PDA

View Full Version : The Ask A Communist Thread




Pages : 1 [2]

NorthCarolinaLiberty
09-10-2013, 07:56 AM
That depends - did you work hard to acquire them, or did you acquire them in the casino that is Wall Street?

You mean like the lottery winners?

swissaustrian
09-10-2013, 10:55 AM
The kind of communism I endorse was basically what hunter gatherers practiced. Cuba isn't my ideal model (too authoritarian), but they are communist and are doing relatively well.

Talking about Cuba, here is a must listen audio to you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POlo4YLS0p8

osan
09-10-2013, 12:28 PM
The kind of communism I endorse was basically what hunter gatherers practiced.

If you think that hunter-gatherer tribes practiced "communism", then either you are working from a very different definition of the term, know nothing about communism as commonly taken for the past 130 years, know nothing about hunter-gatherer cultures, or some combination of the three.


Cuba isn't my ideal model (too authoritarian), but they are communist and are doing relatively well.

The communist political model is authoritarian by definition and any epsilon of authoritarianism is that much too much. As for Cuba - not that bad? Really? Then why don't you go live there - they'll take you. Been there - smoked the cigars, drank the rum, and caroused with the people, none of whom seemed to have styled themselves as "communist" or anything like it. They were fairly guarded about their manner of speech but made it pretty clear to me that they were not in agreement with their ham-fisted and violent dictatorial government. That was my impression 20 years ago. I've known many Cubans here in the USA and they were all hard-core conservative capitalist patriots who love the USA more than most native borns - and they absolutely hate Castro and given the chance would kill him and all his family and minions with their bare hands. I don't think Cuba is doing "well" at all - unless one's standard is hopelessly low, in which case even then I might balk at the notion.

Paulbot99
09-10-2013, 03:10 PM
That depends - did you work hard to acquire them, or did you acquire them in the casino that is Wall Street?

There is no real difference unless there is fraud involved. The way I see it, providing funding for a company is no different than working directly for it. Both are essential, though the stockbroker's or bondsman's cut increases depending on the amount of money and therefore risk that he places with the venture in the same way a worker whose skills and effort are above those of his peers merits him a greater paycheck.

Of course, even if someone won millions of dollars from a lottery ticket, it is still immoral to take his money even if you don't think he or deserves it.

awake
09-10-2013, 03:42 PM
In the great intellectual struggle of ideas there are only two paths: Liberty and peace (Libertarianism); or slavery and war (Communism) . Only one side is harmonious with mans true nature. Only one side can be logically deduced. Communism's only answer to mans true nature is that it must be violently curbed and controlled lest man will become violent, selfish and controlling. It is contradiction at its very core and of these endless contradictions, violence must be used to mute reason stating otherwise.

Communism is a doctrine of war and violence.

Jackson
09-15-2013, 08:52 AM
Communism is everywhere in this administration. I think Obama policies are a reason why many young people are adopting communism.

helmuth_hubener
09-15-2013, 01:09 PM
Donnie Darko, coomme baaaaack! You are making me sad. I have questions and I want answers! :mad::mad:
;)

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
09-15-2013, 02:16 PM
You know life is hectic when you miss an epic thread like this! Reading this was like watching a group of Hell's Angels beat up a retarded, hemophiliac, blind 5 year old with a bowel disorder and low self esteem.

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
09-15-2013, 02:18 PM
The kind of communism I endorse was basically what hunter gatherers practiced. Cuba isn't my ideal model (too authoritarian), but they are communist and are doing relatively well.

Doing so well in fact that people die everyday trying to swim anywhere but Cuba.... Seriously, some people ride in floats made from trashbags and pallets just to go live in Haiti...... HAITI

heavenlyboy34
09-15-2013, 02:20 PM
Doing so well in fact that people die everyday trying to swim anywhere but Cuba.... Seriously, some people ride in floats made from trashbags and pallets just to go live in Haiti...... HAITI

REMEMBER ELIAN GONZALEZ!

osan
09-15-2013, 03:10 PM
I registered here because I want to challenge the viewpoints of the people here, 95% at least I imagine are die-hard capitalists.

