I joined the Communist Party

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Great thread. Hawkeye and Eye of Horus have done a great job of arguing why Communism will never work. Bravo to you both. I don't have much to add except I wanted to say to the pro-communist people who claim that Cuba/USSR/North Korea, etc...are not really "Communist". I think you might want to come up with a different name for it then because these are the countries representing Communism whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by toolgal462
I think you might want to come up with a different name for it then because these are the countries representing Communism whether you like it or not.

They represent nothing but a nationalist state, where the workers were exploited.

It was not communist. Only MSM educated people buy into that nonsense.

It was communist in name only, it is not a description of their economic system, nor what communists want.

Communism is not totalitarianism. Quite the opposite. To be communist you first have to have socialism, worker ownership, not nationalism, state ownership.

Do you think east Germany was democratic? They were called the Deutsche Demokratische Republik, the German Democratic Republic.

You need to learn to recognize truth from political propaganda.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by toolgal462
I think you might want to come up with a different name for it then because these are the countries representing Communism whether you like it or not.

They represent nothing but a nationalist state, where the workers were exploited.

It was not communist. Only MSM educated people buy into that nonsense.

It was communist in name only, it is not a description of their economic system, nor what communists want.

Communism is not totalitarianism. Quite the opposite. To be communist you first have to have socialism, worker ownership, not nationalism, state ownership.

Do you think east Germany was democratic? They were called the Deutsche Demokratische Republik, the German Democratic Republic.

You need to learn to recognize truth from political propaganda.

Of course communism is totalitarian. Totalitarianism is nanny statism. That means the State controls you cradle to grave. Communism is State control cradle to grave. Stop trying to paint Italian and german fascism as being essentially different from Russian communism. Both models are of the same leftist mindset. The Rockefellers funded the Bolsheviks, so don't leave out the corporate funding of that model. Hitler's model was socialist. Socialists use corporate funding too, don't think that the current socialist in the WH isn't using corporate funding. The Soviet Union had to borrow money after the communist system was unable to produce and export grain the way they did before.
If you think that in a communist system, the State isn't going to control where you live, what job you take, and so on, you are sadly mistaken. If it were not so, it would be free enterprise.

Originally posted by nenothtu
A three year run, huh? You don't say,,,

A three year run can be considered a "success" if you only expected it to run for two years before implosion. Otherwise, not so much...

But it didn't fail, it was violently apposed by the fascists. Hitler was bombing them everyday, Franco's troupes killing them. There was a civil war, Franco trying to impose a military takeover after the Republic government collapsed. The anarchist socialists took advantage of the war and a revolution was born along side the civil war.

Under those conditions they still managed to increase production, and increase their standard of living. I would call that success. It didn't fail because it didn't work.

Now you could argue it failed because it couldn't protect itself from the fascists, but that isn't really a fair argument. Unless you think safety is more important than liberty. You should praising the socialists for at least trying, or are we all supposed to just allow ourselves to be put into bondage? The working class struggle is everyone's struggle.

We are at war in a foreign country, and our production is decreasing, and so is our standard of living.

Originally posted by Torbu
reply to post by beezzer

 

Do you throw your garbage on the street instead of using garbage can?

If you do then you are irresponsible, hence you don't have the authority to make that decision as you tend to make ill decisions.

If you use a proper garbage can and you understand why recycling is important you'd also understand that resources are limited therefore you'd be able to decide by yourself.

Interesting theory from your textbook idealism.

By the way, can you list the "qualifications" that would make someone smarter and better and thus have the "authority" to decide who is "irresponsible" or who would decide what is a "proper garbage can" ?

From what I know, the majority of financial boondoggles and social screw ups were all caused by the most highly educated people in the world. Most of them seemed to subscribe to these wild leftist utopias.

Unless the excuse for failure is "we have to try it so we can see if it works".

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The Rockefellers funded the Bolsheviks, so don't leave out the corporate funding of that model.

The Rothschilds were also behind Marx. That's the really fun part.

Mind you, the reason why I don't have problems with ANOK, is because generally speaking she quotes other people. Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky were shills of the cabal. Kropotkin wasn't, from what I've been able to gather...and Bakunin at least doesn't sound as though he was, either.

What ANOK is trying to explain to you, is that there is a form of Socialism that isn't necessarily affiliated with the cabal. The problem is, however, that at this point the words Socialism and Communism have been sufficiently contaminated by the cabal, that we probably need a new one. The problem with that, however, is that the cabal will then just corrupt that word as well. That's what they do.

Originally posted by petrus4
The Rothschilds were also behind Marx.

Thanx for the support but I am a he, lol.

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

They did finance Lenin and Trotsky, but not because they wanted to support communism. Just like capitalists supported Hitler, not because they supported what he did, simply because capitalists have no morals and making money is all that matters. It was all part of the move to a one world economy and a one world government. All for the benefit of appropriating resources in order to make profit.

