fact is overwhelming it should hit you like a pie in the face.
There is only one country in the world now that is considered a super power.

Oh I get in now, it's all about winners and losers, not what is good for us.

Just because capitalism is the dominant economic model, it doesn't mean it is the better system.

What you keep failing to grasp is capitalism is only successful for a minority class of people, and only because that minority exploits the majority.

Money can buy a lot of opposition. Capitalists have the state and government. Capitalists have organizations. Workers just have themselves. Capitalists have convinced people collectivizing is wrong. We are weak in our disorganization. They have you under control.

I love it when people get all antsy about Communism, all "oooh that isn't true communism"- this notion of "true" is practically meaningless outside of a textbook, so to really stump them, just say "EXTREME LEFT WING IDEOLOGY" or some such, they get all skittish when you mention Communism in a bad light

reply to post by ANOK




ahhh, but we haven't had "TRUE" capitalism

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Arguing that positive rights are justifications for doctrines such as divine right is nothing at all like arguing that unalienable rights are exists to justify letting people starve or otherwise die because of lack of basic necessities, even when I am capable of helping them.

Yes it is. You seemed to imply that the idea of negative rights cannot be used to justify bad things (and conversely, that the idea of positive rights can only be used to justify bad things).

Both can be used to justify good and evil alike.

Unalienable rights are not "social constructs" what is a social construct is the argument that unalienable rights are "social constructs". People do not have a right to life because a "social construct" made it so. People do not have the right to speech because a "social construct" made it so. People do not have the right to peaceably assemble because a "social construct" made it so.

The idea of inalienable rights is indeed a social construct based on natural law moral theory (and morality is subjective). There is nothing in nature telling us that some abilities (thats what rights are subset of) should be inalienable (notice normative, not descriptive sentence - hence cannot be derived from nature, because of the is-ought (naturalistic) fallacy).

Only the tyrants and sycophants of tyranny will argue that unalienable rights are in invention, apparently missing the irony of such a statement, or ignorant of what unalienable actually means.

"Inalienable" is essentially a buzzword. Of course they can be alienated.