PrisonPlanet Forum

Elections, Referendums and Politics => US Constitution and the Republic: Acknowledge Defenders/Expose Enemies/Activism => Topic started by: shinjitsu on July 24, 2008, 10:39:59 pm

Title: communism
Post by: shinjitsu on July 24, 2008, 10:39:59 pm
I'm not communist but some people I know think it's the answer. Mainstream history shows all communist regimes have been violent and result in mass death. What is the unbiased history of communism? no propaganda from either side please.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: PaladinRoden on July 25, 2008, 12:45:17 am
I have found that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Only a free democratic/republic can provide for the most freedoms.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 25, 2008, 01:04:26 am
Comminism is the same thing as socialism and "democracy". It's about taking from some to give to others - to balance things out. It's wrong because it presupposes it gets to run our lives, instead of letting them evolve naturally.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: vladimir on July 25, 2008, 01:25:59 am
Mainstream history shows all communist regimes have been violent and result in mass death.

What's the "mainstream history" of Christianity? Genocide, torture, totalitarianism. And yet how can anyone with a conscience and any sense of fairness at all reconcile this with the message of Jesus? The regimes you have in mind were counterrevolutionary creations of vested interests and the creatures who serve them - the "Illuminati", if you like. Such regimes have been, and are, formations that have served, and do serve, to effect the liquidation of true communist movements. True communism is anarchism with an understanding of the class struggle and an appreciation for the importance of incorruptible revolutionary leadership (and this does not mean cults of personality or castes of privileged "revolutionary professionals").

Show me a successful capitalist regime and I'll show you a despotic dictatorship in the hands of a privileged few. All governments are dictatorships for the oppression of one class over another. Government is an unnecessary evil that will be cast on the wasteheap of history once those who live by labor have emancipated themselves from wageslavery, racism, and war.
 
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 25, 2008, 01:53:30 am
There has never been communism on this planet. True communism could only be chosen and participated in, not enforced and not by majority. Democracy as currently practised is just dictatorship in another guise, as people are about to find out. The whole charade is a total farce, always has been, always will be... until everyone realises THEY have to act from a personal responsibility stance. Fat chance at the present. It looks like the blinkers will have to be torn from their faces, rather than surrendered. I have a lot of time for the suggestion that this is what the whole situation is really about... growing up.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: vladimir on July 25, 2008, 10:55:39 pm
A primitive form of true communism was practiced in the early Christian communes of Greece and Rome. Work and meals were shared in common, as in the Essene communes. But, since these communes were trying to exist in the midst of an emerging empire based on large slave plantations and in which republicans and free farmers were ruined and murdered, they were bound to fail as economic units. After Constantinian "Christianity" came to power, these Christian communards were gradually enslaved or turned into indentured servants (gradually to become serfs). Many times, these serfs and slaves were owned by "Christian" bishops. The last slave to be freed in Western Europe was owned by a bishop.

The Founding Fathers realized that the seeds of liberty must be spread in order to flourish anywhere. True democracy could only flourish in isolated communities (mostly in the Western territories: Ohio, upstate NY, Kentucky) unless American republicanism could be spread to Europe. The American Revolution was subverted by the Federalists and failed to support the sons and daughters of liberty in Europe. As a result, the French Revolution was overthrown by Napoleon and the Directorate. Royalist England and the other royalist states of Europe were eventually able to destroy this Napoleonic perversion and set up a king in France. For all intents and purposes, the English ruling class then ruled the world. In America, those who wanted democracy moved west or joined together in unions of farmers, craftsmen, or millworkers (originally models of true democracy); here, a dynamic form of democracy which can be called "workers' democracy" emerged. This was not the so-called "democracy" of the emerging American capitalist state.

Just as the democracy of a nation must be spread or perish in isolation, union democracy that is not spread is doomed to fail. An effort to create a re-invigorated form of unionism was inaugurated prior to World War I by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and other true unionists, who named their new industrial union the CIO. Later, the CIO (after a spurt of growth in the 1930s) merged with the less democratic and counterrevolutionary AFL to form the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO was eventually subverted and used as a counterrevolutionary force to undermine workers' democracy and support anti-union and anti-communist front groups in Latin America, where currently the AFL-CIO is known popularly as the "AFL-CIA". Most unionists in the U.S. belong to a member union of the AFL-CIO and are under the thumb of what real unionists call "labor aristocrats".

True democracy (liberty) will not be established until workers, and the few surviving small farmers, rediscover workers' democracy for themselves and smash the chains of official unionism, eventually bringing all workers and small farmers into "one, big union" (the watchword of the IWW). They will have also to smash the governments, here and worldwide, which have perverted the unions for their own social control and war-mongering imperialist ends. This true democracy will be indistinguishable from the ideal of true communism (if "ideal" is the right word, since real communists rely on materialist analysis rather than idealism). But a very important difference will be that advanced economic methods of production and trade will be universally available once the workers and farmers take the large industrial enterprises into their own hands to serve the interests of society, rather than the profits of a few. Enterprise and trade will then be the right of all workers as social equals under the law, until such time as law becomes unnecessary and is replaced by a common desire for each to work in the interest of all. Only in this way will enterprise be truly free and democracy flourish as the duties required by liberty are part of the conscience of every man and woman.
 
We have a long way to go, brothers and sisters. Time is short and the prize is great.
 
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Amishism on July 26, 2008, 08:17:10 am
What's the "mainstream history" of Christianity? Genocide, torture, totalitarianism.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E3D7173BF931A25750C0A9669C8B63
Title: Re: communism
Post by: TruthHunter on July 26, 2008, 09:12:33 am
Communism never reached the end stage of it's development. It got stuck in the military dictatorship/police state part and never moved forward. The politicians didn't want to give up the power.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: scary on July 26, 2008, 10:02:24 am
It's the best idea, that we can all just take what we need and live together in harmony....

However on the average man, its unrealistic, for psycotic kingping elites bent on controlling the earth and killing nearly all humans...its ultra unrealistic.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: crutley on July 26, 2008, 12:39:42 pm
If you want to see the truest form of Communism / Socialism then see the Star Trek race called The Borg, with everyone becoming part of the 'collective' and loosing all of their individuality.

That's not for me, I like my Independence too much - even with all its draw backs and dangers. At least I'm still me and not some pathetic worthless & mindless drone.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: vcif on July 26, 2008, 02:02:56 pm
shinjitsu,

what is communism? the communists had a contest in Paris 1848 to answer that very question. the winners: Marx and Engels presented the communist manifesto which includes the 10 planks of communism. If that is what the communists say they are, then so be it.

Now, if you practice the communist way, the 10 planks which define them, then guess what, you are a communist. Regardless of what other moniker you put on it.

The bad news is that we in America are currently practicing every plank to the Communist Manifesto. http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html This clearly explains the dire straits in which we find ourselves.

Communism=socialism=fascism=totalitarianism= whatever other ism you want to name that does not obey THOU SHALL NOT STEAL.

As far as someone posting the "communism has never existed on earth", that is complete nonsense and a strawman fallacy (among others). Communism does not work because it is a violation of natural law- economic, moral, etc. It always fails in every way, as it must because it is just one giant Ponzi scheme and we are all on the bottom layer.

To me, communism is nothing more than a mechanism to enslave the ignorant. The sheeple wait in line for rotten tomatoes, while the party elite scoff down caviar and vodka. Your friends should take a look around, America is a communist country. A failing one at that.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: jereome on July 26, 2008, 03:56:02 pm
What's the "mainstream history" of Christianity? Genocide, torture, totalitarianism. And yet how can anyone with a conscience and any sense of fairness at all reconcile this with the message of Jesus? The regimes you have in mind were counterrevolutionary creations of vested interests and the creatures who serve them - the "Illuminati", if you like. Such regimes have been, and are, formations that have served, and do serve, to effect the liquidation of true communist movements. True communism is anarchism with an understanding of the class struggle and an appreciation for the importance of incorruptible revolutionary leadership (and this does not mean cults of personality or castes of privileged "revolutionary professionals").

Show me a successful capitalist regime and I'll show you a despotic dictatorship in the hands of a privileged few. All governments are dictatorships for the oppression of one class over another. Government is an unnecessary evil that will be cast on the wasteheap of history once those who live by labor have emancipated themselves from wageslavery, racism, and war.
 

Umm last time I checked this post was not about Christianity but communism, I know its hard for some to keep from God hating but please try to remember to keep to the current topic instead of bashing Christians.


As for the original post your friends that think communism is an answer are a bunch of idiots... all it takes is a quick glance at history and our current problems to realise that communism nor socialism work at all.

The only government that works for any length of time based upon history is the constitutional government that we possessed at one time, with revolts every 100 - 200 years to put the government back on track.

Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 26, 2008, 10:49:17 pm
What's the "mainstream history" of Christianity? Genocide, torture, totalitarianism. And yet how can anyone with a conscience and any sense of fairness at all reconcile this with the message of Jesus? The regimes you have in mind were counterrevolutionary creations of vested interests and the creatures who serve them - the "Illuminati", if you like. Such regimes have been, and are, formations that have served, and do serve, to effect the liquidation of true communist movements. True communism is anarchism with an understanding of the class struggle and an appreciation for the importance of incorruptible revolutionary leadership (and this does not mean cults of personality or castes of privileged "revolutionary professionals").

Show me a successful capitalist regime and I'll show you a despotic dictatorship in the hands of a privileged few. All governments are dictatorships for the oppression of one class over another. Government is an unnecessary evil that will be cast on the wasteheap of history once those who live by labor have emancipated themselves from wageslavery, racism, and war.
 

what he said
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 26, 2008, 10:52:21 pm
There has never been communism on this planet. True communism could only be chosen and participated in, not enforced and not by majority. Democracy as currently practised is just dictatorship in another guise, as people are about to find out. The whole charade is a total farce, always has been, always will be... until everyone realises THEY have to act from a personal responsibility stance. Fat chance at the present. It looks like the blinkers will have to be torn from their faces, rather than surrendered. I have a lot of time for the suggestion that this is what the whole situation is really about... growing up.

