I joined the Communist Party

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

The phrase "confiscating your paycheck" is so asinine. Where in their works does it say that you will have your paycheck confiscated? Is that not what actually happens under capitalism?

Are you assuming that everyone just voluntarily gives up their paycheck? Or perhaps in communism there is no paycheck to be had, just a credit for the basics. Either way, what is the difference? You only get what the State gives you.

the point is that redistribution of income is the basis for socialism, and communism is the abolition of private property.
Do you willingly give up your property? Sounds like Michelle Obama and her pie analogy, oh we are so altruistic we must give up our pie so others can have more(and yet she still has millions...where is her generosity with her own millions? and she is well known to spend plenty of the state's money for parties and travel).

Oh yes, the altruistic Michelle wears her tennis shoes costing hundreds of dollars to work in the soup kitchen.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Where do the works of Marx deny one the right to your faith and spirituality? I would love for you to prove me wrong on these points of yours. Truly. I am all ears.

reply to post by brukernavn


It seems that despite of the freedom of speech what there is no more is the freedom of thought.

So I say:

1) almost everybody equals. as in 99.99 % of the population if not more.
2) those equal have house, healthcare, job, education, food, and no luxuries.
3) today in Spain you've got 25% of the active population jobless, so no money at all. out of the 75% that works, 50% doesn't really have money either because 1000 euros a month it's not really enough for one person to do anything. Then another 30% of that 75% who you can say lives more or less like those in point 2 but not being sure that they'll still have their jobs tomorrow.

After these 3 points you people still argue about division of wealth a stuff like that... you guys are either damn rich and cynical or you just can't read!!! or... you think you'll get rich despite of the fact that you didn't make it despite of doing your best until now.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Again, you are talking about capitalism. When you get your paycheck, you only get what the state has left for you out of your wages. You truly need to try harder if you want people to take you seriously.

reply to post by Torbu


Statistics regarding Spain are relevant to the discussion of communism how? I am now thoroughly confused. Spain is far removed from the communist way of thought.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


What? Jesus, this is a normal country. You generalize and criticize a current political system and a country based in your experience thirty years ago.. wtf?

In the early eighties Spain suffered the change from dictatorship to a democracy. That change was inmense, and extremely difficult. Things didn't go well for anyone.. Even with that, in the sixties (much, much worse), my father didn't live the things you say, and he was poor too.

Nowadays, there's not a huge difference between your loved country and this country. The biggest difference is 'free' universal health care. That's one of the best things that has happened in this world, and shows a real step forward. This country is bad, but still there's a remain of solidarity.

If I had to chose between a corrupt country where you are completely on your own, and a corrupt country you can at least rest upon when the last thing you have, health, is in danger, I chose the latest. Agrupation for mutual benefit is the best chance we have, and communism follows exactly that idea. I find communism itself a good concept, but it's only that.. a concept.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I do not like Mrs. Obama much either, but again, what does any of that have to do with communism?

reply to post by brukernavn


Spanish statistics on income is what I had at hand and on a previous post I tried to establish a comparison between the life standard on 1980's Romania and current time Spain.

referring post on page 18:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Torbu


Åh, I see now. Apologies. I believe I see your logic now.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Where do the works of Marx deny one the right to your faith and spirituality? I would love for you to prove me wrong on these points of yours. Truly. I am all ears.

You know very well what Marx said about religion being the opium of the masses, and communists have sought to eliminate religion altogether. A casual search of communist Russia will find you those results. Still, it is a paradox in light of the knowledge that Marx and Engels were both occultists.

Every place you see Marxism practiced, you see hatred of religion, particularly Christianity.

This is just basic I know, but it is clearly stated

In the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as negative to human development, and socialist states that follow a Marxist-Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly antireligious. Due to this, a number of avowedly Marxist governments in the twentieth century, such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, implemented rules introducing state atheism. However, several religious communist groups exist, and Christian communism was important in the early development of communism.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is a fact that Russian communists persecuted and murdered Christians and destroyed the churches.

