The House Bill Would Mean a Tax Hike for Millions of Seniors. Learn More

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 51 of 104 (116 Views)

Richva wrote:

Snoopy48 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

 

communism.  1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all properly in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.  2.  a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state designated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.  3. the principles and practices of the Communist party.  4.  communalism.

 

 


 


Definitions 1 and 2 describe two separate disctinct forms of government.

 

In definition 1, the people who are in the group work to the benefit of the group as a whole.

 

In definition 2, the people are controlled by an outside tyrant for the benefit of the tyrant.

 

This could be why people have such disagreement about what 'communism' actually is.


Or, it could be because conservatives call anything they don't agree with "communism". Most of this is because they have no idea what they mean. 


Not so - look at post number one and you will find the fallacy of your thought.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 52 of 104 (117 Views)

Snoopy48 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

 

communism.  1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all properly in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.  2.  a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state designated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.  3. the principles and practices of the Communist party.  4.  communalism.

 

 


 


Definitions 1 and 2 describe two separate disctinct forms of government.

 

In definition 1, the people who are in the group work to the benefit of the group as a whole.

 

In definition 2, the people are controlled by an outside tyrant for the benefit of the tyrant.

 

This could be why people have such disagreement about what 'communism' actually is.


True - def 1 is the theory and def 2 is the practical reality.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 53 of 104 (107 Views)

MIseker wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 


How is it an insult to point out (very accurately) that a poster  "continues to label  any cooperative economic effort as Marxism which wither shows a profound ignorance or a blatant disregard of the facts." ????


1) If you have to ask, you are suffering the maladies described in that post;

2) Do you have no interest in the topic beyond something to fight about?


Any one who continually labels any cooperative economic effort as Marxism or "neo-Marxism" truly does display either ignorance or a blatant disregard for facts. This is simply factual and if someone takes offense, so be it.

 

As far as the topic:  Communism has the same end result as unbridled and unregulated capitalism - - - - - - - - a very small percentage of society ends up with 90% or more of the total wealth and income.

 

What is with your apparent obsession with Marxism and Communism?


A Fascists favorite boogeyman is Communism, or marxism. helping the poor, working together for our common good, any type of govt program to help anyone ( including SS cuz them ol folks arent productive to capitalism) anything that helps a race besides white specifically, cooperative education, equal justice of anykind ( because some dont deserve it ) or having one penny in tax go to anything except the master race, healthcare ( just like ol folks..non productive gotta die) and on and on. see the patterns in the posts..


I believe you are referring to Stalinism - that is not Marx's view of Communism. And, I must admit I am not familiar with the Stalinist or fascist view of SS.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,645
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: Communism

Message 54 of 104 (108 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 


 


Say wot?????


Hee-hee-hee-hee!!!!!!

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 55 of 104 (103 Views)

nctarheel wrote:

 

My point had nothing to do with COMMUNISM/MARXISM/SOCIALISM; it was to prove the point that a strong FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does work for some countries.... like Singapore.

 

 

And yet, that is the topic. 

 

 

 


 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 56 of 104 (104 Views)

Panjandrum wrote:

rk9152:  I believe that our Founders had seen the potential disaster of the all powerful government and our Constitution was the result - our Constitution, not a "living document" that can change at the current whims of the day.

 

 

 

Here's what Thomas Jefferson thought about that. Lol

 

 

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/94629-i-am-not-an-advocate-for-frequent-changes-in-laws


The constitutional amendment process is the way to effect change. 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 57 of 104 (77 Views)

umbarch64 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Some get all wrapped around the axle about the words "Communism" and "Marxism" even to the point of officially complaining and I believe that comes from a misunderstanding of the word.

 

communism.  1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all properly in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.  2.  a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state designated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.  3. the principles and practices of the Communist party.  4.  communalism.

 

communalism.  1.  a theory or system of social organization according to which each commune is virtually an independent state and the nation is merely a federation of such states.  2.  the principles or practices of communal ownership.  3.  strong allegiance to one's own ethnic group rather than to society as a whole.

 

The concepts of Communism predate Stalin and even Marx. In fact, there were "Utopian Communities" (same concept as Communism) established in the USofA as far back as the early 1800s. They all shared on thing - they all failed. They were noble ideas but impractical. 

 

Now Marx - he didn't invent Communism. It was a topic of discussion throughout Europe among the "coffee shop hippies" of the day. Marx (along with Engles) codified the coffee shop talk into his book. 