Damn that was well said... nothing wrong with communism, as long as you don't impose it on me or anyone else.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 26, 2008, 10:57:17 pm
A primitive form of true communism was practiced in the early Christian communes of Greece and Rome. Work and meals were shared in common, as in the Essene communes. But, since these communes were trying to exist in the midst of an emerging empire based on large slave plantations and in which republicans and free farmers were ruined and murdered, they were bound to fail as economic units. After Constantinian "Christianity" came to power, these Christian communards were gradually enslaved or turned into indentured servants (gradually to become serfs). Many times, these serfs and slaves were owned by "Christian" bishops. The last slave to be freed in Western Europe was owned by a bishop.

The Founding Fathers realized that the seeds of liberty must be spread in order to flourish anywhere. True democracy could only flourish in isolated communities (mostly in the Western territories: Ohio, upstate NY, Kentucky) unless American republicanism could be spread to Europe. The American Revolution was subverted by the Federalists and failed to support the sons and daughters of liberty in Europe. As a result, the French Revolution was overthrown by Napoleon and the Directorate. Royalist England and the other royalist states of Europe were eventually able to destroy this Napoleonic perversion and set up a king in France. For all intents and purposes, the English ruling class then ruled the world. In America, those who wanted democracy moved west or joined together in unions of farmers, craftsmen, or millworkers (originally models of true democracy); here, a dynamic form of democracy which can be called "workers' democracy" emerged. This was not the so-called "democracy" of the emerging American capitalist state.

Just as the democracy of a nation must be spread or perish in isolation, union democracy that is not spread is doomed to fail. An effort to create a re-invigorated form of unionism was inaugurated prior to World War I by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and other true unionists, who named their new industrial union the CIO. Later, the CIO (after a spurt of growth in the 1930s) merged with the less democratic and counterrevolutionary AFL to form the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO was eventually subverted and used as a counterrevolutionary force to undermine workers' democracy and support anti-union and anti-communist front groups in Latin America, where currently the AFL-CIO is known popularly as the "AFL-CIA". Most unionists in the U.S. belong to a member union of the AFL-CIO and are under the thumb of what real unionists call "labor aristocrats".

True democracy (liberty) will not be established until workers, and the few surviving small farmers, rediscover workers' democracy for themselves and smash the chains of official unionism, eventually bringing all workers and small farmers into "one, big union" (the watchword of the IWW). They will have also to smash the governments, here and worldwide, which have perverted the unions for their own social control and war-mongering imperialist ends. This true democracy will be indistinguishable from the ideal of true communism (if "ideal" is the right word, since real communists rely on materialist analysis rather than idealism). But a very important difference will be that advanced economic methods of production and trade will be universally available once the workers and farmers take the large industrial enterprises into their own hands to serve the interests of society, rather than the profits of a few. Enterprise and trade will then be the right of all workers as social equals under the law, until such time as law becomes unnecessary and is replaced by a common desire for each to work in the interest of all. Only in this way will enterprise be truly free and democracy flourish as the duties required by liberty are part of the conscience of every man and woman.
 
We have a long way to go, brothers and sisters. Time is short and the prize is great.
 

Why do you equate liberty with democracy when democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority? 52% could vote to kill the other 48%.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 26, 2008, 11:00:07 pm
Communism never reached the end stage of it's development. It got stuck in the military dictatorship/police state part and never moved forward. The politicians didn't want to give up the power.

And you think enough rebelled?
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 26, 2008, 11:01:01 pm
It's the best idea, that we can all just take what we need and live together in harmony....

However on the average man, its unrealistic, for psycotic kingping elites bent on controlling the earth and killing nearly all humans...its ultra unrealistic.

As long as it's VOLUNTARY.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 26, 2008, 11:02:51 pm
If you want to see the truest form of Communism / Socialism then see the Star Trek race called The Borg, with everyone becoming part of the 'collective' and loosing all of their individuality.

That's not for me, I like my Independence too much - even with all its draw backs and dangers. At least I'm still me and not some pathetic worthless & mindless drone.

Six billion unique minds is more powerful than one central mind.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: TruthHunter on July 26, 2008, 11:08:20 pm
It's the best idea, that we can all just take what we need and live together in harmony....

However on the average man, its unrealistic, for psycotic kingping elites bent on controlling the earth and killing nearly all humans...its ultra unrealistic.

Do you really believe that anyone else is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is someone else entitled to receive the pay for the work you did? If you buy two shirts, should you be forced by the government to give one away because someone else doesn't have one? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the government makes sure that everyone is treated equally and nobody has anything more than anyone else? That is what communism/socialism is about. The government comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Div on July 26, 2008, 11:11:32 pm
Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow?

"No", says the man in Moscow, "it belongs to everybody!"
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 26, 2008, 11:12:46 pm
Do you really believe that anyone else is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is someone else entitled to receive the pay for the work you did? If you buy two shirts, should you be forced by the government to give one away because someone else doesn't have one? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the government makes sure that everyone is treated equally and nobody has anything more than anyone else? That is what communism/socialism is about. The government comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.

This piece of writing should be secured in a museum, it's that good. Very nice summation, sir.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Monkeypox on July 26, 2008, 11:20:15 pm
The problem with Communism is, who wants to be the one who cleans the toilets?
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Damascus on July 26, 2008, 11:38:42 pm
OK, so why is it one choice or another when we really have a hybrid? Capitalist, individualism, and monopolies vs. socialist, collectivism, and the states absolute power. Is the only choice we have between fascism or Communism? Fabian socialist vs. the fascist?

Shouldn't we just try to keep the balance of power as stable as we can. Isn't it better to have the middle class be as wide as possible and the condensation of power and poverty as little as possible. Both Communism and Fascism concentrate the power to the few. People speak of the tyranny of majority, but what of the tyranny of the few or the minority? Dose that not exist also?

Power dose not share itself period, eventually every system you can dream up will be subverted as long as people have a desire to dominate one another. That is why many wait for a deity that has no use for anything physical we could offer. It is hoped by many that this being will be benevolent and uncorruptible and save us from ourselves. On the other hand, I have enough problems to just take one day at a time.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: changedname on July 26, 2008, 11:50:08 pm
What about a people helping society where all is owned by all of the people all of the time and labor is shared among those who are able to do the labor but the labor is limited to say... 1 month out of a year to produce what is needed for you and others who are unable to perform the work as much as the 1 month of work will allow to be produced so that everyone can share and have all that is needed no one gets money anywhere so that no person can make gains above someone else to put them into any position above another...Those with special skills will do the work needed for those purposes also the ideal would be to uncover the inventions that were hidden from us from those who sought to hold power over the majority..The inventions that have been shelved that would provide free energy to all the people both for electricity and fuel for our cars...If money is truly the root of all evil and this eliminates the money and we can only gain through our bartering of our labor then that would take away most any rewards for crimes which would drastically lower crime rate and allow the people to get back to the living that they were intended to do and all can become mostly independent to do labors for themselves to build, plant, have time for family and friends.. I would call this a people helping people society where all who participate benefit and those who do not want to participate can just do as they wish but will not get to be a part of it so that they get to take advantage of others labors...Unless of course it is someone who is truly disabled to the point to where they can do no labor at all.. but most can do something if it is nothing but to use their brain to figure out ways to do things better which could serve to help also.. But those who are not able will be taken care of by the labors of those who will work to produce not only for themselves but enough to cover the needs of others who can't perform the labor so that all are taken care of.. With free energy and a people helping community\world we could still have most of the convieniences of today, freedom from slave labors, reduced if not eliminated crimes and a much better life for all... But I know that because of mindset that has been indoctrinated into us from birth will cause many to say...What this can not be done because we will need a government or a governering body to take care of things...To that I will say... Ok so do you want a dictator or a free society that will require you to become independent in your own right so that you do not have to answer to someone else that say's ...Hey you can't do that it's illegal... The society I speak of would be one that understands that no harm is to be done against another individual!
Title: Re: communism
Post by: TruthHunter on July 26, 2008, 11:51:20 pm
The problem with Communism is, who wants to be the one who cleans the toilets?

My uncle went to Russia AFTER communism fell and even some of the government buildings he went to didn't have flush toilets installed. I don't think cleaning them is a big problem.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Damascus on July 26, 2008, 11:54:46 pm
Do you really believe that corporate monopoly is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is the board of directors entitled to receive most of the pay for the work you did? If you work two jobs, should you then be forced by the cooperation to get another one because someone else has all the profits? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the corporations make sure that everyone is treated unequally and only they have more than anyone else? That is what fascism/capitalism is about. The cooperation comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: jereome on July 27, 2008, 02:26:50 am
Do you really believe that corporate monopoly is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is the board of directors entitled to receive most of the pay for the work you did? If you work two jobs, should you then be forced by the cooperation to get another one because someone else has all the profits? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the corporations make sure that everyone is treated unequally and only they have more than anyone else? That is what fascism/capitalism is about. The cooperation comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.

This isnt exactly true, our country worked quite well under the capitalism system, until it transitioned into the fascist system we have today.
But a capitalist society where the government takes a hands off approach to governing the economy as long as everything is running smoothly for the consumer is the best government we can have. This system will only have problems as long as they support the society instead of taking bribes like they do now to favor the rich. i.e. through setting regulation, tax exemptions etc.. to benefit the few in order to give them an advantage so that they can drive their competition out of business.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Dig on July 27, 2008, 02:42:14 am
Do you really believe that corporate monopoly is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is the board of directors entitled to receive most of the pay for the work you did? If you work two jobs, should you then be forced by the cooperation to get another one because someone else has all the profits? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the corporations make sure that everyone is treated unequally and only they have more than anyone else? That is what fascism/capitalism is about. The cooperation comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.

you are comparing communism with national socialism.

when the state allows for one corporation to become so powerful (via subsidies/regulations/oversight/priveledged information) that it can create a barrier for competing companies to affect market share then you no longer have capitalism.

you have a socialized form of company power (like national socialist powers that Nazi German companies inflicted on its slave labor).  Basically the constitution is in dirrect conflict with national socialism.

the constitution allows for free market capitalism, however the constitution has been trashed as socialist agendas have run wild.  Here are a few tragic and unconstitutional programs...