The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religion.[1

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept.[4][5]

Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture, being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals.[21][22][23][24] Many Orthodox (along with peoples of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions (see Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union).[22][23][25] During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled.[1]

In the Soviet Union, in addition to the methodical closing and destruction of churches, the charitable and social work formerly done by ecclesiastical authorities was taken over by the state. As with all private property, Church owned property was confiscated into public use. The few places of worship left to the Church were legally viewed as state property which the government permitted the church to use.

en.wikipedia.org...

So while the Chomsky's of the world proclaim that the new communist model will be more liberal, one should expect it to be as stultifying as the seculars in the US today who go out of their way to persecute Christians and abolish all Christian teachings in public.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I do not like Mrs. Obama much either, but again, what does any of that have to do with communism?

What it has to do with communism is her preaching of Marxist philosophy to the masses with her cute little pie analogy. Also Barack with his 'spread the wealth" message.
She knows she has a position for now as the ruling elite as First Lady so she is exempt from that which she demands of us poor proletariat.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


By saying that Russia was communist, you are implying that the people owned the means of production and not the state? Link please.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

The observation is that communists in power almost always are murderous brutes.

But as we've tried to explain, but you refuse to see reason, is those in power were not communists.

People in power can not be communists. It's a contradictio in terminis.

They used the term for political reasons, not as a description of their economic system.

From The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, by Jozef Wilczynski, a recognized reference.

"Communism

An ideology postulating full social equality and a political and economic system for its implementation as envisaged by Marxists. First introduced in secret French revolutionary societies between 1834 and 1839 and was derived from the french communes or small village communities which appeared in the Middle Ages (etymologically, the term can be traced to the Latin communis, meaning 'held or done in common'). The term entered public use in France in 1841 to donate the proletariat and militant revision of socialism, whilst in English it appeared first in 1843 where it was popularized by the advocates of OWENISM. Marx and Engels used the designation communism in the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (1848) to distinguish their socialism from the UTOPIAN SOCIALISM of the earlier French and English theorists."

Owenism

As for the original topic, no. When I became anarchist I stopped doing most of the stuff I did with friends, but that wasn't a problem for them nor they criticized me for my opinion.

Originally posted by brukernavn
In a true communist society, you only get what you put in. If you CHOOSE to not work, you get NOTHING. The workers only get what they produce.

Not true. If you choose not to work, you get carried on the backs of those who actually do the work.
Communism doesn't work simply because people get lazy and others get tired of doing all the work
and carrying those who are lazy.

Side note - Read Atlas Shrugged. It will open your eyes.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Where do the works of Marx deny one the right to your faith and spirituality? I would love for you to prove me wrong on these points of yours. Truly. I am all ears.

Still, it is a paradox in light of the knowledge that Marx and Engels were both occultists.

not sure if thats true. you may be right. but so what because:

Occult- The word occult comes from the Latin word occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to "knowledge of the hidden"

nothing wrong with that at all, on the contrary!

Originally posted by Torbu
Did you know that in Romania they gave us computer programming courses back in 85? We even had video games on them. And some of them were written in Romania. Never paid for any of them as they were free.

NOTHING is free. There is no such thing as a free lunch .. and no such thing as a free computer programming course. Somewhere, someone has to 'pay' for it ... either by giving their time to teach or giving their time to take care of the building or giving their time to administrative duties or having the money they earned taken away to pay for those people to do those things.

There is no such thing as 'free'.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Torbu
Did you know that in Romania they gave us computer programming courses back in 85? We even had video games on them. And some of them were written in Romania. Never paid for any of them as they were free.

NOTHING is free. There is no such thing as a free lunch .. and no such thing as a free computer programming course. Somewhere, someone has to 'pay' for it ... either by giving their time to teach or giving their time to take care of the building or giving their time to administrative duties or having the money they earned taken away to pay for those people to do those things.