A lamb eager for the slaughter? Huh...

Firstly, I am not an "ist" of any sort. My position is that of proper human relations, which by necessity is based in freedom. You therefore fail immediately. I can see this is not going to go well for you.


I think capitalism is a threat to our liberties and freedom

Another monumental FAIL. You make reference to a term and attribute to it qualities and consequences without doing so much as gracing us with a definition.

Did I mention FAIL?



as Americans and as human beings around the globe and will lead to the vast majority of people suffering de facto slavery within a few generations' time.


An unsubstantiated prognostication due to your failure to define the term in question. Zero for three. Nice.


Neoliberal globalized capitalism has been the main form of development since the 80s/90s and aside from the heavily state controlled variant of it in China, it's proven ineffective at reducing poverty.

And now you shift the landscape with "neoliberal". Fail, the fourth.

One thing you assert that holds some water is the bit about not reducing world poverty - but you have not identified the cause, but merely slapped a vague label on the result, blaming "capitalism".

(setq pirate-talk 1)

Aaaar me buckos, the ship's a goin' down quick boy t'bow. Abahndin ship me scurvy's!

(setq pirate-talk nil)


Many people have also been forced to give up their land, culture and communities and move to the metropolises because of global capitalism.

Please define the term and then demonstrate how what you have written, above, is true.


I would rather production and capital be owned by the people who work it, not by indifferent shareholders and speculators.

What does that even mean in real and practical terms? Your words lead one to think you'd been drinking. Heavily.


Does anyone have any questions for me, an admitted Marxist?

Have you? Been drinking, I mean.

Seems like troll-bait

osan
09-15-2013, 03:13 PM
Capitalism is cronyism.


Yeah, that's an intelligent statement.

You apparently don't know shit of what you speak.

PLONK

/thread

tod evans
09-15-2013, 03:20 PM
Yeah, that's an intelligent statement.

You apparently don't know shit of what you speak.

PLONK

/thread

You're still on the first page...........It gets better:rolleyes:

osan
09-15-2013, 08:45 PM
You're still on the first page...........It gets better:rolleyes:

D00d, even I have only so much time to waste.

Root
09-15-2013, 08:58 PM
You're still on the first page...........It gets better:rolleyes:
I'm disappointed I read this whole thread and you didn't get your 12 acres. Lame. :cool:

Paulbot99
09-15-2013, 10:31 PM
Seriously? Where'd Donnie go? :(

heavenlyboy34
09-15-2013, 11:38 PM
When the OP comes back, I have a new question. Why is it that people from truly communist regions tend to endeavor so hard to get the hell out​ if it is so ideal?

Barrex
09-16-2013, 03:56 PM
Seriously? Where'd Donnie go? :(

What kind of stupid question is that? Where would you go when you realize your life was based on tyrannical, murdereous, monstruous ideology?:toady:

bolil
09-17-2013, 12:29 AM
What kind of stupid question is that? Where would you go when you realize your life was based on tyrannical, murdereous, monstruous ideology?:toady:

You think the grasp of hell is fleeting? Ran to professor quasimarx, no doubt.

Paulbot99
09-18-2013, 05:25 PM
Or the Professor of Labor History at my university. Believe it or not, he's an admitted Stalinist and sports a Marx beard.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
09-22-2013, 09:15 PM
Seriously? Where'd Donnie go? :(

Donny Osmond was ironically pummeled silly while attending an Occupy rally. He was beaten by the government while carrying a sign demanding more regulation.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-07-2013, 04:44 AM
Looks like Americans eradicated another communist. Fuckin' A.


:p:D

Todd
10-07-2013, 11:25 AM
I'll just put this right here.......for later.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNtyV0CXfzU

Christian Liberty
10-07-2013, 11:46 AM
Does the OP support Ron Paul?