-The Federal Reserve

-The IRS

-Department of Energy

-Department of Education

-NAFTA

These programs do not allow for free market capitalism at all; they are onerous programs of socialized nationalism and socialized internationalism.  These programs prevent the fruits of labor to be fully given to the individual that earned them. 

Free market capitalism has not been seen in this country for many decades.

You are simply comparing one oppressive government to another (Hegelian Dialectic).  The constitution calls for numerous limitations of government that prevents such oppression by government over its people.

This constitutional republic has been protected from communism/national socialism for many years.  But it looks like we are in store for a shift from National Socialist policies to communist policies with soon to be president obama.

rockefeller will hijack the anger against the national socialist neo-cons in this country to push for communist policies (can't ya just feel it coming?)
Title: Re: communism
Post by: MikiQuick123 on July 27, 2008, 03:05:52 am
you are comparing communism with national socialism.

when the state allows for one corporation to become so powerful (via subsidies/regulations/oversight/priveledged information) that it can create a barrier for competing companies to affect market share then you no longer have capitalism.

you have a socialized form of company power (like national socialist powers that Nazi German companies inflicted on its slave labor).  Basically the constitution is in dirrect conflict with national socialism.

the constitution allows for free market capitalism, however the constitution has been trashed as socialist agendas have run wild.  Here are a few tragic and unconstitutional programs...

-The Federal Reserve

-The IRS

-Department of Energy

-Department of Education

-NAFTA

These programs do not allow for free market capitalism at all; they are onerous programs of socialized nationalism and socialized internationalism.  These programs prevent the fruits of labor to be fully given to the individual that earned them. 

Free market capitalism has not been seen in this country for many decades.

You are simply comparing one oppressive government to another (Hegelian Dialectic).  The constitution calls for numerous limitations of government that prevents such oppression by government over its people.

This constitutional republic has been protected from communism/national socialism for many years.  But it looks like we are in store for a shift from National Socialist policies to communist policies with soon to be president obama.

rockefeller will hijack the anger against the national socialist neo-cons in this country to push for communist policies (can't ya just feel it coming?)

A very clear and concise explanation of the situation this country has been maneuvered into to. This strategy was also employed in European and Asian countries before and after WWII. What was obvious to those populations is not so with the American who truly believed it could never happen here or was lied to by their leaders. The tactics may differ, but the outcome will be the same. The difference at this point being the enslavement of the entire globe.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Damascus on July 27, 2008, 07:36:48 am
you are comparing communism with national socialism.

when the state allows for one corporation to become so powerful (via subsidies/regulations/oversight/priveledged information) that it can create a barrier for competing companies to affect market share then you no longer have capitalism.

you have a socialized form of company power (like national socialist powers that Nazi German companies inflicted on its slave labor).  Basically the constitution is in dirrect conflict with national socialism.

the constitution allows for free market capitalism, however the constitution has been trashed as socialist agendas have run wild.  Here are a few tragic and unconstitutional programs...

-The Federal Reserve

-The IRS

-Department of Energy

-Department of Education

-NAFTA

These programs do not allow for free market capitalism at all; they are onerous programs of socialized nationalism and socialized internationalism.  These programs prevent the fruits of labor to be fully given to the individual that earned them. 

Free market capitalism has not been seen in this country for many decades.

You are simply comparing one oppressive government to another (Hegelian Dialectic).  The constitution calls for numerous limitations of government that prevents such oppression by government over its people.

This constitutional republic has been protected from communism/national socialism for many years.  But it looks like we are in store for a shift from National Socialist policies to communist policies with soon to be president obama.

rockefeller will hijack the anger against the national socialist neo-cons in this country to push for communist policies (can't ya just feel it coming?)
I was just trying to point out the fact that things can be seen very diferently.... If you read my other post.....
OK, so why is it one choice or another when we really have a hybrid? Capitalist, individualism, and monopolies vs. socialist, collectivism, and the states absolute power. Is the only choice we have between fascism or Communism? Fabian socialist vs. the fascist?

Shouldn't we just try to keep the balance of power as stable as we can. Isn't it better to have the middle class be as wide as possible and the condensation of power and poverty as little as possible. Both Communism and Fascism concentrate the power to the few. People speak of the tyranny of majority, but what of the tyranny of the few or the minority? Dose that not exist also?

Power dose not share itself period, eventually every system you can dream up will be subverted as long as people have a desire to dominate one another. That is why many wait for a deity that has no use for anything physical we could offer. It is hoped by many that this being will be benevolent and uncorruptible and save us from ourselves. On the other hand, I have enough problems to just take one day at a time.

Isn't this another (Hegelian Dialectic)?  I believe we need both systems to maintain the balance. It is that we now have the worst of both systems not the best. This is why the middle class are being wiped out. Are you saying with no controls (Laissez Faire Capitalism) the market will balance itself out and not form monopolies? Right now don't we have socialism for the rich and free market for the poor? Isn't what Jesus describes in the millenium a good hybrid economy?
Title: Re: communism
Post by: TruthHunter on July 27, 2008, 07:38:16 am
Do you really believe that corporate monopoly is entitled to the fruits of your labor? If you work at a job, is the board of directors entitled to receive most of the pay for the work you did? If you work two jobs, should you then be forced by the cooperation to get another one because someone else has all the profits? Should you be forced into a lower standard living than you would normally enjoy because the corporations make sure that everyone is treated unequally and only they have more than anyone else? That is what fascism/capitalism is about. The cooperation comes and takes things away from people who earned them and gives them to people who haven't.

Other people work for a company besides those who actually make things. There is always an administration to any company and they need to be paid, too. Management and labor cannot exist without each other. Labor may make the product, but management sells it for the best possible price. When I get a job, I negotiate the best possible deal for myself. The corporation is not obligated to pay me any more than what is contracted for. The purpose of a corporation, just like a small business that you run yourself, is to generate profit for the owners, right? If you run your own business, you can't dispute that the goal is to generate a profit for the owner (you). So why should it be different for a large corporation? Labor gets paid whatever the company values it at. If you're not happy with what you're being paid, find someone else to work for. Under communism, if you don't like what you're being paid you can't just go someplace else to work because everyone in the same position you are gets paid the same everywhere. There is no inequality. Prices and wages are kept under the thumb of the government.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 27, 2008, 09:26:40 am
Can someone define their meaning of communism? Because I can't identify with any of your meaning's on this thread. Communism isn't what Russia or China have... that's dictatorship. Communism isn't about everybody giving their labour's fruits to others, or anybody enforcing anything.

Communism is individualism in it's purest form. The idea is everyone gets the basic's of life for everyone. The equality is not about financial equality. It's about fairness and freedom.

Lets take a community (or individual) who's organised hydroponics for growth, sewerage treatment and water. They provide their own education and have free energy. They choose to help each other build houses. What's left to 'want'??? Or 'Buy'??? Where's the need for 'business' in any form?

Now there is a 'initial resource' area that has a number of interesting options including a point where you could introduce money which would have very limited buying power as there's little left to buy.

Lets look at an individual in such a situation. Gets up in the morning. He likes motor racing lets say. Look around and there are plenty of people who love tinkering, building, designing, customising vehicles. No wages and many will still do it. As in sport, people do what they love for the love of it WHEN FREE. I used to swap engines in and out of my car at 17 multiple times a week at times because I wanted a few extra BHP out of it. No money involved. There are multiple examples of organisations that spring up, again no money involved, so racing organisations would come into being.
If you've ever watched snowboarders building ramps etc. you see examples of people building 'tracks'. The only issue that ever arises is 'Resources' and in this case it would be metal (perhaps) and as I've already said a discussion about resources, who owns them and how they are distributed is a very necessary one, although really the answer is obvious. Everyone owns the resources and everyone needs to be compensated by those wishing to turn a profit (or whatever) by extraction.
The bottom line is this individual can get up, go racing, or do whatever his heart desires.

This is communism. The ability to do what you want (normal pursuits) whilst having your needs met by sensible planning. As I've said. We've never had it and anyone that says otherwise please tell me where it occurred.

I get the impression people into money are scared stiff by the idea they may have to do something themselves rather than paying slaves to do it for them and the only thing they mind about current inequalities is, it isn't them in charge. In other words... those desiring money are as much parasites as any other aspect of the NWO. It's 'their' system of control. You just want it to be 'YOURS'.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: doublethink on July 27, 2008, 09:44:49 am
Its very simple people,

Communism is complicated, and easily corruptible (as are 99% of Governments). It requires alot of control, for the people and the Government, but is controlled by the Government. It needs to be accepted by the people, and embraced, not forced upon them.
Its an efficient Tribal Government, and it only works in small countries, with mainly agricultural economies.
More people, more control is needed, harder to implement.
More resources, capital, and land, more control is needed, so its harder to implement.
Regardless of if it is a creation of the Banking Cartels, or the Illuminati, there is too much control necessary for it to be a viable option, nor an appealing one to those who want to make their OWN choices in life, and not have to take care of those who choose to screw their lives up.


There is very little freedom in a Communist Society, and I want no part of it.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 27, 2008, 10:10:36 am
I say you are wrong there. Far less government would be involved but I suspect you are eying dictatorships again and using false labels of communist. There's either fascism or communism. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. All this 'workers' and Iron Fist stuff isn't communism and they can call it that all they want. It just isn't.

Then you get these people saying.... fruits of my labour. What in a capitalist sense? I'm guessing without capitalism most of your 'supposed talents' would be non-existant and that's more to the point. We'd all see you are actually a fairly useless individual and have little worth to society... and that's what scares people who are used to respect from their so called frnancial accumen. Its actually no skill worth bothering with. It's given credence now because it provides useful backup to the NWO scam sytem. But you won't have your fancy suits, or your fancy cars or your fancy yachts or any of these other poser requisites, that are curremntly making people 'think' they are 'a someone'.

It's easier to implement, less control and resources are needed (as I laid out previously)... No capital is needed and land shouldn't be owned anyway.

