Political Crossfire Forums

[Punkerslut]

It is a popular misconception that Soviet Russia and Red China are, or were, Communist nations. On the contrary, they were both Statist Capitalism.

Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, wrote, "In all civilised countries, democracy has as its necessary consequence the political rule of the proletariat, and the political rule of the proletariat is the first condition for all communist measures. As long as democracy has not been achieved, thus long do Communists and democrats fight side by side, thus long are the interests of the democrats at the same time those of the Communists." [Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung No. 80, October 7, 1847.]

And Karl Marx wrote: "Man does not exist because of the law but rather the law exists for the good of man. Democracy is human existence, while in the other political forms man has only legal existence. That is the fundamental difference of democracy." [Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right Karl Marx, 1843, Part 2, section C.]

Mao Tse-Tung didn't create Communism, because he didn't think it would work, "Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it." [On the People's Democratic Dictatorship] Of course, as everyone understands, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Castro, and Mao have all proceeded along the lines of dictatorship and not democracy, while the root of Marxism is political autonomy -- that is, of course, universal suffrage and Democracy. Soviet Russia and Red China did what other governments have done so well: promised to give to the people what they wanted in exchange for support, and then never deliver what their spoken intentions were (i.e. in this case, Socialism.) The Soviet Union and Red China aren't good examples of Socialism, because they weren't Socialist. They only claimed to be.

[Halitosis Crunch]

State capitalism, communism, all the same to me. Some jerk taking my property at gun point for the "common good."

[[Bible]Monkey]

Punkerslut wrote: It is a popular misconception that Soviet Russia and Red China are, or were, Communist nations. On the contrary, they were both Statist Capitalism.

Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, wrote, "In all civilised countries, democracy has as its necessary consequence the political rule of the proletariat, and the political rule of the proletariat is the first condition for all communist measures. As long as democracy has not been achieved, thus long do Communists and democrats fight side by side, thus long are the interests of the democrats at the same time those of the Communists." [Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung No. 80, October 7, 1847.]

And Karl Marx wrote: "Man does not exist because of the law but rather the law exists for the good of man. Democracy is human existence, while in the other political forms man has only legal existence. That is the fundamental difference of democracy." [Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right Karl Marx, 1843, Part 2, section C.]

Mao Tse-Tung didn't create Communism, because he didn't think it would work, "Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it." [On the People's Democratic Dictatorship] Of course, as everyone understands, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Castro, and Mao have all proceeded along the lines of dictatorship and not democracy, while the root of Marxism is political autonomy -- that is, of course, universal suffrage and Democracy. Soviet Russia and Red China did what other governments have done so well: promised to give to the people what they wanted in exchange for support, and then never deliver what their spoken intentions were (i.e. in this case, Socialism.) The Soviet Union and Red China aren't good examples of Socialism, because they weren't Socialist. They only claimed to be.

Interesting. You have convinced me of the merits of Pure Socialism. We should all convert to this never-before-really-tried system immediately.

To get the ball rolling, send me half of everything you own.

[Punkerslut]

[quote="[Bible]Monkey"] Punkerslut wrote: Interesting. You have convinced me of the merits of Pure Socialism. We should all convert to this never-before-really-tried system immediately.

To get the ball rolling, send me half of everything you own.

Many Socialist organizations have accomplished great success. Unions, leftist groups, socialist and progressive parties, all of them have played an intricate role in abolishing child labor, establishing the eight hour work day, and creating safe working conditions in factories. Yes, Socialism has been tried, and yes, it works. The fact that you didn't have to work sixteen hours a day from the age of six proves that Socialism, the idea of using our power to defend the working class, has benefited you.

[Wolverine]

Statist capitalist or Communist, they will still get shot if they infridge on my rights.

[[Bible]Monkey]

Punkerslut wrote: [Bible]Monkey wrote: Interesting. You have convinced me of the merits of Pure Socialism. We should all convert to this never-before-really-tried system immediately.

To get the ball rolling, send me half of everything you own.