If not, why is he here?

Tywysog Cymru
10-07-2013, 03:16 PM
Does the OP support Ron Paul?

If not, why is he here?

I don't have a problem with him asking questions and engaging in debate. These are good opportunities to show that our positions are more logically sound.

buenijo
10-07-2013, 03:49 PM
I was going to comment, but good Osan took care of things for us.

In particular, I applaud Mr. Osan for emphasizing the core of darko's errors. Namely, his arguments have no validity as the very language on which they are based is built on terms without precise and logically consistent definitions. It is not possible to have a rational argument with this individual. There was a time when I sought arguments with socialists or marxists in order to better understand their positions, that is, until I had the epiphany during a debate that these individuals had no precise definitions to their terms (and they relish in the benefits this provides during debate - please note I emphasize debate and not argument). I realized that these individuals can and do subtly morph the definitions of their terms during the course of debate using context and thereby evade any accountability for the contradictions that consistent definitions would otherwise cause. ("It depends on what the definition of is is." Bill Clinton). In short, these individuals are not confined by logic, and therefore they cannot be persuaded by argument.

Anti Federalist
10-07-2013, 04:56 PM
This isn't as radical as it seems. A property tax is in effect abolition of land ownership.

Well, you got me, there.

buenijo
10-07-2013, 05:51 PM
Why is money such a great motivator?

What is "money"? Where did it come from? What is its purpose? If you don't know the answer to these questions, then you should research them before you use the term.

silverhandorder
10-07-2013, 06:33 PM
It should be illegal (and seen as ridiculous) to sell a hypothetical part of your company to someone who has nothing to do with that company. Also the people who work there deserve to bank the value of what they produce. The wage system simply pays people enough that they consent to work there even though most of what they make is taken from them and given to the shareholders in the company.

Wage paid labor is not that much different from slavery in many ways.

So they trade their labor. Nothing wrong with that.


Realistically, no. There has to be protections. Not everyone is equal in power; equal in how much they are capable of consenting. This is why it's wrong for a 45 year old to have sex with a 12 year old even if the 12 year old says "yes".

The same principle can be applied to people who own capital vs those who only have labor to give.

Because using power is not a violation of NAP. Sorry but you will have to tackle NAP head on.


Why does private land ownership make any sense? Why should one family get to own a piece of dirt for all eternity no matter what, even if they don't give anything back to society?

Who advocates for that? One there is abandonment. Two why should society have anything given to it? Three let's first run out of land.


I would agree with you, but some of the corporations today are so powerful, we're talking GDPs that exceed a lot of nation-states that I don't think they even need the backing of a state anymore. If need be they could just hire their own private armies, write their own laws, and function as their own sovereign entity.

Ok let's say they do. Why is that a bad thing?

mczerone
10-07-2013, 06:55 PM
I was going to comment, but good Osan took care of things for us.

In particular, I applaud Mr. Osan for emphasizing the core of darko's errors. Namely, his arguments have no validity as the very language on which they are based is built on terms without precise and logically consistent definitions. It is not possible to have a rational argument with this individual. There was a time when I sought arguments with socialists or marxists in order to better understand their positions, that is, until I had the epiphany during a debate that these individuals had no precise definitions to their terms (and they relish in the benefits this provides during debate - please note I emphasize debate and not argument). I realized that these individuals can and do subtly morph the definitions of their terms during the course of debate using context and thereby evade any accountability for the contradictions that consistent definitions would otherwise cause. ("It depends on what the definition of is is." Bill Clinton). In short, these individuals are not confined by logic, and therefore they cannot be persuaded by argument.

But here is the great challenge: how do we persuade people who are not swayed by rational argument?

Even in discovering that there is nothing to learn about the rationality of socialism/communism/statism from these people, you have still learned the most important lesson: You are different from them not because of the conclusions you have drawn, but because you've used your capacity to reason to get there.