 

It, like the early "Utopian Communities" was noble but impractical. It's problem is that it totally defies human nature and to bring it about (as spelled out by Marx) required a strong government that would control every aspect of life during the "conversion period" where people were taught to accept it's principles. And then the plan was the government would disappear and the "Workers' Paradise" would result. And therein lies the basic flaw - the thought that "reeducation" can actually change human nature and - this is the big one - an all powerful government will suddenly disappear.

 

So far....nothing seriously 'out of whack'.  Not absolutely accurate, but close enough.  This space is, after all, limited and there are volumes upon volumes written about this 'theory'.  For example...one problem....of the precise definitions I gave, which is the entire understanding of all who enter the discussion?  Does anyone know with certitude?  That does need agreement.

 

I know that some think that we can put "one toe in the water". However, they are they same who complain that our elected representatives are all corrupt. Are these the people that you want to give all that power to?

 

I believe that our Founders had seen the potential disaster of the all powerful government and our Constitution was the result - our Constitution, not a "living document" that can change at the current whims of the day.

 

And now we depart from a discussion about Communism or Communalism into the preferred derivative of the stated topic the proponent for discussion actually has. 

 

Now Included are the invalid presumptions and pre-ordained conclusions necessary to begin discussion without first agreeing about very important matters.  NOW if you now choose to engage without contention of that stuff, you begin ON THE TERMS SET BY THE PERSON OPENING THE DISCUSSION.

 

Classic Sophistry?  You bet.

 


 


Say wot?????

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 58 of 104 (67 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 


How is it an insult to point out (very accurately) that a poster  "continues to label  any cooperative economic effort as Marxism which wither shows a profound ignorance or a blatant disregard of the facts." ????


1) If you have to ask, you are suffering the maladies described in that post;

2) Do you have no interest in the topic beyond something to fight about?


Any one who continually labels any cooperative economic effort as Marxism or "neo-Marxism" truly does display either ignorance or a blatant disregard for facts. This is simply factual and if someone takes offense, so be it.

It is, by definition. As you may recall we had a topic about Mandragon. it was a totally freely organized coop that offered a Marxist economy - but not society.

 

As far as the topic:  Communism has the same end result as unbridled and unregulated capitalism - - - - - - - - a very small percentage of society ends up with 90% or more of the total wealth and income.

You are confusing Stalinist Communism with Marxist Communism. Is that intentional or simply a case of being uninformed?

 

What is with your apparent obsession with Marxism and Communism?

It is a powerful force in the world and has been for over a century and a half. Certainly at least as worth discussing alt-right which you define as "Read your posts".


 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Communism

Message 59 of 104 (60 Views)

Richva wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

gruffstuff wrote:

Point in fact - if the founding fathers did not believe that the Constitution should be modified when and as necessary, and intendthat it be modified by future generations, they would not have provided a mechanism for amending it.

 

Also there is the ninth amendment.

 

Article [IX] (Amendment 9 - Unenumerated Rights)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

The rights of the people are not limited to the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

 

The whole " it's not in the Constitution " argument is baloney. In fact the Constitution itself says the Constitution "  shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

The rights of the people don't have to be in the Constitution and those who claim they must be are actually attacking the Constitution and the ideals behind it.


Agreed. The Constitution can be changed via the amendment process - only.

 

Any thoughts on the viability of Communism as laid out by Marx?


You claimed that the Constitution was not a living document, so now you have changed your mind?

 

Marxism has been talked to death and my outlook hasn't changed. Same with communism.


I am never sure what this poster means by communism or Marxism since we get very few details and comments that seem to approach the issue from different meanings with each discussion.  I really don't understand why it keeps coming up in these posts.  The only people who have ever installed price controls in the U.S. (other than WWII) were Republicans.  The only people who advocate the near complete dissolution of governments as Marx did are Republicans.  The only person  currently arguing against free trade  is Trump.  

 

It keeps coming up because it is a political ideology that has lasted over a century an  a half and has believers all over the world.

 

Liberals want to use our educational systems and build our infrastructure to the point where every American has an equal opportunity for success. Republicans seem to want to restrict access to education, healthcare, and safe streets as if they were running a third rate banana republic. 

 

Is it your point that equal opportunity is not available under any system but Marxism?


 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Communism

Message 60 of 104 (55 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

 

Marxism has been talked to death and my outlook hasn't changed. Same with communism.


If you don't want to talk about the topic - why are you posting?


I think they were trying to understand the point of the topic.  Democrats and liberals do not believe in the Communist system as demonstrated by Russia or any of the governments who once called themselves "communist".  Republicans and conservatives seem to embrace their philosophies while condemning the title. 

 

It just seems a recurring post with no definition and not a lot of point. Comment?