Many Socialist organizations have accomplished great success. Unions, leftist groups, socialist and progressive parties, all of them have played an intricate role in abolishing child labor, establishing the eight hour work day, and creating safe working conditions in factories. Yes, Socialism has been tried, and yes, it works. The fact that you didn't have to work sixteen hours a day from the age of six proves that Socialism, the idea of using our power to defend the working class, has benefited you.

Okay, okay, you'd already convinced me. Is any of the stuff you're sending me fragile? Put some bubble wrap in the box before you ship it to me.

[Punkerslut]

[Bible]Monkey wrote: Okay, okay, you'd already convinced me. Is any of the stuff you're sending me fragile? Put some bubble wrap in the box before you ship it to me.

Wow, that's an amazing debate technique: redefine the position of your opponent. Oh, no, wait, it's called a strawman.

I didn't call for the equalization of everyone's personal individual property. Communism is about the abolition of private property, which translates to abolishing the right to personally own capital, that is, the productive forces of an economy (factories, farms, mines, etc., since such property would be collectively owned and operated). Yeah, equalizing everyone's personal possessions. I've never known a single Communist or Socialist organization that sought that end. Do you?

[Reform]

You just need to look at how some bankers funded communism because it was a centralised banking system while looking like it was proposing a serious alternative. It was a con in many cases. Some well intentioned people did not even realise it, like Lenin. Even he was had.

"The money changers used every form of abuse"

Look at Lincoln, look at JFK... Those who murdered them, those "elitist" ****** ******* ****** ****** use any **** ****** trick they can think of. Corruption breeds corruption. That's where we are today.

Where are the gold reserves??? Where is the silver???? Ahhhaaaaaaa! Follow the money baby!

"You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out." (Speaking to the banking system)

-Andrew Jackson



People UNITE!!!! We have a common enemy to destroy!!!! :-D

Arm and organise yourselves because these guys are getting ready to send the waffen SS round us up, execute us or send us off to islands in the middle of nowher. GITMO style.

[Gremlin]

ProGunAmerican wrote: Statist capitalist or Communist, they will still get shot if they infridge on my rights.

:tu:

[Reform]

Gremlin wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Statist capitalist or Communist, they will still get shot if they infridge on my rights.

:tu:
:tu: :think:

[Eichen]

Hmmmm... and exactly how do we get everyone who owns capital (like, everybody in the USA) to just give it up?
I think we'll need a "temporary" dictator to help "the people" redistribute the wealth, of course. That's gonna take a strong centralized authority.

And once we're done with the socialist phase of government, he or she will magically step down from leadership in order to usher in the commie "utopia"!

Works so well every time.

[foadi]

Punkerslut wrote: Many Socialist organizations have accomplished great success. Unions, leftist groups, socialist and progressive parties, all of them have played an intricate role in abolishing child labor, establishing the eight hour work day, and creating safe working conditions in factories. Yes, Socialism has been tried, and yes, it works. The fact that you didn't have to work sixteen hours a day from the age of six proves that Socialism, the idea of using our power to defend the working class, has benefited you.
What are you talking about? Child labour still exists. So do sixteen hour workdays.

[Eduffy80911]

true capitalism is based on the supremacy of the individual. Statist-Capitalism is a contradiction in terms coined by people who see capitalism as evil and the individual as being subservient to society.

[Eichen]

Eduffy80911 wrote: true capitalism is based on the supremacy of the individual. Statist-Capitalism is a contradiction in terms coined by people who see capitalism as evil and the individual as being subservient to society.
Exactly. It's a pathetic attempt to co-opt terminology in order to misrepresent the system, and then use it to cover their own shortcomings and failures.
Kinda like what the far-left has done with the word "liberal", since "socialist" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[foadi]

Eichen wrote: Kinda like what the far-left has done with the word "liberal", since "socialist" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Not exactly. Marx popularized the term "capitalism", and he used it to describe mercantilism, which would be considered "statist-capitalism" in todays world.