So, remember that persuasion is not always just argumentation. It's also group-think, feel-good, superstitious, central-plannerist traditionalism.

Unregistered
10-08-2013, 05:27 AM
well, i live in a capitalist country. i've been to communist countries, and i dont think that capitalist countries are any more "free" than communist ones. i think what is most deceptive is how capitalist regimes claim they are free, so you expect to find this freedom, and the reality is that it does not really exist. communist countries never really claim to be free, so there is no disappointment. there are advantages, and disadvantages to each economic model. i've seen communist countries before and after, and the one thing i notice when they become capitalist is how the corruption, crime rate sky rockets, women all of a sudden dress like prostitutes, scams rise, and people lose trust in each other. then the capitalist answers with "well, people are starving under communism", but they conveniently leave out the role that western capitalist sanctions have on the starvation.

pathtofreedom
10-08-2013, 02:25 PM
LOL
Donnie isn't a commie, he's a DEMOCRAT!
I loled

pathtofreedom
10-08-2013, 02:27 PM
This thread is filled with so much hilarity!

buenijo
10-08-2013, 03:47 PM
But here is the great challenge: how do we persuade people who are not swayed by rational argument?

Even in discovering that there is nothing to learn about the rationality of socialism/communism/statism from these people, you have still learned the most important lesson: You are different from them not because of the conclusions you have drawn, but because you've used your capacity to reason to get there.

So, remember that persuasion is not always just argumentation. It's also group-think, feel-good, superstitious, central-plannerist traditionalism.

Allow me to clarify my position. I believe people in general have the capacity for logic and are compelled by logic, and I believe socialists and marxists (statists in general) employ logic. So, these people are confined by logic in an obtuse sort of way. However, logic cannot be a reliable guide toward the determination of truth without precision in language (garbage in => garbage out). The problem with darko and many others who defend statist philosophies is not so much a lack of logic, but a lack of precision in their language. In fact, I consider the general lack of precision in language as the single most destructive force that we face today. The way to persuade these individuals is to hold them accountable for what they say/write (not what they "mean"), and insist that they say what they mean and mean what they say (or write). For example, Bill Clinton should have been lambasted for his comment (see previous quote). Instead, I've witnessed his supporters laud the comment (why? - maybe because they consider him to be so skilled at the very art they themselves employ on a daily basis, namely, obfuscation and deceit).

Argument is a subset of persuasion, so persuasion is certainly not always just argumentation as you point out. However, one should not desire to persuade others with means other than argument (at the very least, a valid and truthful argument should make up the core of the message). Yes, it is a problem that so many can be persuaded by means other than argument. Yet, I say this is a symptom of the breakdown of language. The solution is to restore the integrity of the language, and not employ irrational means to achieve persuasion. Otherwise, we may as well abandon any principles and join the fold.

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names." Confucius

MRK
10-09-2013, 12:03 AM
Does the OP support Ron Paul?

If not, why is he here?

For lively interesting discussion. Echo chambers get boring and are dangerous for everyone. RPF has become too much of an echo chamber versus its early years if you ask me, which can hurt critical thinking capabilities among the community.

bolil
10-10-2013, 01:32 AM
Whats with the penchant for mass murder?

bolil
10-10-2013, 01:33 AM
well, i live in a capitalist country. i've been to communist countries, and i dont think that capitalist countries are any more "free" than communist ones. i think what is most deceptive is how capitalist regimes claim they are free, so you expect to find this freedom, and the reality is that it does not really exist. communist countries never really claim to be free, so there is no disappointment. there are advantages, and disadvantages to each economic model. i've seen communist countries before and after, and the one thing i notice when they become capitalist is how the corruption, crime rate sky rockets, women all of a sudden dress like prostitutes, scams rise, and people lose trust in each other. then the capitalist answers with "well, people are starving under communism", but they conveniently leave out the role that western capitalist sanctions have on the starvation.