This article claims it is a myth...

It is frequently claimed that The Rothschilds funded Karl Marx while he was writing his Communist Manifesto. It is said that there are two cheques in the British Museum made out to Karl Marx for several thousand pounds and signed by Nathan Rothschild. This is a myth. However, the nonexistence of the cheques does not mean that the Rothschilds did not fund, or help fund, Karl Marx. At this writing, this journalist has been unable to find hard evidence of who funded Marx (input solicited).

There is no evidence for that claim. I have looked myself.

Originally posted by ANOK
Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Karl Marx and the Rothschilds

The first time I saw said claim was in Red Symphony, but this is very interesting.

It was all part of the move to a one world economy and a one world government. All for the benefit of appropriating resources in order to make profit.

Yep, exactly my point; and as you've explained at length, ANOK, this is what is making things so hard for you. The cabal have done what was described in Red Symphony; they've taken the genuine egalitarianism that a lot of people want, and sold people a formalised mess which contains exactly the opposite.

Also, don't view absence of evidence between the Rothschilds and Marx, if you can't find a particular form of it, as evidence of absence. If there is one thing that the cabal are exceptionally good at doing, it's covering their tracks.

Originally posted by Nonconductive
reply to post by Komodo

 

Posts like this make me ashamed to be an American. It's no wonder the whole world agrees that we're a bunch of gun toting red necks when people who "think" (I'm using that term lightly) like this represent us to the rest of the world.

yea..

and if you're ashamed to be American..

do something about it.. READ THE CONSTITUTION and

STOP VOTING~!

I guess..

I'll make a troll thread and state it..

I'm a Capitalist

and get 100 flats and 100stars as well..

Originally posted by brukernavn

What does freedom of speech have to do with communism?

Excellent question!

Why ISN'T there a relationship between free speech and communism?

The typical family generally shares things very frequently. Living space, dinner table, food, and so on. Who here has ever lived in a family? A form of communism perhaps. What if several families formed a "hamlet" where each family operated like an individual within a larger family? That would be communism on a larger scale. What if several "hamlets" form a "town" and several "towns" form a "city" and so on until the world is one big family? It would be worldwide communism as Marx envisioned it.

Originally posted by ANOK

Communism is not totalitarianism. Quite the opposite. To be communist you first have to have socialism, worker ownership, not nationalism, state ownership.

I'm intrigued. How did Marx propose to differentiate these privately owned corporations from any other privately owned corporation by bypassing the government?

Originally posted by petrus4
Also, don't view absence of evidence between the Rothschilds and Marx, if you can't find a particular form of it, as evidence of absence. If there is one thing that the cabal are exceptionally good at doing, it's covering their tracks.

LOL so you believe it on faith? That website proves nothing.

But what does it matter anyway, I am not a Marxist. Marxism is not socialism. What Marx did, or what he said, does not change what socialism is.

If he was financed by the Rothchild's they obvioulsy had reason for it, and that reason would not be because they supported worker ownership. Maybe they thought they could buy and control Marx thus control the movement in order to cause it to fail. This is what they do.

Don't mean to pick on you, but this is a good example of assuming without thinking critically, and understanding all the facts surrounding these claims. The capitalist class has every motive in the world to attempt to discredit the left, and weaken the power of the working class. This is why it is important to understand the history of the working class struggle since the begging of the industrial revolution.

During the 50's true working class socialism was replaced by middle class liberalism, which was then sold as socialism. Liberals wanted a social safety net, government handouts, socialists wanted to completely replace the economy to one where a social safety was not needed.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by nenothtu
A three year run, huh? You don't say,,,

A three year run can be considered a "success" if you only expected it to run for two years before implosion. Otherwise, not so much...

But it didn't fail, it was violently apposed by the fascists. Hitler was bombing them everyday, Franco's troupes killing them. There was a civil war, Franco trying to impose a military takeover after the Republic government collapsed. The anarchist socialists took advantage of the war and a revolution was born along side the civil war.

So you are essentially arguing that these "workers paradises" are weak constructs that cannot stand in the face of adversity, and cannot produce enough resources to even defend themselves.

Under those conditions they still managed to increase production, and increase their standard of living.

I would call that success. It didn't fail because it didn't work.

To quote a line from a movie I heard one time or another "Dyin' ain't much of a livin' ".

What do you call it where you come from when something cannot sustain itself? we call that "failure" around here. When something cannot sustain itself, it is said to "not work" around here. maybe we just look at things funny.

Now you could argue it failed because it couldn't protect itself from the fascists, but that isn't really a fair argument.

Of course it is. Failure is failure. It implies a "not-workingness".

Unless you think safety is more important than liberty.

They are not mutually exclusive. That's the same faulty line of reasoning that the current leftists are using to try to ram "security measures" down our throats because of the ubiquitous "terrorist under the bed".