BTW when I say You I mean a generic You, not aimed at anyone specifically.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 27, 2008, 10:36:53 am
Just want to add... Community in the sense I'm using it can be an individual. We aren't talking about a communist country but rather a collection of self reliant communities. No government is required to build your own hydroponics. Its a tub, water and a few plants. Free energy can come from a simple box in your basement. It's government that stops you doing this stuff. I am the last person in the world to think we need government to do anything for us bar disappear.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 27, 2008, 10:40:48 am
this utopian ideal of communism/collectivism is philosophically flawed, that is why you cant get a straight definition of it, unlike for instance the very clear moral principles of capitalism/individualism with individual rights, voluntary contracts, mutual consent etc

communism simply replaces the individual with the collective, but by doing so it requires the abstraction (collective) to make decisions, such as the needs of individuals. when a collectivist says "from each according to ability, and to each according to need" that is a utopian ideal, but more importantly it dictates that a decision is placed upon each of us, who decides our ability? and who decides our needs? an abstraction?

i guess what would be called anarcho-collectivists, or as they probably refer to themselves, "true" communists/collectivists, would argue that we all simply take from the store of plenty, and can do any job we like. again, a very nice sounding utopian ideal, but again, who decides what needs to be made for the store of plenty, and who or what ensures there's enough for everybody? if the individual is not in charge of the means of production, if you place an abstraction in charge, that is yielding your freedom and your power as an individual.

there are two ways in which communism can exist, both are utopian, one is a completely benign government that can somehow know what is best for one individual and all individuals at the same time, and the other is without government, where human beings have a sort of collective mind that again is benign and can somehow manifest itself in a tangible way.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: TruthHunter on July 27, 2008, 01:10:01 pm
Let me give you my vision of communism

Let's pretend for a minute that I am a farmer. I manage to make a good living for myself and my family from my farm. I work hard and maybe employ some family members and hired hands and they all benefit from my operation of the farm. now let's say there is a revolution and the communists take over the government. Now they issue an edict that all farms are to be nationalized immediately. I have lost my farm without compensation. Is that fair? Now I, my family, and hired hands are told that we can keep working the farm, but we will only be paid a fraction of what we were being paid when the farm was run by myself, but we have no choice because if we don't the government will find someone else to work the farm for slave wages. All of our standard of living will be lowered if we stay, but we can't take our knowledge and skills to work on another farm because they are all owned by the state now and the state is paying every farm worker exactly the same. Now, maybe food prices might be lower and food products more evenly distributed across the country, but it comes at the expense of the farmers who are now forced into a lower standard of living than they enjoyed previously. It works the same if a factory is nationalized. Now, we also need to address this aspect of communism: "From each based on their ability, to each based on their need." So what this means is that if you are capable of doing more work, then the government is empowered to force that work out of you, so you end up with a situation where some people are working harder than others while not being given any additional incentive to do so. The people who are doing the least work, are unfairly benefitting from those who are doing more. This is where communism/socialism falls down because people are entitled to be the sole beneficiary of their own work. They shouldn't be forced to support anyone apart from their own family under the force of the law. If someone chooses to freely donate their time or money to a charity, that is all well and good but charity by force of arms is not charity at all but theft.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 27, 2008, 01:20:26 pm
Any resource exploiter would pay compensation into a Citizens Benefit Account. Nothing is ever taken from this account. It is equally split amongst all individual's. This does away with Welfare as everyone is always on an income. The profit of tyhe exploiter achieves two things. It ups the citizens income, and the exploiter is also getting this income, and it ups the exploiter's income via over and above profit. The relationship between the citizen's and exploiter's incomes would have to be discussed but needs to hold a fixed relationship. The benefit is the success is enjoyed by everyone and achieves entrepreneur attractiveness also.

I saw an article the other day about how a mobile phone tecnology using quantum tunnelling is a supressed technology. If that was true you could maybe have an internet with no wires and perfect security, no bandwidth limits and instantaneous, anywhere, anytime. Other implications are mind boggling.

Why can't we govern ourselves using such an internet? If a community finds itself needing/desiring something why can't organisation be done online?

If everyone has a Citizen's income AND has the main basic's covered free, anyone who wants to can set up trade and there are customers who may or may not purchase your particular product.

From this sort of basis capitalism rises up again but any success by definition HAS to be enjoyed by everyone, and those producing are respected as social aiders instead of selfish accumulators and they get their cake and get to eat it too!

Obviously lots of people are into environmental issues and I'm sure self organised environmental groups would be necesssary for resource usage issues... but again if on the internet all is open and anyone can make their point. Might sound like chaos but it would settle down as each found their niche. In fact anti-environmental damage is built in as that's would attract increased resource usage costs at exploiter level.

Seems a much better approach to me. No banks, Electronic Money? Its not bad in itself and cuts out loads of unecessary faffing about with exchange, printing etc. Remember we have perfect security for this to be safe and no government to switch you off. It's not an NWO system. No wiping of credit or anything like that.

We cure people and cut the medical establishment right down and i think It will be really really down. This would happen to a lot of sections of society if things did starting getting done right. Got to have a different system.

"This is where communism/socialism falls down because people are entitled to be the sole beneficiary of their own work."

Absolutely... but land usage is a resource usage so I hope you see how it fits into the scanario above. And there will be a transition period... but this is exactly the kind of thing that could be sorted out by radical solution discussion. Everyone wants to asisst you though because by accomodating you they put their own income up.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Dig on July 27, 2008, 01:29:00 pm
this utopian ideal of communism/collectivism is philosophically flawed, that is why you cant get a straight definition of it, unlike for instance the very clear moral principles of capitalism/individualism with individual rights, voluntary contracts, mutual consent etc

communism simply replaces the individual with the collective, but by doing so it requires the abstraction (collective) to make decisions, such as the needs of individuals. when a collectivist says "from each according to ability, and to each according to need" that is a utopian ideal, but more importantly it dictates that a decision is placed upon each of us, who decides our ability? and who decides our needs? an abstraction?

i guess what would be called anarcho-collectivists, or as they probably refer to themselves, "true" communists/collectivists, would argue that we all simply take from the store of plenty, and can do any job we like. again, a very nice sounding utopian ideal, but again, who decides what needs to be made for the store of plenty, and who or what ensures there's enough for everybody? if the individual is not in charge of the means of production, if you place an abstraction in charge, that is yielding your freedom and your power as an individual.

there are two ways in which communism can exist, both are utopian, one is a completely benign government that can somehow know what is best for one individual and all individuals at the same time, and the other is without government, where human beings have a sort of collective mind that again is benign and can somehow manifest itself in a tangible way.

nicely done.

I would add that communism denies free market capitalism which is the ecomnomic system that this country is founded on. Pure free market capitalism allows for limited government as the individuals are able to trade goods and services directly without any need of government inefficiencies/corruptability.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 27, 2008, 01:39:40 pm
Cruise4,

law? rights? freedom?

its all very well and nice saying things like "everyone has their basic needs for free" but it is a utopian ideal, and says nothing to how. nothing is free.

another example, these "resource exploiters", i presume you mean to say that free enterprise could still exist but "profits" would be taken away. this comes down to a point made earlier, who's going to clean the toilets if no-one's going to pay them?

yes, it is noble thing to work toward a time of peace and harmony, but how you do so will ultimately shape the outcome. how can you work toward charity by promoting it through force? i dont see how you can run a collectivist society without taking from some and giving to others...
Title: Re: communism
Post by: vladimir on July 27, 2008, 07:23:05 pm
... When I get a job, I negotiate the best possible deal for myself. ... If you're not happy with what you're being paid, find someone else to work for.

Yeh? How long have you been in the labor market? Do you really believe the usual employment contract is a mutual term of consent between two equally consenting parties? Yeh, you can always ask your brother to loan you a couple of million dollars to set up a business, or maybe you can beg for a loan from a friendly bank, or maybe just take the few hundred dollars you've managed to save and a mortgage on your house and set up a small business to compete with IBM(c), Microsoft(c), Sears(c), Best Buy(c), etc.?

Some of my family were Southern plantation owners. The Northern armies of liberation ruined their businesses and they had to work for "yankees" who took over the economy. Many of them own retail businesses or work for the government. I've worked for government (mostly schools) and been a small-business owner myself. Even so, that side of the family came out way ahead of the African-Americans whom the Northern armies supposedly "freed". And I take this as an ethical imperative to support my African-American brothers and sisters in their demands for a fair deal. My White-Southern family has come a long way.

This whole notion of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is a cruel joke and a bad metaphor. Examine the histories of almost any of the ongoing and successful businesses in the U.S., and you'll find that there was some big start-up money (or at least some very expensive ivy-league education and family support) involved - and usually some nepotism, fraud, and outright theft.

What's more, when you lose one job or quit it, you'll have to explain to the next employer why this was the case. And there are commercial spy agencies such as Equifax to help them doublecheck what you tell them. If this isn't totalitarianism, I don't know what is. What's more, I've been turned down on job applications because of my religious beliefs or because I did some work for the civil-rights movement (which is a common experience of many).

It was democracy that paved the way for capitalism, not the other way around.
 
   
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Damascus on July 27, 2008, 08:06:57 pm
Same old story, the Haves (or think they are)think Laissez Faire Capitalism is just dandy. It could be if there is a level playing field to work from, but when dose that happen? The have nots are looking for some scraps to be throne to them. It just that we live in a "FU I got mine" culture if you got screwed it must be your fault or your just lazy. Not that pure collectivism is the answer. We have never seen a proper non-elite form of capitalism or communism ever.

It doesnt help that the only popular economic belief systems also cater to the very few. Only the upper middle classes will use their dogma to convince the lower class to fight against the current ruling class (for the good of all). When they (upper and ruling) trade places  the new ruling class basically ignores the lower class that gets the brunt. Wow, I guess that's the answer to why people don't wish to wake up. In the end it still only benefits the few(no-matter which system your in).
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Damascus on July 27, 2008, 08:11:20 pm
P.S. "They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." The late George Carlin.

