Communism(socialism) ftw

[nfidel2k]

The bourgeois in the communist manifesto refers to the elite, or the ones who have the means to control production. The proletariat refers to the ones who have to sell their labor. But it is immaterial as the ideas in the communist manifesto were about leveling the playing field and removing class distinctions by making the proletariat also the bourgeois.

The US is not a constitutional republic, it is a representative democracy.

The US government can not confiscate property without proper compensation. Read the 5th Ammendment. Any confiscation of property, including condemnation, has to go through the court system.

You can't grow produce year after year on the same land, or you simply leach out all of the resources and the land becomes barren. The government pays farmers not to grow crops because of soil richness. This preserves the quality of the soil and the produce grown.

[dka]

The bourgeois in the communist manifesto refers to the elite, or the ones who have the means to control production. The proletariat refers to the ones who have to sell their labor. But it is immaterial as the ideas in the communist manifesto were about leveling the playing field and removing class distinctions by making the proletariat also the bourgeois.

Yes, but he said things that indicated somewhat differently, removing employers and centralizing the job of employer to the state kills the middle class. Therefore when they speak of getting rid of the bourgeois it is a euphemism for getting rid of the middle class.
Furthermore he mentions petite bourgeois, bourgeois that work among they're workers.
Whoever is in charge of this totalitarian government described by
the ten planks will be the elite, or the elites puppets.
They claim that after the state withers away(I think its just a scam, I don't think having such a government wither away is the intent) ideal communism will be achieved.

The Communist Manifesto repeatedly stated the bourgeois is enemy number one yet the aristocracy, and the bankers exist yet he signals the bourgeois out; even though the aristocracy profits from the toil of the proletariats via taxation, appears to be a form of divide and conquer. In the Communist Manifesto, he even sounds sympathetic with the feudal lords, stating that the "evil" private property loving bourgeois prevailed despite the feudal lords, it just sounds very strange.

I am aware that he defined bourgeois as one who owns the means of production, however in the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto he calls for totalitarian government, the Communist Manifesto's ten planks repeatedly mentions the state(government). Than somewhere in Engels (I think I remember marx mentioning this concept as well) writings says the state shall wither away leaving the means of production with the proletariat, that is where the fantasy comes in luring the people into totalitarianism. He called for totalitarian socialism that would allegedly wither away leaving a communist "paradise".

The US is not a constitutional republic, it is a representative democracy.

Not once in the US constitution is democracy mentioned, what is mentioned is republic.


Article IV Section IV of the US Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government".
It does not say democratic.

Furthermore, The "Pledge of Allegiance" says this: "the republic for which it stands".
Once again not democracy.

The "Declaration of Independence" makes no reference to democracy either.
Thus... the United States was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

The US government can not confiscate property without proper compensation. Read the 5th Ammendment. Any confiscation of property, including condemnation, has to go through the court system.

They are not supposed to be able, but they do. They make up laws to get around the 5th amendment. Besides, congress doesn't follow the rules; the bank bailout violated Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution.
The US government confiscates inheritance via inheritance tax, Karl Marx in one of his writings called for a heavy inheritance tax.
Also there is this very vague thus highly abusable executive order that can confiscate property: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-3.html

You can't grow produce year after year on the same land, or you simply leach out all of the resources and the land becomes barren. The government pays farmers not to grow crops because of soil richness. This preserves the quality of the soil and the produce grown.

Another issue I take with this use of tax money is that it is unconstitutional for them to do that anyway. there is no where in the US Constitution that provides sanctification for that use of tax money.

The money often ends up in the hands of the super rich farmers as opposed to small farmers.
It does not usually go to the farmers that need it the most, thus undermining small farmers and giving further advantage to big farmers.

One reason stated by government for the subsidies is to increase the price of crops.
The price increase only works if there are not too many farmers. It encourages a small amount of farmers, thus risking starvation if imports cease due to not enough domestic production.
Furthermore, by giving further advantage to wealthy farmers over small farmers, it drives smaller farmers out of business. Government meddling in the market is not free market.
The news article states that they are giving money to people who have not farmed for years. In general crop rotation is thrown in within the year, actual soil enrichment without farming related to farming would not last this long.

