I joined the Communist Party

More definitions

socialism [ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm]
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism

and some funny quotations

Quotations
"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years" [Vladimir Ilyich Lenin speech at Peasants' Congress]
"The worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents" [George Orwell]
"The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism" [Aneurin Bevan]
"To the ordinary working man, the sort you would meet in any pub on Saturday night, Socialism does not mean much more than better wages and shorter hours and nobody bossing you about" [George Orwell The Road to Wigan Pier]
"Idleness, selfishness, fecklessness, envy and irresponsibility are the vices upon which socialism in any form flourishes and which it in turn encourages. But socialism's devilishly clever tactic is to play up to all those human failings, while making those who practise them feel good about it" [Margaret Thatcher Nicholas Ridley Memorial Lecture]
"Socialism can only arrive by bicycle" [José Antonio Viera Gallo]
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

www.thefreedictionary.com...

It's good to know some of the history of the times, if anybody really cares about learning something, and not just bickering.

This was written by Peter Kropotkin in 1913, as Europe was on the brink of WWI. Nothing has really changed much other than the players, the game is still the same. This is the history you're not taught in school.

In 1883, when England, Germany, Austria, and Roumania, taking advantage of the isolation of France, leagued themselves against Russia, and a terrible European war was about to blaze forth, we pointed out in the Révolté what were the real motives for rivalry among states and the wars resulting therefrom.

The reason for modern war is always the competition for markets and the right to exploit nations backward in industry. In Europe we no longer fight for the honor of kings. Armies are pitted against each other that the revenues of Messrs. Almighty Rothschild, of Schneider, of the Most Worshipful Company of Anzin, or of the Most Holy Catholic Bank of Rome may remain unimpaired. Kings are no longer of any account.

In fact, all wars in Europe during the last hundred and fifty years were wars fought for industrial advantage and the rights of exploitation. Towards the end of the eighteenth century the great industries and world commerce of France, backed by her navy and her colonies in America (Canada) and Asia (in India), began to develop. Thereupon England, who had already crushed her competitors in Spain and Holland, anxious to keep for herself alone the monopoly of maritime commerce, of sea-power, and of a Colonial Empire, took advantage of the Revolution in France to begin a whole series of wars against her.

From that moment England understood what riches a monopolized outlet for her growing industry would bring in. Finding herself rich enough to pay for the armies of Prussia, Austria and Russia, she waged during a quarter of a century a succession of terrible and disastrous wars against France. That country was compelled to drain herself in order to withstand these wars, and only at this price was she able to uphold her right to remain a "Great Power." That is to say, she retained her right of refusing to submit to all the conditions that English monopolists endeavored to impose upon her to the advantage of her own commerce.

She upheld her right to a navy and to military ports. Frustrated in her plans for expansion in North America, where she lost Canada, and in India, where she was compelled to abandon her colonies, she received in return permission to create a Colonial Empire in Africa on condition that she did not touch Egypt; she was permitted to enrich her monopolists by pillaging the Arabs of Algeria...

Industrial Capitalism

Capitalism is where the money to fight wars comes from. Accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few who can wage war on the many to further their capitalist interests, exploitation and accumulation of wealth.

reply to post by ANOK


Sure there's going to be all that anti-Capitalist rhetoric coming from a communist advocate...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Problem is modern dictionaries reflect the definitions after they were appropriated and changed by the right, as I have already mentioned. Those terms have had baggage added to them that people now use to define the terms, but that is wrong. The original definitions are the ones that matter.

The true original definition of socialism is the workers collective common ownership and control of the means of production, or words to that effect.

Even the Encyclopedia Britannica gets it slightly wrong...

socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

It's not public ownership it's common ownership...

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference.

Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the politicians, officials, leaders, secretaries, managers, are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.

Public Ownership and Common Ownership

You can't trust anyone's definition, you have to understand what it means by studying it. Dictionaries don't even agree on the definition.

You can have state socialism, which is a form of socialism, not socialism itself. Worker ownership can have a state or be anarchist.