"Its a big club but your not in it" The late George Carlin.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Dig on July 27, 2008, 09:08:19 pm
Yeh? How long have you been in the labor market? Do you really believe the usual employment contract is a mutual term of consent between two equally consenting parties? Yeh, you can always ask your brother to loan you a couple of million dollars to set up a business, or maybe you can beg for a loan from a friendly bank, or maybe just take the few hundred dollars you've managed to save and a mortgage on your house and set up a small business to compete with IBM(c), Microsoft(c), Sears(c), Best Buy(c), etc.?

Some of my family were Southern plantation owners. The Northern armies of liberation ruined their businesses and they had to work for "yankees" who took over the economy. Many of them own retail businesses or work for the government. I've worked for government (mostly schools) and been a small-business owner myself. Even so, that side of the family came out way ahead of the African-Americans whom the Northern armies supposedly "freed". And I take this as an ethical imperative to support my African-American brothers and sisters in their demands for a fair deal. My White-Southern family has come a long way.

This whole notion of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is a cruel joke and a bad metaphor. Examine the histories of almost any of the ongoing and successful businesses in the U.S., and you'll find that there was some big start-up money (or at least some very expensive ivy-league education and family support) involved - and usually some nepotism, fraud, and outright theft.

What's more, when you lose one job or quit it, you'll have to explain to the next employer why this was the case. And there are commercial spy agencies such as Equifax to help them doublecheck what you tell them. If this isn't totalitarianism, I don't know what is. What's more, I've been turned down on job applications because of my religious beliefs or because I did some work for the civil-rights movement (which is a common experience of many).

It was democracy that paved the way for capitalism, not the other way around.
 
   

free market capitalism goes hand in hand with limited government, freedom, and liberty (US constitution).  We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic with public servants that are electable under a democratic process (there is a big difference)

in a true democracy, 51% of the people can take away 49% of the citizens rights and freedoms (like the right to maket your services to the labor market).

In a republic 99% of the people cannot take away 1% of the people's rights and freedoms.  They are unalienable.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 28, 2008, 05:47:29 am
Once again you deliberately mis-understand what I have said. I don't know why you do this.

"everyone has their basic needs for free"

I have stated exactly how a number of times now.

"run a collectivist society without taking from some and giving to others"

You appear oblivious of the fact that this is exactly what happens now. I'm addressing the implicit unfairness already present in the current system.

I'm seriously starting to wonder whether some people have an agenda on the finance front and it's not to the betterment of the human condition, but rather to hold onto what they have via the feudal/slave system we have had to endure.

Anyway those who can add two and two will understand the proposition I laid out and why it's head and shoulders above what we have now.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 28, 2008, 09:58:09 am
how can you blame corporate fascism on free markets? thats like blaming stalin on "true" communism.

and as for "how", you have not, you have said a lot of nice ideals, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, like decisions beng made etc, you have copped out, like all collectivists have to, because they cant answer it without plainly stating that the individual would be stripped of their freedom.

i am not oblivious that there is corruption in our present system, but i dont blame individual liberty for it, it is when individual liberty has been perverted, like government coming in and micro managing the economy etc.

you have not answered any of my questions, who decides who gets what job? promotions? who decides what people need? who decides peoples ability? whats the point of free enterprise if you cant keep the profits? who's going to clean the toilets if no-one's going to pay them? sure we have a ystem where we take from some to give to others...that is wrong and should be stopped, but you tell me how you can run a collectivist society without doing the same damn thing!
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Damascus on July 28, 2008, 12:03:30 pm
I forgot to post these links to back up my reasoning.

social darwinism:
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_2b.htm

Keynesian economics not that I agree with every part though:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/

Note: That Keynes was not a marxists: Its just one of the sites that post the original theories rather then the neo-Keynesian stuff that has been altered quite a bit.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: life0repeats on July 28, 2008, 12:37:36 pm
a lot of people making the argument for communism are arguing for no government - anarchism.  and the people making the argument against communism are pointing out the dictatorship communist governments.  its two different things and while people certainly understand that they still aren't differentiating in their arguments - besides one or two people. 

and to those saying capitalism worked in this country for the first few hundreds years have to admit that it was capitalism built on the back of slavery.  subtract slave labor from the equation and can it really work?  i tend to think it can't since I don't know of a situation it has worked. 

and please don't bring up we are still slaves since its an insult to the former slaves that really did have no freedom.  we can at least change jobs or move or decide to go into business for ourselves - and that's not even going into we don't have to worry about our children being sold or traded away with us having no say in it. 

also, i think "collectivism" is said as a dirty word on here.  but aren't most things partly done as a collective?  i don't make my decisions based strictly on my wants and needs i factor in my wifes wants/needs.  i factor in my daughters wants/needs.  i also factor in other family and friends and how my actions will affect them and my relationships with them.  and for most people i think that's the case.  its not all about the individual.  the point isn't against individual rights though.  its about demonizing a word that isn't negative, but has been turned into a label that has negative connotations.  i think there we need to differentiate collectives by the people and forced collectives run by the government.  voluntarily working with others is a good thing.  having the government force it upon us is a different story.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Damascus on July 28, 2008, 03:59:36 pm
Yea, there is a difference between slaves and peasants. We have basically a gigantic company store because of the fed and are rapidly devolving into feudalism.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: DNS on July 28, 2008, 07:52:31 pm
I would contend that with the advances in medicine since Marx first developed his theories, they would not only apply to “wealth” but also to “health.” By which I mean if it is moral to take money from a richer man to give it a poorer man then the man richer in money if poorer in health would have a claim on the richer health of the man poorer in money – e.g. if he needs a kidney transplant and the poorer man has two functioning. After all property rights are an extension of self-ownership. If one is not entitled to his property in full one cannot be entitled to his body in full either.

Would those of you who believe in income redistribution be in favor of organ redistribution?
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 28, 2008, 08:42:51 pm
a lot of people making the argument for communism are arguing for no government - anarchism.  and the people making the argument against communism are pointing out the dictatorship communist governments.  its two different things and while people certainly understand that they still aren't differentiating in their arguments - besides one or two people. 

and to those saying capitalism worked in this country for the first few hundreds years have to admit that it was capitalism built on the back of slavery.  subtract slave labor from the equation and can it really work?  i tend to think it can't since I don't know of a situation it has worked. 

and please don't bring up we are still slaves since its an insult to the former slaves that really did have no freedom.  we can at least change jobs or move or decide to go into business for ourselves - and that's not even going into we don't have to worry about our children being sold or traded away with us having no say in it. 

also, i think "collectivism" is said as a dirty word on here.  but aren't most things partly done as a collective?  i don't make my decisions based strictly on my wants and needs i factor in my wifes wants/needs.  i factor in my daughters wants/needs.  i also factor in other family and friends and how my actions will affect them and my relationships with them.  and for most people i think that's the case.  its not all about the individual.  the point isn't against individual rights though.  its about demonizing a word that isn't negative, but has been turned into a label that has negative connotations.  i think there we need to differentiate collectives by the people and forced collectives run by the government.  voluntarily working with others is a good thing.  having the government force it upon us is a different story.

having concern for you family and friends, or even the rest of the world, is not inhibited by individual rights, it is not the use of "collective" that is meant by a political discussion, -when the word "collectivism" is used, things like rights, and law are implied, not social conduct.

i really wish this argument was more focused, we seem to bypass things like philosophy, rights/law etc in favour of talking about the corruption of the other side and the ideals of the favoured side. it is from this context (rights, law, philospohy) that we can see both sides in the clearest light, with one side believing all rights derive from the individual, the other side that rights should be to serve the collective (im sure some would choose different words there, but that's the crux of the matter).

i obviously favour that rights derive from the individual, as the individual is the object, from which the abstraction, or collective, is drawn.

i can understand why some people would be drawn to such altruistic notions as "help everybody, all of the time", its not hard to empathise with that, but it is easy, for me, to see the flaws of such a notion, especially when it is to be achieved by removing/restricting rights from the individual.

its like, "we're going to help all individuals by taking from some to give to others", its like spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun, or enforcing charity with the threat of prosecution or exclusion.

i guess to me, you either own you own life, or you don't...
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 28, 2008, 08:44:21 pm
I would contend that with the advances in medicine since Marx first developed his theories, they would not only apply to “wealth” but also to “health.” By which I mean if it is moral to take money from a richer man to give it a poorer man then the man richer in money if poorer in health would have a claim on the richer health of the man poorer in money – e.g. if he needs a kidney transplant and the poorer man has two functioning. After all property rights are an extension of self-ownership. If one is not entitled to his property in full one cannot be entitled to his body in full either.

Would those of you who believe in income redistribution be in favor of organ redistribution?


 :-X
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 28, 2008, 09:32:48 pm
having concern for you family and friends, or even the rest of the world, is not inhibited by individual rights, it is not the use of "collective" that is meant by a political discussion, -when the word "collectivism" is used, things like rights, and law are implied, not social conduct.

i really wish this argument was more focused, we seem to bypass things like philosophy, rights/law etc in favour of talking about the corruption of the other side and the ideals of the favoured side. it is from this context (rights, law, philospohy) that we can see both sides in the clearest light, with one side believing all rights derive from the individual, the other side that rights should be to serve the collective (im sure some would choose different words there, but that's the crux of the matter).

i obviously favour that rights derive from the individual, as the individual is the object, from which the abstraction, or collective, is drawn.

i can understand why some people would be drawn to such altruistic notions as "help everybody, all of the time", its not hard to empathise with that, but it is easy, for me, to see the flaws of such a notion, especially when it is to be achieved by removing/restricting rights from the individual.

its like, "we're going to help all individuals by taking from some to give to others", its like spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun, or enforcing charity with the threat of prosecution or exclusion.

i guess to me, you either own you own life, or you don't...

Very well said... it's like here in Canada, (as another example); they legislate culture, especially francophone culture, and with the strongarm of the law. That culture can flourish on its own, and it will flourish if it is worth it to just one or more individuals. Otherwise it's not worthy of flourishing at all. Why should it be, nobody wants it? Screw the tyranny of the majority. I prefer my freedom.