You should praising the socialists for at least trying, or are we all supposed to just allow ourselves to be put into bondage?

I praise whom I choose. Socialists are not among them, because they failed to think it through before just jumping at it. You can allow yourself to be put into bondage if you like - I won't, but I won't stop you from doing it to yourself. I WILL stop you from doing it to me, however.

The working class struggle is everyone's struggle.

Speak for yourself. It's not mine until someone can give me a good reason to make it mine.

We are at war in a foreign country, and our production is decreasing, and so is our standard of living.

"We". "Our". Your thinking begins in a collectivist nature, and ends there as well. It doesn't surprise me that you feel a need to run with the pack. You seem unable to conceive of any other possibility.

Originally posted by Tadeusz
The typical family generally shares things very frequently. Living space, dinner table, food, and so on. Who here has ever lived in a family? A form of communism perhaps. What if several families formed a "hamlet" where each family operated like an individual within a larger family? That would be communism on a larger scale. What if several "hamlets" form a "town" and several "towns" form a "city" and so on until the world is one big family? It would be worldwide communism as Marx envisioned it.

edit on 13-6-2012 by Tadeusz because: (no reason given)

At what point would "dad" spank us for taking the last biscuit from the breakfast table?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by nenothtu
A three year run, huh? You don't say,,,

A three year run can be considered a "success" if you only expected it to run for two years before implosion. Otherwise, not so much...

But it didn't fail, it was violently apposed by the fascists. Hitler was bombing them everyday, Franco's troupes killing them. There was a civil war, Franco trying to impose a military takeover after the Republic government collapsed. The anarchist socialists took advantage of the war and a revolution was born along side the civil war.

So you are essentially arguing that these "workers paradises" are weak constructs that cannot stand in the face of adversity,

That's pretty much what happened to America as well. There are some who would say that the Republic was dead after the Civil War. Certainly after the founding of the Federal Reserve.

No human institution can withstand the fury of the psychopaths. None.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by petrus4
Also, don't view absence of evidence between the Rothschilds and Marx, if you can't find a particular form of it, as evidence of absence. If there is one thing that the cabal are exceptionally good at doing, it's covering their tracks.

LOL so you believe it on faith? That website proves nothing.

I believe it because it fits. The truth tends to have a particular symmetry to it. Sometimes the validity of a particular piece of the puzzle isn't conclusively proven, until you find several other pieces. With the cabal, this is particularly true, because they are so good at hiding themselves. You tend to have to work backwards, look at visible effects, and ask whether or not the premise that you don't have proof of, is consistent with the premises that you do.

If he was financed by the Rothchild's they obvioulsy had reason for it, and that reason would not be because they supported worker ownership. Maybe they thought they could buy and control Marx thus control the movement in order to cause it to fail. This is what they do.

The point was to pollute things. To take something closer to your own philosophy, and then wed it with theirs, in order to create something which would then be discredited. Marxism was intended to fail, just like Capitalism. The plan has been to devise two competing systems, play them off against each other, and then crash both, in order to make it look as though the demise of both was inevitable. They then imply to the people that global dictatorship is imperative, because supposedly, every other conceivable system has been tested and found wanting.

Don't mean to pick on you, but this is a good example of assuming without thinking critically, and understanding all the facts surrounding these claims.

I can understand you drawing that conclusion. The cabal rely on people doing so; and as mentioned, they are exceptionally skilled at making it appear as though they do not exist. Red Symphony never mentions the word "Illuminati." They are simply referred to as, "Them."

So I'm not offended by being seen as gullible, or even possibly mentally ill. As I said, for those of us who are aware that they exist, they rely on the general public having the idea that we simply have a screw loose.

you all are good. highly educational. thanks to everyone who has taken the time and energy on posting in this thread. keep it going.

Originally posted by petrus4

That's pretty much what happened to America as well. There are some who would say that the Republic was dead after the Civil War. Certainly after the founding of the Federal Reserve.

No human institution can withstand the fury of the psychopaths. None.

I'd say the Republic was severely ailing after the Civil War, and steadily worsening through "Reconstruction". but that it was the advent of the Federal Reserve and other events surrounding that time that drove the final nail into the coffin.

The Civil War was a hypocrisy test - it told the tale of whether the men running the Republic at that time were willing to put their money where their mouths were in the matter of independence. They failed. They didn't value independence as much as they claimed, or they would have allowed the Confederacy to have theirs.

What we have now is a "Republic", but not the same one we had before that. This modified version is weaker than the original, and steadily worsening. It's an insidious cancer that has taken root in it, and as I told my dad way back in the bicentennial year of 1976, I don't believe it will survive to see a tricentennial. All the signs of an introduced organic weakening form the modifications taking hold are present, and it will steadily go downhill until it's gone.