[Canada_Rocks]

I would hardly call Russia capitalists under the rule fo Stalin.

[[Bible]Monkey]

Punkerslut wrote: [Bible]Monkey wrote: Okay, okay, you'd already convinced me. Is any of the stuff you're sending me fragile? Put some bubble wrap in the box before you ship it to me.

Wow, that's an amazing debate technique: redefine the position of your opponent. Oh, no, wait, it's called a strawman.

Strawman? What...the...h... I see no reason to bring scarecrows into this.

Kidding. I know what you mean, I think though...you're saying just even up all the "Big Property" ,( factories) and allow individual ownership of the "little property" ( hairbrush , colour TV) .

Punkerslut wrote: I didn't call for the equalization of everyone's personal individual property. Communism is about the abolition of private property, which translates to abolishing the right to personally own capital, that is, the productive forces of an economy (factories, farms, mines, etc., since such property would be collectively owned and operated).

Isn't it hard to draw a line between the Big property ( state owned ) and the "little "property"? Or as you describe it, "Communism is about the abolition of private property" yet simultaneously "didn't call for the equalization of everyone's personal individual property" So you can own stuff weighing up to 10 pounds? Or only as big as a fridge? Look, as long as you're willing to send me half your stuff, I'll go along with this idea .

Punkerslut wrote: Yeah, equalizing everyone's personal possessions. I've never known a single Communist or Socialist organization that sought that end. Do you?

Actually yes. Take your average Pig Farm in the Ukraine , pre-1989. All of the commie peasants on one collective were sqaubbling over this one manure shovel, because it was aluminum, and lighter than the iron shovels.

One guy said it was his-it was the one he always used. The other guys said it belonged to the state, so he had to share it. To solve it, the pig-farm-collective commie boss declared all tools to be property of the State on that pig farm, and to be shared equally. including the nice light aluminum shovel. I actually saw this-after that nobody gave a rats ass about looking after the tools-they rusted wherever they were dropped. ( I was on an Ag. exchange trip) . Socialism is stupid, because it doesn't recognize ( and stifles) the real benefit of greed and accomplishment in the human heart.

If Socialism was beneficial, and if it had somehow been put into widespread practice over the whole globe in , say, 1500 or whatever, I'd be writing this with a chicken feather and you'd be reading it by candlelight.

[Gremlin]

[Bible]Monkey wrote: Punkerslut wrote: [Bible]Monkey wrote: Okay, okay, you'd already convinced me. Is any of the stuff you're sending me fragile? Put some bubble wrap in the box before you ship it to me.

Wow, that's an amazing debate technique: redefine the position of your opponent. Oh, no, wait, it's called a strawman.

Strawman? What...the...h... I see no reason to bring scarecrows into this.

Kidding. I know what you mean, I think though...you're saying just even up all the "Big Property" ,( factories) and allow individual ownership of the "little property" ( hairbrush , colour TV) .

Punkerslut wrote: I didn't call for the equalization of everyone's personal individual property. Communism is about the abolition of private property, which translates to abolishing the right to personally own capital, that is, the productive forces of an economy (factories, farms, mines, etc., since such property would be collectively owned and operated).

Isn't it hard to draw a line between the Big property ( state owned ) and the "little "property"? Or as you describe it, "Communism is about the abolition of private property" yet simultaneously "didn't call for the equalization of everyone's personal individual property" So you can own stuff weighing up to 10 pounds? Or only as big as a fridge? Look, as long as you're willing to send me half your stuff, I'll go along with this idea .

Punkerslut wrote: Yeah, equalizing everyone's personal possessions. I've never known a single Communist or Socialist organization that sought that end. Do you?

Actually yes. Take your average Pig Farm in the Ukraine , pre-1989. All of the commie peasants on one collective were sqaubbling over this one manure shovel, because it was aluminum, and lighter than the iron shovels.