But then, why are individualists also intent on creating groups and entire cultures, like the truth movement, and other stuff? Because it's voluntary. We need to sever ties with everything involuntary. It's that simple.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: vladimir on July 29, 2008, 03:17:48 am
If real communalism (commune-ism) is ever to be achieved, it will have to be achieved by free individuals acting in concert: not by any forced collective. An auto plant is a forced collective. The military is a forced collective. That's not to say, however, that such freely associating individuals can't avail themselves of the advanced organizational techniques of the auto industry or the military.

But here's something we have to be aware of, I think. Human beings are only hired or signed/drafted as part of the auto industry or the military, respectively, if those institutions need them. Right now as we speak, a large proportion (probably the greatest proportion) of the work done in the auto industry is being done by robots. The military is also planning to replace soldiers eventually by robots and are using robot aircraft already. Now I'm not against robots: I've even had some courses in robotics. But look how many scriveners (it's an old word for copyist/bookkeeper: Bob Cratchet in A Christmas Story was a good example) have been replaced by computer programs. I've personally had a small role in making this possible through my part in the software industry. Labor costs are a major cost to industry and trade, and there are whole disciplines devoted to figuring out how to eliminate as many of the human element in production and trade as possible, and as rapidly as possible. Still, who can be against progress, unless they're a Luddite?

This process of replacing the human element with machines is not limited, and it's highly exportable. Of course, if you're one of the diminishing number of those who actually own the means of mass production, you don't have anything to worry about for the foreseeable future. But what happens when a few financiers are able to run everything with a few Wunderkinds (German for "brainy people", "exceptional talents"). What's to become of the millions who are made redundant?

This is a terrific discussion on the Forum, and I'm content to withdraw and let it flow. But please keep it serious. I'm worried about the future. And yet, the future is full of possibility. We can't let failed experiments like capitalism and forced collectivism hold us back.
 
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 29, 2008, 06:36:26 am
"you have not answered any of my questions"

I haven't this time because you are being ingenuous. A good portion of the so called questions you raise are implicitly answered in an earlier post and by continuing to ask them all you do is show you either haven't read it or haven't understood it. If you looked and took the time to think you might notice No Tax, No Government, Total Individual Freedom, Free Energy Role, remember Antigravity, how water can be delivered free, how electricity can be free, how housing can be free, how bureaucracy is wiped out, how capitalism benefits everyone BY DEFAULT, how welfare is BUILT IN, how decisions are made...

Regarding Law... you do know I propose no laws and go from there. Why? Because most laws we have now are fraudulent. The Law is a major part of their control mechanism. Like all these things law sounds good which is how it becomes accepted, but does making murder illegal stop murders? The crime is the murder and when it happens it must be dealt with. As I've said before Communities can appoint their own Justice systems based on locals dealing with locals who know the locals and their history... like it used to be done and without all this poisoning and fraudulent capitalism crap people would be better behaved anyway. NOTE to Ally: I haven't said NO LAW!

I suggest start thinking and stop reacting to words like Communism or collectivism. The latter has been mislabelled within our societies and nobody is suggesting the dictatorship/communism scenario... the very opposite in fact. Two buddies sharing similar points of view are a collective, a family is a collective... why are you so misrepresenting the word collective? Of course we are a collective at species level? It's just nonsense.

Please point out the restrictions imposed in my earlier post. And as regards rights.... what are you talking about? If anyone won't go into specifics, or cannot handle alternative's or won't discuss them... it's you.

There is a slight issue caused by current situations I'd guess. The US has a good reason to cry 'Constitution' just now. I accept that. But discussion's such as this thread are about 'improving' and 'later' and 'what else could we have'.

Much comes down to resource usage. I take the view all resources are owned by everyone and everyone must be compensated for their usage. This is self evidently true. What we have now is a robbery by the few of the many and mining rights and all such fraudulent agreements is criminal activity.

Not only are you not promoting individual freedom but you are promoting a return to a slave system. And who's interested in discussing that? What we want is sensible 'alternatives' not endless rehashing of slave systems.

I try to tell someone about the  National Health System/Big Pharma scam the other day and they come back with so if you break your leg you won't go to the doctor? Can you understand the logic disconnect here? Another example is telling someone about property tax fraud and they come back with 'Do you use roads'. It sounds good, to them, but is actually a laughingly unintelligent remark.

These discussions remind me of that same disconnect. Thankfully there are some who can expand their minds still to encompass discussing alternative's in a sensible fashion not just argue from another set in stone position that we've all seen, heard and understand before.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 29, 2008, 10:22:07 am
this set in stone position i argue from is that rights are derived from the individual, you are suggesting that rights should be to serve the collective, i disagree.

ive also yet to hear a single point from any "collectivist" on here that is not based in some dreamy utopia land where everyone and everything is benign simply because we've gotten rid of private property.

and let's get one thing clear right now, i read and hear a lot of people say "oh, well, look, this is free market capitalism, look where its got us", this is BS, what we have is state capitalism, free markets and individual rights are not to blame for the monopolies, or the transfer of wealth, or any other "reason" cited for the need to abolish private property.

what you seem to be proposing, cruise4, is that we live in some kind of tribal communes, where all these "communes" get along with each other and justice doesnt need to be written down or organised...of course, thats not utopian at all... ::) 

cruise4, you either own you own life, or you dont, its that simple, this whole discussion is rooted in the right to life, liberty, and property, one side says they are absolute, the other says they are inferior to the will or benefit of the collective.

i know we might not agree, but please do me a favour, i never use the word "collective" in relation to social conduct or thought, i use it in the philosophical and political sense, so of course im going to react negatively to it, because i see it as the debasement of my freedom as an individual, but dont think i dont get what you're saying, i get it, and i know when you use that word, you are not referring to stalin or marx.

whats the point of free enterprise if there are no gains? how do you propose to meet demand when there is no incentive to produce? (i realise you are saying we can all do the jobs we like etc, but no-one wants to clean the toilets...)

you say that free market capitalism is the taking from some to give to others (i disagree), but even if it were, so is yours, the enforcement of equality is not equality.

Title: Re: communism
Post by: TruthHunter on July 29, 2008, 07:00:41 pm
cruise4, you either own you own life, or you dont, its that simple, this whole discussion is rooted in the right to life, liberty, and property, one side says they are absolute, the other says they are inferior to the will or benefit of the collective.


This is precisely the point. Do I own myself, or does the collective own me? If the individual owns himself, there can be no communism/socialism/collectivism, whatever you want to call it. The only way those things work is if we are all born as property of the state and the state has the right to determine our station in life. I simply can't believe the number of people in this thread who are so willing to knowingly hand themselves over as slaves to the state. If you come out of the mall to find your car and it's stolen, how would you like for the police to tell you "It's the property of the collective" and take no action? That is what you are advocating. You own nothing, the collective owns everything so you have no right to say "This is mine." No thanks.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 29, 2008, 09:21:20 pm
TruthHunter says "I simply can't believe the number of people in this thread who are so willing to knowingly hand themselves over as slaves to the state."

It's a good point, but don't pick on this thread. Most of us are the same.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: TruthHunter on July 29, 2008, 10:12:25 pm
TruthHunter says "I simply can't believe the number of people in this thread who are so willing to knowingly hand themselves over as slaves to the state."

It's a good point, but don't pick on this thread. Most of us are the same.

No, that is the entire point. All the people in this thread claim to be awake to the slavery and death that is being planned by the NWO, but in the same breath they say that they would like to live as a communist/socialist/collectivist, or whatever. Huh?? Does that make sense? They object to one form of tyranny but are in favor of another? I'll take freedom over collectivism and retain my right to own myself and my property. If you don't have the right to own property, or even to own yourself, then what freedom do you truly have?
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 29, 2008, 11:48:15 pm
No, that is the entire point. All the people in this thread claim to be awake to the slavery and death that is being planned by the NWO, but in the same breath they say that they would like to live as a communist/socialist/collectivist, or whatever. Huh?? Does that make sense? They object to one form of tyranny but are in favor of another? I'll take freedom over collectivism and retain my right to own myself and my property. If you don't have the right to own property, or even to own yourself, then what freedom do you truly have?

Well I agree 100%
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 30, 2008, 06:16:09 am
If you don't have the right to own property, or even to own yourself, then what freedom do you truly have?

+1
Title: Re: communism
Post by: life0repeats on July 30, 2008, 07:16:29 am
TruthHunter says "I simply can't believe the number of people in this thread who are so willing to knowingly hand themselves over as slaves to the state."

It's a good point, but don't pick on this thread. Most of us are the same.

i don't think its a good point since i think it misrepresents the view from those favoring communism - they don't want to give up freedom to the the state since they don't want "the state" to exist.  no government to hand over freedom to.   that's why i think this topic on the 2nd page has gone in circles to an extent.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 30, 2008, 07:23:04 am
i don't think its a good point since i think it misrepresents the view from those favoring communism - they don't want to give up freedom to the the state since they don't want "the state" to exist.  no government to hand over freedom to.   that's why i think this topic on the 2nd page has gone in circles to an extent.

it is exactly the point, whether you favour state or not, if you were for individual freedom with no state, then you'd be an anarcho-capitalist not an anarcho-communist. the fundamental difference, as i have said many times, is the difference in opinion of rights, one side for individual rights, the other for rights to serve the collective, as well as one side for private property, the other side for no or restricted private property.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 30, 2008, 08:00:23 am
Owning land is robbery/deprivation of others. Individual extraction of resources is robbery. Until you learn this, no progress will be made. Every last mistake that results in what we are facing now will occur again for the simple reason you start off from a basis of criminality... again.

(Land Rights... you have the same security of tenure/occupation as if you owned it. What's the difference here.... hmm no buying or selling hassles, no real estate crooks, no criminal lawyers or accountants etc. etc.)

The Indians had it right. Some of you have it wrong. I still say a few of you haven't understood the first thing about the sytem I outlined, purely because if you had, you would realise it gives more Individual freedom that the very system you propose... so how are you labelling me anti-individual. It's ridiculous.

Some Classic lies:
"this set in stone position i argue from is that rights are derived from the individual, you are suggesting that rights should be to serve the collective"

I didn't, I haven't and you are making it up.

"You own nothing, the collective owns everything so you have no right to say "This is mine." No thanks."

A total lie.