Really? You've been in a capitalist country? Must have been in your dreams, because they do not yet exist on earth. What passes for capitalism now-a-days is but a watered down brand of communism. That being said, it is hard to keep a good market down. Next time you take a shit and it rides your building drain to a sewer thank capitalism.

Capitalism, the real deal, the entirely free market is based on utility. Not so much how can I use you (communism) but how can I be of use to you, and in doing so further my own ends.

Ask a communist? How is your conscience readily dedicating yourself to a religion that makes the crusades look like charity?

Ask a communist? Who owns you? Is it your "community"? When you raise you hand, draw a breath, make some love is it your community doing those actions?

Ask a communist? How many people must your foul creed murder before you go away?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-10-2013, 07:36 AM
well, i live in a capitalist country. i've been to communist countries, and i dont think that capitalist countries are any more "free" than communist ones. i think what is most deceptive is how capitalist regimes claim they are free, so you expect to find this freedom, and the reality is that it does not really exist. communist countries never really claim to be free, so there is no disappointment. there are advantages, and disadvantages to each economic model. i've seen communist countries before and after, and the one thing i notice when they become capitalist is how the corruption, crime rate sky rockets, women all of a sudden dress like prostitutes, scams rise, and people lose trust in each other. then the capitalist answers with "well, people are starving under communism", but they conveniently leave out the role that western capitalist sanctions have on the starvation.

What communist countries have you visited? When? What cities did you visit?

FSP-Rebel
10-11-2013, 12:39 PM
What communist countries have you visited? When? What cities did you visit?
Tourists don't usually feel the brunt of the horrors anyway. Hell, they treat cash cows in Pyongyang almost like royalty.

donnie darko
05-20-2015, 11:55 AM
I'll just put this right here.......for later.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNtyV0CXfzU

Scandinavian "capitalism" works well because their workforce is highly organized and unionized. It should be noted that their society has become somewhat less stable since the post-Cold War "reforms" in the Nineties.

willwash
05-20-2015, 01:20 PM
I support voluntary collectivism to an extent, but I would like to see stock trading and ownership of land rendered illegal.

This isn't as radical as it seems. A property tax is in effect abolition of land ownership.

Hey, he likes you, AF!

luctor-et-emergo
05-20-2015, 01:29 PM
Scandinavian "capitalism" works well because their workforce is highly organized and unionized. It should be noted that their society has become somewhat less stable since the post-Cold War "reforms" in the Nineties.

All of the European countries have mixed economies. Sweden is a little bit more on the high tax side but it's pretty similar all around Europe. The reason Sweden does well is in my opinion because they have a history of being a developed nation, they have minerals and other resources. No trouble with foreign nations, to speak off. So there's peace, and thus prosperity is easier, even with a somewhat socialist system.

Anti Federalist
05-20-2015, 01:36 PM
Hey, he likes you, AF!

LOL, I see.

donnie darko
05-20-2015, 01:39 PM
All of the European countries have mixed economies. Sweden is a little bit more on the high tax side but it's pretty similar all around Europe. The reason Sweden does well is in my opinion because they have a history of being a developed nation, they have minerals and other resources. No trouble with foreign nations, to speak off. So there's peace, and thus prosperity is easier, even with a somewhat socialist system.

So are you saying if Sweden emulated the United States more, they would be even more prosperous?

Sola_Fide
05-20-2015, 01:50 PM
When everything is a commodity for sale, eventually the most powerful corporations will become so influential on the government that they will merge together with them, rendering the government undemocratic and the people powerless in their influence on it (aside from the people with money and connections).

Corporatism is an inevitable result of capitalism. If the state disappeared tomorrow, the world's largest corporations would become the de facto state since they would be the only entities large enough to supply people with transportation, healthcare, defense and all the other things needed to live in a modern society.

Murray Rothbard destroys the idea that a truly free market creates monopolies in Man, Economy, and State. I recommend it to you.

Ronin Truth
05-20-2015, 02:25 PM
How many times have you read "Das Kapital"?