[nfidel2k]

Interesting, I will have to do some research on your theories of Communism.

The U.S. is a representative democracy by definition. A republic vests supreme authority in a group of elected representatives. We have two bodies of elected representatives and one elected leader, none of whom have supreme power by themselves, but instead impose checks and balances upon eachother.

The US Constitution also made references to the right to own slaves (which has been abolished) and denial of alcohol (which has been abolished). The beauty of the US Constitution is that it can change. But if by your statement you mean that the founders thought of the US as a republic, you are possibly correct.

And the "Pledge of Alleigance" also says "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." We are not one nation under God, we failed to be indivisible during the Civil War, and according to you, liberty and justice for all has ceased to exist. The pledge is hardly a credible source.

The Declaration of Independence was exactly that, a declaration of independence. Not a government-forming document.

With regards to the government bypassing the 5th ammendment, the target of the confiscation can sue the government body that confiscated the product without just compensation or trial. If a law does bypass the Constitution, then we have the Supreme Court to help us in overturning the law. Once again, the target needs only to pursue the matter legally. But keep in mind that condemnation usually means that the property wasn't being maintained to acceptable levels of standards. Your problem seems to be more with the possibility of a corrupt court system, not government.

And exactly how did the bank bailout bypass Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution? You refer to a section that discusses the President's ability to veto a bill or a resolution voted on by both Houses of Congress.

Crop rotation happens every year, unless you have a very small farm in which case it becomes x years on, y years off. The idea would be that certain fields are allowed to regrow their nutrient level while the other fields are still farmed. The department of agriculture does pay farmers not to grow surplus food, but that is in an effort to regulate the market and control prices, not control population. If every farmer grew to their max potential, we would have havoc in a few years in the food markets, not to mention all the surplus food that would spoil and go to waste.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are a libertarian.

[Phileas Fogg]

Lets all read from the bible for a short while. I get to the point later!!?.

"And God placed a cherubim with a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life which is in eden"

The way to utopia is guarded. Karl Marx indeed wanted a nation without a state and without money, where everyone gave away freely to eachother. If you like that idea. you and I do have an option... BUT, that option involve something that Karl Marx did not like... - God!!- The God almighy of the christian church do indeed tend to have everything united inagreement to everyones needs. or in better terms. noone in the christian church needs anything. Because they already have everything they want.

Communism is indeed like a secular religion, where Karl Marx did described the church of the living God and applyed a christian core of a church - but without God - in the center of his books.

That is somewhat secterianism in my eyes. to pervert the christian faith, in the same manners as Karl did.

And what more!

There is only a slight differnece between nazism and communism. Karl even wrote the antisemetic letter "Das Judenfrage!" where he critizied Jews and argued how to deal with the Jews.

[MorbidAngel]

Communism != Socialism

Communism is ftw, Socialism isn't.. Thou communism is ideology unlike Socialism.

[Phileas Fogg]

I've said this before. Communism is a chruch without God.

I used to run western communistic thoughts, which differs from eastern communistic thought, basicly because the material that becomes communists in europe is the same material that become libertarian in the states. And the material being communistic in the eastern world is the same material that are conservatives in america. That is as a true conservative in america, would have been born in lets say china, you would most likley have become a communist!!

Obama is a communist, a western communists, who tries to reform USA and open up the door for thoughts like "is that communism?! i did not know that" and "thats great thoughts"

I have passed red at high speed during my teens, and i was considered retarded, on the old utopia forum because of it. Now my rethorics as a communist ran stright up to the white house.

Now either I could ran the States better then obama, or he is also actually "RETARDED". now i do not believe he is retarded. but his ideas are the same i had when i passed red at high speed!

[jawnhenry]

Communism is more morally evil than nazism.