"whats the point of free enterprise if there are no gains? how do you propose to meet demand when there is no incentive to produce? (i realise you are saying we can all do the jobs we like etc, but no-one wants to clean the toilets...)"

If you really did understand you wouldn't ask this question because free enteprise would result in more gains and demand will be met in the same way as now. The reasons people clean toilets now are because they want more spending power... exactly as they would under my plan.

"what you seem to be proposing, cruise4, is that we live in some kind of tribal communes"

Another lie. I could virtually repeat all your posts and show the whole lot is one of reading into it what you want to read, not what's there.

I'm telling you, you haven't understood what I wrote. Whether you wish to is the question.

Why can't you guys argue about what IS said instead of what you would like to believe WAS said.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: TruthHunter on July 30, 2008, 10:40:23 am
Tell me this, how is it that you figure you are somehow entitled to receive a benefit from a company that BUYS a piece of land, BUYS the mineral rights for whatever is found under it, and then pulls what they find from under the ground? Do YOU own any of it? Did YOU do any of the work required to extract it from the ground? Did YOU put up any of the money to pay for the equipment or the workers to pull the resource out of the ground? Where then, do your rights to receive money from the exploitation of the resource come from? The only people with a right to profit are those actually involved. Do you claim a right to a share of the profits generated by Wal Mart? How about the Las Vegas casinos? Are you entitled to a cut from them? Should I be sending you a check every year for my productivity? You keep saying your proposed system takes nothing away from anybody, but that is exactly what it does. If you don't work, and I do, how are you equally entitled to have your needs met? As far as I'm concerned, if you don't work, you don't eat. The only thing you are entitled to is what you can pay for yourself. Nobody else should have to provide you with anything. You aren't automatically born with any ownership of anything, which is the only way what you suggest would work.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 30, 2008, 11:06:30 am
TruthHunter, you know i agree with you, and Cruise4, im sure you wont like me speaking for you, but i think the rationale behind what Cruise4 is suggesting is that we are all of one race, one world, one universe, therefore everybody owns everything, or put another way, nobody owns anything, that the earth or even the universe belongs to all of us. now, TruthHunter, im sure you are probably like me, and can understand that, but simply disagree that it is a sound basis from which to derive rights, i would have no problem if something like Cruise4 is suggesting existed, as long as it was born out of voluntary action, but in a political discussion it is fanciful day dreaming, utopian if you like, and this thread was started to understand communism, as a political system, not what people think the ultimate existence for mankind ought to be.

i do however want to point out i agree with Cruise4 on a great many different things, for instance, that it is entirely plausible that things like energy should be so abundant that they are nearly free (nothing is absolutely free), and i, like Cruise4, am surprised we havent clocked that one yet.

however, communism, capitalism, theocracy, these are all systems for the interaction of human beings within a society, and from this context i can see no more moral system than that of individual rights, mutual consent, and voluntary contracts...and before someone goes spouting off, "but that's what we've got now", you're wrong, and you should look into that (as goingetheric's line goes...lol)
Title: Re: communism
Post by: life0repeats on July 30, 2008, 12:42:25 pm
i've been enjoying this topic...it hit a lull for a bit but has picked back up.  actually has me going back and researching the topic to get a deeper understanding of communism, capitalism, etc.  i appreciate the responses back and forth on the subject.   
Title: Re: communism
Post by: DNS on July 30, 2008, 01:48:43 pm
Owning land is robbery/deprivation of others. Individual extraction of resources is robbery. Until you learn this, no progress will be made. Every last mistake that results in what we are facing now will occur again for the simple reason you start off from a basis of criminality... again.

The idea that land / resource extraction / ownership is robbery is an argument for collective rights. To be consistent you must assert that all resources are owned collectively, or your theory is invalidated by inconsistency. Consistency is a basic element of epistemic logic.

So it must follow that one doesn’t own ones person, or the organs contained therein, the collective does. The collective can dispose of it, in whole or in part, by majority vote. One is a “robber” simply for breathing in oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide without the prior approval of the collective. One is a “robber” for drinking water that hasn’t been allocated him by the collective. I could go on and on but you get the point.

I hold that the homesteading axiom is an a priori truth. Ownership applies to the first person to work a given area or resource, whether it is for minerals, farming, housing, etc. This also applies to ones body, as ones self is obviously the first person to work it or make use of it. It would also apply to the air one breathes and the water one drinks.

I am free, and would like individuals operating under the auspices of the state to stop infringing upon that freedom, so all others must be free. Sine qua non. Rich or poor, fat or slim, black, white, or any shade in between, a person’s body and previously un-owned resources obtained through use of ones body as well as those obtained through mutually agreed contract are owned by the individual and only subject to disposal at his/her discretion. A crime is committed when coercive force is applied to said property. This is the consistency of my position. 
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 30, 2008, 02:48:13 pm
I have already said resources are owned by all. Whose born with a certificate of ownership for land parcel A in hand? Who is to buy the sky? How can you not understand these things are not for sale to anyone. According to you if someone sells the Sky to company A, they can suck it all up and take it to the Moon? Of course not. And who's got the deeds to show God sold any land to anyone in the first place? He didn't. It was robbed and then sold on at some point. Robber Barons is a just phrase.

"So it must follow that one doesn’t own ones person"

How do you work that one out?

The money thing starts even before the creation of money. It all starts from Resource usage. We should be caretakers of land, not owners. If the people wish to 'allow' Company X to mine for whatever as there's no environmental or other impediment the company needs to pay for that priviledge... not the people as happens now. The company pays a 'rent' (sort of) to exploit a mineral to make a profit. I also doubt I need to remind you taxes are taken now. Its not a 'benefit. It's payment for their exploitation that the people allow.

"Tell me this, how is it that you figure you are somehow entitled to receive a benefit from a company that BUYS a piece of land, BUYS the mineral rights for whatever is found under it, and then pulls what they find from under the ground?"

So you are all for Shell, BP and Exxon acting as they do? They are fully entitled to profit from their work.... BUT its not their oil. It's everyone's so if they wish to exploit it everyone should reap the benefit 'for the loss of the oil and the occupied land to extract' the former perhaps being lost and the latter taking the place of other pursuits. The only thing the company buys is the use of the oil to make a profit. If something is sold now the money goes straight into some criminal's pocket. Who's given Bush the right to sell your country's resources to anyone? Or ours in the UK? The robbery starts and ends with resources and the current ownership system 'ensures' the same result we are dealing with now occurs again. Don't you think it might be prudent to see and discuss if there's a better way? I do. I assume you are against welfare and pensions in any form?

How do you not see that what you suggest is exactly how they set up the crookery in the first place across the board. The Amazon Rain Forest doesn't belong to whichever criminal 'buys it'. It's a 'world resource'. It belongs to the people and only the people should decide whether its cut down or not from the viewpoint of free and open shared knowledge. Ditto Water, Ditto Air etc.

"If you don't work, and I do"

Who's said only exploiters work? Everyone can do what they want. An exploiter will only attempt to exploit if he thinks he can make a profit. But if they want to use 'our' oil they compensate us for its loss.

"You aren't automatically born with any ownership of anything,"

But you are born into a 'shared world'.

I'm going to drop this thread. If we can't agree that resources are owned by everyone there is no common ground. It's a shame because that scenario I outlined doesn't half solve a lot of issues and negates many problems, including eradication of poverty once and for all.

I actually think the reason for whats happening is to overcome this own everything mentality. Its wrong, bogus and criminal and anti-humanitarian and holds us back terribly. Surely a world where everyone has an income and is therefore a potential customer serves Capitalism better than now?
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 30, 2008, 03:03:24 pm
"and this thread was started to understand communism, as a political system"

I do understand that. But I don't agree with the usual label of communist. I think its an example of them using spin. I am completely against the normal 'Communism' but maintain its a dictatorship. I am against professional Government and totally in favour of individualism. But whilst I'm something of a hermit I recognise others tend to group into families, friends, pubs, nightclubs, countries, earthlings, political factions(Ha) and so on. Talk of community has its place even when dealing with individualism. I might be a hermit but widen the scope a bit to a county and lo and behold I'm now part of a community. No man is an island, although I usually try  ;D

An addition to my post above:

"An exploiter will only attempt to exploit if he thinks he can make a profit."

Profit is a driving force to such an individual. Playing Music might be to another. Walking might be to another. Just because one person is a greedy so and so doesn't mean he has the right to own everything. Other skills are just as important to the overall well-being of humanity and shouldn't be discriminated against just because their talent doesn't lie in the profit making field.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: life0repeats on July 30, 2008, 03:09:13 pm
from reading up on the subject as i said i've been doing since the topic started i'm understanding certain communisms to see private property two fold.  1) private property that shouldn't be abolished such as me owning a pair of shoes.  or me owning a piece of land that i currently am living on.  and in possession of.  2) being private property that i dont live on but have with the intention of producing capital from (for example to mine for gold).  the 2nd circumstance wouldn't be allowed under communism since the resource is one that doesn't originally belong to anyone thus can't be sold to anyone person/company.  and in history most of the resources that have been acquired were not acquired by people selling the land they lived on to people who then lived there and worked that land they lived on.  often times its been land they didn't live on and land they took control over with force - such as Native Americans being run off land that was found to have gold on it.  would this be an accurate understanding of some forms of communism? - of course not the form actually ever practiced by the State though.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 30, 2008, 03:18:33 pm
I would say so. Look at Cecil Rhodes and the mapping out of African Resources, when it happened, why it happened and look whats happened since. Of course once you've robbed one people (like the Native American Indians), you have the wherewithall to move on to the next robbery and this is why they are globalists and why they set up economic disparity. Its all a very nice scam... for them. Should the people decide or the company decide? I say the people. And rather than the government receiving the money to supposedly spend on behalf of the people, I say the people should get it direct otherwise rampant corruption always happens. Look at the Alaskan Oil Field non development. That could save your country. If it was down to the people I'm sure you'd use it at this time. But who's in control? The Corrupt Corporations who 'BUY the land'. It's outrageous!
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 30, 2008, 03:44:29 pm
Cruise4, no-one can own all the air, suck it up, and ship it to mars, just the same way no-one can buy up all soil, and ship it to mars, i mean for heavens sake, lets take the first example of the sky (or air i presume you mean), wouldnt it somewhat impede the right to life to remove the air/sky? rather than the actual feasability of removing the sky.