There is no such thing as 'free'.

good. no such thing as "free"

no such thing as "capitalism"

no such thing as "communism"


they can exist on paper but not in the real world.


so what are you all arguing about again?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Not true. If you choose not to work, you get carried on the backs of those who actually do the work.
Communism doesn't work simply because people get lazy and others get tired of doing all the work
and carrying those who are lazy.

Side note - Read Atlas Shrugged. It will open your eyes.

That is simply not true. Communism is not liberalism.

If you choose not to work the community will chose not to support you. Because the means to produce are owned in common by the workers there is no excuse not to work if you are able.

The whole point of socialism, worker ownership, is we don't have to have a state and government hand-outs, we could simply produce for our needs if the means were available. The idea of a social safety net is a liberal ideology, it's not socialist as they do not advocate worker ownership but simply a social safety net to offset the inequality of capitalism. Some liberals are socialist, but not all socialists are liberals. Liberalism is not socialism, socialism is not liberalism.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

By saying that Russia was communist, you are implying that the people owned the means of production and not the state? Link please.

Are you serious? Everyone knows Russia was communist. Unless you are under 20? The point being that the ruling elite run everything while promoting the idea of the happy proletariat worker.

Lenin. After Marx's death, Lenin was strongly influenced by "Communist Manifesto". Having never met Marx, he based the platform of his Bolshavek party (later known as the Communist Party) upon its principles. Marx had predicted that communism would first take root in England and France, spreading throughout the rest of the world from there. However, he did intimate that Russia might be more ready to embrace communism, since it had not been democratized like the west. Lenin took this mission upon himself, and sought to carry it out once in power via the Communist Revolution in 1917. In Marxism, communism was a stateless ideal. Lenin believed that it would be embraced by the working class majority throughout the entire world after taking root in Russia. However, communist revolts that took place throughout the rest of Europe after WWI were successfully defused by incumbent powers.

www.worldology.com...

So we know that Lenin believed in Marx's works although Marx died before any of his theories had been tested in the real world. Let's see wha tMarx believed

Marx believed that a truly utopian society must be classless and stateless. (It should be noted that Marx died well before any of his theories were put to the test.) Marx's main idea was simple: Free the lower class from poverty and give the poor a fighting chance. How he believed it should be accomplished, however, was another story. In order to liberate the lower class, Marx believed that the government would have to control all means of production so that no one could outdo anyone else by making more money. Unfortunately, that proves to this day to be more difficult than he might have realized.

•Phase 1: A revolution must take place in order to overthrow the existing government. Marx emphasized the nee­d for total destruction of the existing system in order to move on to Phase 2.

•Phase 2: A dictator or elite leader (or leaders) must gain absolute control over the proletariat. During this phase, the new government exerts absolute control over the common citizen's personal choices -- including his or her education, religion, employment and even marriage. Collectivization of property and wealth must also take place.

•Phase 3: Achievement of utopia. This phase has never been attained because it requires that all non-communists be destroyed in order for the Communist Party to achieve supreme equality. In a Marxist utopia, everyone would happily share property and wealth, free from the restrictions that class-based systems require. The government would control all means of production so that the one-class system would remain constant, with no possibility of any middle class citizens rising back to the top. (You can see the full text of the manifesto at this Web site.)

further

Marx also detailed the 10 essential tenets of communism, namely:
•Central banking system
•Government controlled education
•Government controlled labor
•Government ownership of transportation and communication vehicles
•Government ownership of agricultural means and factories
•Total abolition of private property
•Property rights confiscation
•Heavy income tax on everyone
•Elimination of rights of inheritance
•Regional planning

Quite a bit of this has been already or is in process of being implemented here in the US, so if there is anyting about the US you hate, you might be hating what is already existing as Marxist communism and the communist party has you thinking that all the horrible stuff is the result of the evil capitalism.

B ut there it is in a nutshell, so if that is what you want, well whatever.
history.howstuffworks.com...