Don't believe me how about the definition from the Socialist Labor Party. I would imagine they would know eh?

Socialist government is not state government. It would not rule over people and places, but would empower the people to rule over things. Socialism means a government in which the people collectively own and democratically operate the industries and social services through an economic democracy. And when we say “collectively own,” we are not talking about homes, or cars, or other personal belongings. We are talking about the things needed to produce and distribute homes, cars and all the other things we need and want.

Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them.

SOCIALISM—ITS MEANING AND PROMISE

No matter what the state system is, if the workers own the means of production it is a socialist economy. Remember socialism can be libertarian (anarchist).

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK

 

Sure there's going to be all that anti-Capitalist rhetoric coming from a communist advocate...

And where do you get all your anti-socialist rhetoric from eh?

C'mon be honest, it's not from socialists now is it?

This debate is a waste of time lol.

reply to post by ANOK


Look, socialism is collectivism. It is abolishment of private property. That is the most basic and fundamental definition.

If that is what you want fine. I don't and neither do a whole lot of other Americans.

And look, I never made you come to this thread and post responses to me. That was your choice. So if you found it to be a waste you can only blame yourself. Maybe you feel it is a waste because you cannot make me want your socialist Utopia. Therein lies the fallacy of the Utopian State, the fact that it has to be forced upon people.

Under communism you would likely have the State control your Internet habits.

I missed alot of this thread overnight, but i was asked about direct democracy without the state.

Direct democracy as i understand it does not need a state, it would look like a loose collection of various committees and organization. These would be centered around geographic locations as well as common interests. For example a committee of those producing electricity as well as a committee of those consuming the electricity. The positive to this system is that there is no third party representation, meaning no politician for someone to buy or corrupt. The aim here is each person having an equally weighted vote without wealth or status being able to boost someones influence. The obvious downfall is the huge amount of time that would be spent in the seemingly limitless committees one may belong to. It in my opinion is rather utopian, but i believe it would be ideal none the less. As a side not this system of decision making could work with capitalism or socialism, but seems to be more of a theme in radical left economic organization.

Also to clarify my comment about the 94 million kills, i was not advocating murder. My point was simply it is not a good argument because every system known to man has met opposition. With opposition you get violence it doesn't matter if its economic, political, or religious. I only brought up the other examples to show a comparison not to apologize for the evils that can be attributed to communism. The sorrows of empire are not selective, and we would be wrong to ignore the ills our own has inflicted upon the planet.

Originally posted by brukernavn--------->I wish that there was a forum like this in my own language. I may know English well, but it is a bit tiring to try to translate everything in my mind.

You might wanna try freak.no... as a large part of the users and mods support communism/socialism.

Originally posted by brukernavn
Recently, I formally joined the Communist Party. I have lost long time friends, certain family has disowned me, even my fiancé has left me because of it. Are there any other members of this forum out there that have joined the Communist Party whom have lost their friends and family? I am interested to see how people react to such a thing. In the West, people have learnt to hate communism and instantly abandon anybody with communist leanings. I will admit, I could be wrong for my beliefs, but has anybody else out there been ostracized for believing that communism is the answer?

MVH,
Josef

Well, I don't personally approve of your decision to join the Democratic party. I am going to warn you that when we overthrow your Kenyan born leader Barry Hussein Obama, we will have to purge many Democrazies from our communities, and put you all in the very reeducation camps you planned to put us real Americans in.

reply to post by jcrockva


WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

reply to post by Adama


I'm not exactly sure why you said that in all caps directed at me. I was simply defining a term as i understood it. I was not suggesting that direct democracy was the current system of government we have in the United States.

Originally posted by ANOK
The irony in all this is those who appose socialism are the same people who appose government handouts, but of course fail to realise that is liberalism, a direct result of capitalism, and under socialism there would be no government handouts.

So Socialism leaves the needy to die, or throw themselves on the mercy of private (GASP!) charity? Then removes the property of private people so that they have no ability to be charitable? Wouldn't gauging production to the consumption of the producers make charity impossible, since there would be no surplus or "profit"?

WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY! Republicans are Americans, we represent American values of free markets, less government, and liberty. Democrats, are communists, they represent totalitarianism, and redistribution of wealthy. All the things this TRAITOROUS OP now stands for now that he has joined the most un-Amrican President this nation has ever seen.

reply to post by nenothtu


The solution to those who find themselves in unfortunate positions through no fault of their own is difficult and hotly debated amongst capitalists and socialists alike. I don't believe either system wishes to or should address those who place themselves in these situations on their own. So lets cast that group aside as there will always be people who just are not useful members of society.

As for the deserving impoverished in a socialist system, it is my understanding the goal is to eliminate this group. This would be through full employment, much the same is the goal in a capitalist society. I have already stated and fully believe that currently this is not possible through socialism as i don't see socialist production being able to meet the need of all.

I also think there is some confusion between private property and private ownership in this thread. I think only extremely nationalistic communist would not allow for individuals to have personal possessions. This means that someone could own a house, personal land, cars, ect. The issue that socialist wish to address is who owns the means of production. They feel that the individuals who produce a product should own those products, the capital used to produce them, and most importantly all the value of their labor.

I also see some confusion with the idea of a market. Even in a socialist economy there would be a market, the workers producing the products would determine distribution instead of a capitalist owner. So there is still a potential for profit per say in that goods will still be exchanged. This profit if it did occur would be evenly divided amongst the workers producing the good. The issue is the pricing model, in a capitalist economy supply and demand determine quantity produced and the price it is brought to market at. The socialist model instead uses need as a guide for production and to some degree price. Price in a socialist model however does not always elude to money as some socialist wish to abolish money. Price can also speak of exchange value without money, meaning good for good. This idea has been expanded under the name of market socialism.

Lastly i am not endorsing any of these ideas!!!!! This is just an attempt to clear up some confusion.

reply to post by jcrockva


You should endorse CAPITALISM! America is based on Capitalism! CAPITALISM = FREEDOM, LIBERTY!

If we Americans lose the coming battle in November, people like this self avowed Communist (The OP) will be handing over the the names of all us patriots here who have been calling him out, and we will be executed by Obama himself!

Originally posted by Adama

Originally posted by brukernavn
Recently, I formally joined the Communist Party. I have lost long time friends, certain family has disowned me, even my fiancé has left me because of it. Are there any other members of this forum out there that have joined the Communist Party whom have lost their friends and family? I am interested to see how people react to such a thing. In the West, people have learnt to hate communism and instantly abandon anybody with communist leanings. I will admit, I could be wrong for my beliefs, but has anybody else out there been ostracized for believing that communism is the answer?

MVH,
Josef

Well, I don't personally approve of your decision to join the Democratic party. I am going to warn you that when we overthrow your Kenyan born leader Barry Hussein Obama, we will have to purge many Democrazies from our communities, and put you all in the very reeducation camps you planned to put us real Americans in.

You are so naive. I am not American. I was in favor of McCain over Obama, even though I did not like McCain. Have you not read this thread at all? If you had read this thread you would know that I am not Amerikan.

reply to post by Adama


How am I traitorous, considering that I am not an American?

Originally posted by Adama
WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY! Republicans are Americans, we represent American values of free markets, less government, and liberty. Democrats, are communists, they represent totalitarianism, and redistribution of wealthy. All the things this TRAITOROUS OP now stands for now that he has joined the most un-Amrican President this nation has ever seen.

edit on 15-6-2012 by Adama because: Telling the TRUTH

You are implying that Obama is all for the workers owning the means of production and getting rid of state control? Again, link please.

reply to post by Adama


First of all i am a free citizen of the United States and i can endorse whatever i wish to. This is called freedom, our nation was founded not only on capitalism but also dissent. I am a student of economics and like to discuss theory, the best way to discuss theory is from an unbiased point of view. We should not fear people who disagree with us, but people who follow the status quo blindly. It is ok to love capitalism, but it is also ok to dream of a perfect world. I have already stated that i believe that capitalism is the right system for our society as of today, but i as a free thinking person will not act as though the system does not have flaws.