Quote
And who's got the deeds to show God sold any land to anyone in the first place?

which God? your God?

Quote
 We should be caretakers of land, not owners. If the people wish to 'allow' Company X to mine for whatever as there's no environmental or other impediment the company needs to pay for that priviledge..

ok, so this is another wild utopian collectivist statement, first, "we should be caretakers, not owners", wow, great...how? you just get rid of private property and boom, we all just get along and share like the care bears? oh, i spose we've magically transcended to higher plane now we've gotten rid of that pesky right to private property - which is an extension of the right to life, which DNS has pointed out. and what if there is disagreement about how best to be a caretaker? majority vote on everything?

you talk about the "people" as if it is a single entity that can just make decisions (about individuals no less), but how? direct democracy?

Quote
 So you are all for Shell, BP and Exxon acting as they do?

oh come now, now you are the one who is being dis-ingenuous, you know full well that these companies, and many others, flaunt the individual right to private property, and trample all over the principles of individual rights, mutual consent, and the course of free markets that those principles would denote.

by saying that we believe in the right to private property, does not mean we endorse its abuse or corruption, the abuse of liberty is not liberty, its tyranny.

Quote
 Who's said only exploiters work? Everyone can do what they want. An exploiter will only attempt to exploit if he thinks he can make a profit. But if they want to use 'our' oil they compensate us for its loss.

here's another absolute cracker from you, Cruise4, ok, first "everybody can do what they want", how many people do you know that just love to clean toilets like its their only dream in life? and moving on, this is the real cracker "But if they want to use 'our' oil they compensate us for its loss." how do "we" come to that decision? who's there making sure this "compensation" gets used evenly or wisely?

you seem to place a lot of not only faith, but also responsibility into this abstract notion you call "us", that is what i have the most problem with, that you would take the rights and responsibilities of the individual, the object, and hand them over to this "us", this collective, the abstraction.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 30, 2008, 03:46:40 pm
and btw, in no way is what ive said an endorsement of the displacement of indigenous people, i find that assertion quite offensive really, it goes against every fibre of the natural law from which individual rights are derived.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: DNS on July 30, 2008, 03:58:25 pm
"So it must follow that one doesn’t own ones person"

How do you work that one out?

Simply put, you can not have your cake and eat it too. If collective rights are to be applied to land ownership they must be applied to ownership of all things, including ones person. You cannot logically have collective rights apply to some things and individual rights apply to others. Such a contradiction is illogical and based on faulty (inconsistent) premises. If you wish to deny the rules of logic there is no basis for a reasonable debate.

You also seem to operating under the faulty premise that any one of us arguing against the various flavors of communism are in favor of the criminal actions of the elite. We are not they are based on use of coercive force, which none of us are advocating. The application of coercive force is criminal and should be dealt with as such. Coercive force cannot be applied to un-owned property in the system we are advocating, only to property (including ones person) owned by a given individual. Nor can un-owned property be claimed without first making use of it. Please re-read my post in regards to the homesteading axiom.

I have no problem with any number of persons pooling resources and homesteading a given area to achieve the kind of voluntary collective you seem to be advocating. I don’t think, even among voluntary participants, that it would work. I am all for free individuals attempting to prove me wrong, though. There will be a lot of previously government “owned” land available, for homesteading, if a proper minarchy is re-established or a Spooner type anarchy is established.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: TruthHunter on July 30, 2008, 06:26:39 pm
"If the people wish to 'allow' Company X to mine for whatever as there's no environmental or other impediment the company needs to pay for that priviledge"

What do you think a company does when they buy a piece of land and the right to work it? When they buy equipment and hire workers to do the work? The company DOES pay for the privilege of exploiting the resource. When a company buys or leases a piece of land from the federal government, that money is supposed to go to the treasury, so it benefits us all because it gives the government money to pay for other things that we need. The jobs they create and the profits they generate also create tax liabilities, so government at all levels benefit and through them, we benefit.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 31, 2008, 08:27:20 am
The NWO starts and finishes at the resource level. If you cannot deal with changing that area, go ahead, beat this one and wait for the New NWO to rise again. You want to beat the NWO but leave the slave system in place. It's delusional.

There's some really stupid statements coming from some of you. I can't help but appear rude by saying a few of you don't appear to have the intellectual capability for this discussion IMO, so I won't waste my time further, but this might be interesting if you haven't seen it...

Eustace Mullins Tells It Like It Is
7-31-8
 
Part 1. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2209342295571464429&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 2. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6872345824011823396&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 3. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2629580060972787209&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 4. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6675740575547251524&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 5. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6322915987632976225&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 6. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3662355956641585997&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 7. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2771889396325787213&q=&hl=en
 
 Eustace Mullins presents: The World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7644857907453201814&q=&hl=en
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Cruise4 on July 31, 2008, 08:43:53 am
I lied about leaving this thread it seems...

These aren't my ideas btw. I have seen them at various sites and just recognised the value. Here's one such site worth perusing if anyone is genuinely interested in alternative ways of doing things...

http://www.jamesrobertson.com/links.htm

and I don't agree with every last thing said on these websites either.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 31, 2008, 09:06:39 am
The NWO starts and finishes at the resource level.

so what you are saying is that the NWO arises from the intrinsic individual right to own your own life?
Title: Re: communism
Post by: life0repeats on July 31, 2008, 09:52:15 am
so what you are saying is that the NWO arises from the intrinsic individual right to own your own life?

what i think he's saying is that controlling the resources - oil, water, food production, etc - is a necessity for the NWO.  without the ability to control those and other resources their power is severely limited.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Damascus on July 31, 2008, 05:01:31 pm
A completely pure "Communism" takes rights away from the Individual (to make sure nobody gets ahead of another). A pure "Individualism" eventually through monopoly takes rights away from "society" or the "collective". In practiced communism eventually favors the "some are more equal then others" or the enforcers of the "collective". In capitalism eventually monopolies prevail (unless acted on by some other greater force) which puts up "barriers of entry" to anyone in competition.

So with no outside force eventually the power in both systems get concentrated into the ruling class (a monopoly of power). There should be such things as individual property rights as well as collective property for the community. The "Hegelian Dialectic" is used by the NWO to keep us in a perpetual control by manipulating the inherent flaws in both systems. The elite get too much control then the populous gets into a riot to over the "evil elitist capitalism".
When communism eventually stagnates to a point that nobody has any "property" or "security" from the states "Iron hand" they cry for the "prosperity of the free market". The only answer we have is to take the power of both systems from the ones manipulating it for their benefit.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on July 31, 2008, 09:09:21 pm
A completely pure "Communism" takes rights away from the Individual (to make sure nobody gets ahead of another). A pure "Individualism" eventually through monopoly takes rights away from "society" or the "collective".

i can appreciate the overall sentiment of what you are saying, but i do disagree, there is only one type of monopoly that is not beneficial, that is government influenced, or more specifically, coerced monopolies. from this context, i think it is unfair to attribute coerced monopolies with "Individualism", as they are result of the direct rejection of "Individualism".

i do however agree that both systems are used by the NWO to create this hegelien dialect.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Freeski on July 31, 2008, 11:48:05 pm
i can appreciate the overall sentiment of what you are saying, but i do disagree, there is only one type of monopoly that is not beneficial, that is government influenced, or more specifically, coerced monopolies. from this context, i think it is unfair to attribute coerced monopolies with "Individualism", as they are result of the direct rejection of "Individualism".

i do however agree that both systems are used by the NWO to create this hegelien dialect.

To give an example, if I may. I doubt any evil monopoly - in a truly free society - would survive. First, we'd stop giving their organizations money. Then we'd ignore them because hundreds of entrepreneurs would gladly fill the original need. And they'd compete - meaning the best, friendliest, cleanest and most cost efficient choice in the market. The good guys always win in a free society.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Geolibertarian on August 30, 2008, 09:47:18 am
The "Hegelian Dialectic" is used by the NWO to keep us in a perpetual control by manipulating the inherent flaws in both systems. The elite get too much control then the populous gets into a riot to over the "evil elitist capitalism".
When communism eventually stagnates to a point that nobody has any "property" or "security" from the states "Iron hand" they cry for the "prosperity of the free market". The only answer we have is to take the power of both systems from the ones manipulating it for their benefit.

You may find the following of interest:

http://wealthandwant.com/docs/Andelson_HGRC.html
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Real Truth on August 30, 2008, 10:01:50 am
state communist then turn abolish the state capitalism and currency, you get anarchist communism my favorite one I'd love to see happen
Title: Re: communism
Post by: Damascus on August 30, 2008, 03:55:21 pm
I stopped my interest in this subject when people said there is no bad monopoly outside of government. Honestly It is not worth my time to argue this anymore. People will believe WTF ever they want even in the truth movment.
Title: Re: communism
Post by: aLLyOuRbAsE on August 31, 2008, 09:23:42 am
I stopped my interest in this subject when people said there is no bad monopoly outside of government. Honestly It is not worth my time to argue this anymore. People will believe WTF ever they want even in the truth movment.

likewise to you....we're all guilty of your accusation, yourself included.

Title: Re: communism
Post by: Al Bundy on August 02, 2015, 12:46:28 pm
On this day in 1921 the Parliament of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in Belgrade passed a law on the protection of public safety and order in the Kingdom ... better known as the Law on the protection of the state which were banned Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ). Communists in the civil service and every aspect of public propaganda of communist ideas.
Then it was the last session which was attended by Communist MPs and same day arrested 9 of communist deputies who were blamed for the assassination of state regent Aleksandar I Karadjordjević.

At the press of Great Britain in World War II in 1943 King Peter II of Yugoslavia abolished the law... and permitted to operate the Communist Party whose armed formations-partisans already greatly and continue to fight fiercely against the anti-nazi Royal Army in the country (?!) under general Mihailović.
Even the Communist Party of Yugoslavia during World War II established its Parliament- Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ).

15 years later, Switzerland shall prohibit the work of Communist party.