[kyouteki]

Communism is a political system. Socialism is an economic one. They are not mutually exchangeable. They deal with two seperate ideas, politics and economies. While they do relate and have effects on each other, there is no such thing as a socialist government, or a communistic market.

The government pays farmers not to grow crops because of soil richness. This preserves the quality of the soil and the produce grown.

No, the government pays farmers to not grow crops because in the early 1900s there was a glut of cotton crops on the market. So part of FDR's New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, which gave farmers subsidies to grow less cotton. One of the requirements to sign up was that they also destroy 1/4-1/2 of their cotton crop already planted, to reduce the supply. This only half worked cause farmers that didnt participate made more money, until the government forced all of those farmers to participate also by installing quotas and heavily taxing any extra production. While this overall slightly benifitted the farmers, the ones it royally screwed over were the poorer people (mostly black descendants of slaves) who had been earning money through sharecropping. Cause when the farmer had to produce less, they kicked out around half of their 'workers'

[freemehul]

Communism is more morally evil than nazism.

they are equally evil. Neither fish nor meat. Communism only created more deaths because of geography. If Hitler were the dictator of the Soviet Union and Stalin the dictator of Germany it be an entirely different matter.

But then I get where your wrong thinking comes from. Evil is evil and you are evil jawnhenry.

[KuhaN]

fk communism.

[Ushiku]

Communism is different from Socialism for a start.

Communism is a hypocritical doctrine whereby the current economic and social elite are replaced with a new elite, and not a "dictatorship of the proletariat", but a bureaucratic dictatorship - even Trotsky, one of the leading members of the Bolsheviks realised this in hindsight.

In The Revolution Betrayed (1937), a critical analysis of Stalinism and the USSR’s post-Lenin development, Leon Trotsky proposed that the Russian Revolution of 1917, produced a workers’ state (the USSR) that then became a degenerated workers' state after 1923; a state based upon a recruited-caste bureaucracy akin to the feudal clergy — something the soviets did not inherit from the monarchical ruling class. Further illustrating the betrayal of the revolution, Stalinism and Bonapartism are compared as forms of dictatorship based upon specific social class and property relations; thus Stalinism is to a workers’ democracy, as Bonapartism is to a bourgeois democracy. Despite that, the collectivized economy represented the progressive policy to defend in the USSR, whilst, elsewhere, supporting political revolution aimed to establishing workers’ democracy.

After the Second World War (1941–45) the Trotskyists ideologically described the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1943), the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1945), the Socialist People's Republic of Albania (1946), the People's Republic of China (1949), and the Republic of Cuba (1959) — Communist states Stalin established with military conquest, occupation, and proxy guerilla warfare — as degenerated workers’ states with politically dispossessed working classes, thus never were true workers’ states, for having been established as dictatorships.

Also Socialism believes in attaining equality via democracy, something I believe in also, but via literal democracy representatives of the people in localised communities, rather than via partisan political representatives of the party not actually representing those they claim to represent. If political parties were abolished, both Socialism and Libertarianism would thrive under local democratic representatives in the Legislature of the Land.

And tbh, Libertarian pwns everything, check out my thread, I've devised my own system is a political representation of my spiritual beliefs.

[dave_7272]

communist has dissapeared from the world. for now.

[Hurlin]

/me blinks ...........


really wtf happened to China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam ???

[bowman]

It's real easy guys.

Start with personal Liberty and private property. Extrapolate.

(Spoiler: it doesn't end in Communism . . .)

[Magn]

It's real easy guys.

Start with personal Liberty and private property. Extrapolate.

(Spoiler: it doesn't end in Communism . . .)

Your premise is flawed.

The right to private property and the extent to which it should be allowed is debatable.

Even in communism, there is the idea of private property in some form, its simply to a lesser degree than capitalism.

Even in 'capitalism' systems, the notion of private property only goes so far.

The army for example is state owned and while I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure that the state would object should a citizen raise a sizeable private army within the country.