I joined the Communist Party

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Not getting anything for laziness is wicked socialism? Wow, that even goes against YOUR ideology. I am absolutely forvirret.

*confused. Apologies...

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Redistribution of wealth is a myth when it comes to communism. There are the rich, and the less prosperous. The whole idea is that you get what you put into it!

Another one of those misconceptions.

Socialism does redistribute wealth, but only in the sense that because the workers earn the full worth of their production the wealth produced by their production is not redistributed upwards to the capitalist owner, but stays with the worker.

I'd love to know if any of those in the audience are actually capitalists, hands up now, or just happy in their slavery.
(this is where you laugh... if you wish, we are a completely voluntary organization, comrades please feel free to laugh longer).

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


If hard work pays under capitalism, why do the people that literally sweat their asses off and risk their lives every day make much much much much much much much much less than executives? Please explain.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I truly wish to find some sort of, what is the English word, middle ground? with you. I feel a sort of kinship with you. I do agree with some of what you say, but I see a lot of it as capitalist propaganda. I honestly would love for you to prove me wrong. I truly want to find my way in this world, and so far, through my many leanings through life, communism seems t he best way to me.

There is no middle ground to be had unless you wish to abandon the foolish ideas of communism. I do wish you well, but I will never support communist ideas, though you may personally be altruistic.

I think that many altruistic people have been caught up in the communist revolution, because they believed that people would be more equal, that there would be more fairness. I can understand that those qualities are what you admire. It is just never truly just in it's execution.
I prefer freedom, liberty, and true community based on love of mankind. In Paul's letter to the Corinthians he states both that we are our brother's keeper yet every man shall bear his own burden. This is the true path of initiation where we bear the burden of our own karma and our own labor, and yet out of the kindness of true charity we help those less fortunate. When a govt confiscates the fruits of our labor and then redistributes it for whatever purposes it wants, then we lose the real community and our freedom as well. It becomes an authoritarian process and not the love of the Holy Spirit.
There is a difference. I can give credit to my teachers for showing me the way.

reply to post by hawkiye


Please tell me how an American can find another job or start their own business. There are millions interested in your answer.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Why don't you back that tripe up with some hard evidence?

Really lol? How about the war we've been in for how many years now? Do you really think it's to save us from the new boogie-man?

Well um Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler come mind here oh how about Mao, Polpot, Edi Amen, Saddam, etc etc. you Might want to rethink this

Oh jeez Hitler was not left-wing, he was a right-wing fascist. Saddam lol? Mao killed no one intentionally, the numbers were exaggerated, those that did die was from famine that started before Mao was in power, which he had no control over.

You mean Idi Amen? He was a military dictator, not left-wing lol. Next... Pol Pot?? Another dictator, not left-wing by any stretch of the true traditional meaning.

As I have tried to explain to you the definition of a term is not based on what people do. If I called myself a christian, but openly worshiped the she-devil, would that mean christianity is she-devil worship? Again bad logic.

Since WWII left wing terms have been used politically in ways that do not reflect their true definitions, and the true goals of socialists. Socialism of the people, not of authority and power seekers.

I am debating worker ownership, you are debating kings and queens.

reply to post by beezzer


I am with you 100%. The people should have the power, not a small group.

reply to post by ANOK

What is a free-market?

Where product services abd business stand or fall purely on thier merit without government sanction/protection.

Is capitalism really 'free-market'?

Yes and more capitalism is the only moral system that defines to man his individual liberty, and therefore the only valid political, economic, and social standard for pursing freedom prosperity and peace

know you've been taught it is, but I doubt you've even questioned the claim?

They don't teach this in schools I have studied history unlike you I don't repeat internet blog tripe like you. This is not some theory this is historical fact! The proof is in the pudding an the proof is up until 1913 the US was 80-95% (and sometimes more) free market most of that time minus wars and a few government debacles here and there and it accounted for the most prosperous nation with the highest standard of living for the most people in the history of the world despite its problems and faults. That is not even arguable!