One guy said it was his-it was the one he always used. The other guys said it belonged to the state, so he had to share it. To solve it, the pig-farm-collective commie boss declared all tools to be property of the State on that pig farm, and to be shared equally. including the nice light aluminum shovel. I actually saw this-after that nobody gave a rats ass about looking after the tools-they rusted wherever they were dropped. ( I was on an Ag. exchange trip) . Socialism is stupid, because it doesn't recognize ( and stifles) the real benefit of greed and accomplishment in the human heart.

If Socialism was beneficial, and if it had somehow been put into widespread practice over the whole globe in , say, 1500 or whatever, I'd be writing this with a chicken feather and you'd be reading it by candlelight.


:lol: I think i pulled a muscle.

[Punkerslut]

Eichen wrote: Hmmmm... and exactly how do we get everyone who owns capital (like, everybody in the USA) to just give it up?
I think we'll need a "temporary" dictator to help "the people" redistribute the wealth, of course. That's gonna take a strong centralized authority.

And once we're done with the socialist phase of government, he or she will magically step down from leadership in order to usher in the commie "utopia"!

Works so well every time.

That's Leninism-Maoism, and only idiots who don't learn would make the same mistakes as those allegedly "communist" leaders. Yes, of course the capitalist class never wants to concede anything to the working class. The best way to do this is completely democratically. Otherwise, you get duplicates of Stalin and Lenin.

foadi wrote: What are you talking about? Child labour still exists. So do sixteen hour workdays.

Of course. I meant in most industrialized, western nations. The struggle for independent unions in third world countries to establish a grasp of the labor economy still rages, and it feels like the Leftist groups who are protesting this injustice are ignored by the mainstream media. The struggle to abolish illicit sweatshops in our own nation rages on, as well, mostly at the irking of Leftist, Progressive groups. The fight for power in these third world nations, between the working class and the capital-owning class, is a demonstration of Socialism: it is the working class asserting that their rights be upheld through their own power and strength.

Eduffy80911 wrote: true capitalism is based on the supremacy of the individual. Statist-Capitalism is a contradiction in terms coined by people who see capitalism as evil and the individual as being subservient to society.

Eichen wrote:
Exactly. It's a pathetic attempt to co-opt terminology in order to misrepresent the system, and then use it to cover their own shortcomings and failures.

That's hardly true. Even Adam Smith wrote about Statist-Capitalism, where the masters of the economy control the government to enslave the masses:

"The masters upon these occasions are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen. The workmen, accordingly, very seldom derive any advantage from the violence of those tumultuous combinations, which, partly from the interposition of the civil magistrate, partly from the necessity superior steadiness of the masters, partly from the necessity which the greater part of the workmen are under of submitting for the sake of present subsistence, generally end in nothing, but the punishment or ruin of the ringleaders." ["Wealth of Nations," book 1, chapter 8.]

Canada_rocks wrote: I would hardly call Russia capitalists under the rule fo Stalin.

It was a state-rune Capitalism: the private organization that sought profit through coercive means was the state, not the rule of the people, as Marx had so clearly expressed. The struggle for Democracy was one that the Communists and Socialists waged. During the Spanish Civil War, it was self-organized Jacobins, Socialists, and Anarchists that fought against the Fascist military of Franco, because they all believed in Democracy as the greatest good and Statism as the greatest evil.

[Bible]Monkey wrote: Isn't it hard to draw a line between the Big property ( state owned ) and the "little "property"? Or as you describe it, "Communism is about the abolition of private property" yet simultaneously "didn't call for the equalization of everyone's personal individual property" So you can own stuff weighing up to 10 pounds? Or only as big as a fridge?

The technical definition of private property is property which is used to generate value. Of course, private property cannot become capital until labor is applied to it, otherwise it simply remains as property. Naturally, Marx and the other economists get into a really tasty, philosophical analysis of the definition of capital.

[Reform]

Liberal = Lincoln, Jackson, JFK. or?

Oh who cares, stupid labels that don't reflect details.

It's like yellow being the same as blue.