Do you think a worker having what he produces taken to finance someone else's life 'free-market'?

Of course not that is theft why would you even ask such a ridiculous question?

Do you realise that without the worker the capitalist is just a starving idiot with capital?

I think you got that backward without the capitalist there is no job for the worker to go and produce something to be compensated for unless he create his own company. Without capitalism he would likely not be free to create his own company. Where do you think the resources and means of production come from thin air?

In a true free market all producers would be free to exchange the goods they produce, not be exploited to finance someone else.

Where have I said anything different? Absolutely true so why do you think that would be a bad thing.

"liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality" Mikhail Bakunin

Liberty without socialism is freedom to choose what you will do with the fruits of your labors. Socialism is theft and diametrically opposed to freedom as history and modern society prove. All you communist Marxists want a free ride while someone one else does the work and are afraid to stand on your own merit and always blaming someone else for being a loser trying to use government force to bag a hand out you did not earn. And you dare call yourself an Anarchist LOL!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I appreciate your honesty. I personally believe that the world would be såååååååå much better if all could just be honest. Too many lies in the world, in my opinion.

reply to post by ANOK


Faen, you are dominating this thread. Amen to you. Keep going strong. Jeg er jævlig sint at the ignorance I see.

reply to post by ANOK

Oh jeez Hitler was not left-wing, he was a right-wing fascist. Saddam lol? Mao killed no one intentionally, the numbers were exaggerated, those that did die was from famine that started before Mao was in power, which he had no control over.

You mean Idi Amen? He was a military dictator, not left-wing lol. Next... Pol Pot?? Another dictator, not left-wing by any stretch of the true traditional meaning.

So you are claiming all these guys are capitalist? Wow just wow! There is really no point in responding to such ignorance. Might as well be talking to the wall here...Sigh!

reply to post by hawkiye


What does socialism have to do with anything in this thread? You aren't naïve enough to think that socialism has anything to do with communism, are you? In my opinion, socialism is bad bad news.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by beezzer

 

I am with you 100%. The people should have the power, not a small group.

The people only have the power when they are free period. You cannot point to anytime in history that the people had power under any other circumstances!

reply to post by hawkiye


Hitler was a HUGE capitalist. It is proven fact. I beg you to prove me wrong. He partnered with Ford, Rockefeller, IBM, and many others. Hitler could not have done what he did if he were not capitalist.

reply to post by hawkiye


You are absolutely correct.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by hawkiye

 

What does socialism have to do with anything in this thread? You aren't naïve enough to think that socialism has anything to do with communism, are you? In my opinion, socialism is bad bad news.

Anok brought it up and I was responding to him. However to answer your question socialism has everything to do with communism which is one of its forms. You are naive if you believe otherwise.

The enemies of freedom are very clever in trying to change the meaning of terms to keep people arguing because they cannot even agree on what a particular term means. That fact is socialism/communism/corporatism/fascism are all slices of the same pie. all have failed miserably and it is just amazing that people still buy the BS that any of them in their supposed "true form" are superior then plain old freedom and liberty that has accounted for the most successful nation in the history of the world despite its flaws.

history has proven them severely flawed and they are responsible from much death and destruction. Yet some guru or org comes along and claims all those failed models didn't have it right we have it right... Sigh

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Bearing your own burden and reaping only what you sow is exactly what communism is. Capitalism is reaping what other people sow.

reply to post by hawkiye


Communism is people governing, socialism is government governing and distributing wealth.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Bearing your own burden and reaping only what you sow is exactly what communism is. Capitalism is reaping what other people sow.

edit on 6/12/2012 by brukernavn because: misspelt sow

If I invent something, yet other people make what I invented, I should still gain from what I created.

Bill Gates created easy home use computers.

He's a billionaire.

Shouldn't he be granted that? The people that put the computers together shouldn't have access to all his wealth, should they?