"Communism for Kids":Published by MIT Press

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The reasons why it was fought don't change the fact that the States where not allowed to leave the collective.

a reply to: Bone75

As someone who was also spoon fed that indoctrination, I also had to ask why he is complaining.

a reply to: Kali74

LOL, free market under socialism when the state controls the means of production?...

How can you have a free market when the state controls it?...

When you control the means of production you cannot have a free market. Centralization of power, under socialism and even corporatism itself are very left leaning.

Corporatism is a form of socialism, which is why the United Nations want to create a "global social system derived from corporate governance."

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

a reply to: Wookiep

In other words you're the third person in this thread that thinks they know people better than themselves that thinks they know a group even though they are outside it, better than someone inside it. You seem to have lost control of your ego.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You don't have a free market if it is state controlled nor do you have a free market if it is privately owned. Worker owned however... no hierarchies, no CEO draining the wealth, no shareholders to be enslaved to. If your work is valued, you profit.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Wookiep

In other words you're the third person in this thread that thinks they know people better than themselves that thinks they know a group even though they are outside it, better than someone inside it. You seem to have lost control of your ego.

No, not in other words. I don't write my opinions due to ego issues. I know what socialism is, and I know who Chomsky is, and I don't agree with him one bit. If you can't handle that, and if that offends you too much, too bad! I know the "group" you're in, and I don't want in it, nor am I attempting to get in it.

originally posted by: daskakik

The reasons why it was fought don't change the fact that the States where not allowed to leave the collective.

It wasn't about the "collective"... It was about the fact that a group of people, democrats, wanted to keep slaves based on race. They were denying people of their individual right to exist without someone else owning them...

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Wookiep

In other words you're the third person in this thread that thinks they know people better than themselves that thinks they know a group even though they are outside it, better than someone inside it. You seem to have lost control of your ego.

I'm getting a kick out of all the "individuals" spouting the same crap.



... not that I want in your Commie-Lite group either...

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Wookiep

In other words you're the third person in this thread that thinks they know people better than themselves that thinks they know a group even though they are outside it, better than someone inside it. You seem to have lost control of your ego.

I'm getting a kick out of all the "individuals" spouting the same crap.

Common opinions don't equal "collectivism". Government forced opinions (cheered on by the mob) do, however. I am happy to see multiple opinions flying around, even if I don't agree with them. Modern lefties however, seem to want to live in a world with only one opinion though. You know, they like to shut down speeches they don't agree with on college campuses etc.

Go communism!

a reply to: Wookiep

You know? Then why act confused or like I just made the terminology up on the spot. You don't need to change definition s of things just because you don't agree with them and don't want to join us (boohoo).

a reply to: Kali74

I have a right to believe that someone calling themselves an Anarchist Socialist Libertarian makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, just as much as you want to believe it's a real, valid thing because someone told you so.

However, to give you some slack, I suppose I can concede that you yourself didn't go ahead and make it up on your own. So there's that. I still think it's a mound of BS tho no matter whom thought it up.

a reply to: Wookiep

And you would be wrong. Here's more from the wiki page, which isn't fake.

The first anarchist journal to use the term "libertarian" was Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social and it was published in New York City between 1858 and 1861 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque.[42] The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when "libertarian communism" was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16–22 November 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on "Libertarian or Anarchist Communism". Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France."[42] The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.[43] In this tradition, the term "libertarianism" in "libertarian socialism" is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence "libertarian socialism" is equivalent to "socialist anarchism" to these scholars.[44][45] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin.

wiki

a reply to: Kali74

So an anarchist in the 1800s described himself as Libertarian. French derived. Cool! Doesn't appear to have anything to do with modern Libertarianism any more than modern Liberalism having anything to do with being "Liberal".

But hey look, I just found something!

In 2013, the democrats over at the Huffington Post claim that Republican Anarchy is a thing now! All linked to what their skewed views of what the republican party has become!

Republican Anarchy is a thing!! I'm excited, anyone can do this!

Maybe Glenn Beck would approve if I added Commie to it, (since the thread is about Communism) that way if anyone questions the validity of this new monstrosity, I can call them ignorant.

Republican Anarchist Commies unite!!

a reply to: Kali74

In a free market you as a baker own the bread you make because you buy the flour with your own money, and you can change the price of the bread to compete with other bakeries but you also make a profit.

Under socialism the state controls prices. Since you cannot change the prices, because it is the state (the socialist/communist party) that controls the prices hence you can't make a profit.

I'll give you as an example Spain... When the socialist party took control of the government the economy took a dive.

...
The Socialists governed Spain from 2004 to 2011 but the new political forces that have emerged since the country's financial crisis have eaten into their support base and Sanchez notched their worst ever national election result in June.
...

Spain's Socialist leader quits and opens door to end of deadlock

The socialists in Spain destroyed the economy, like all socialists/communists do. Same thing with Italy, other European nations which have turned more and more socialist.

a reply to: Bone75

If you don't like the money you are making as a "capitalist entrepreneur" perhaps you should give away all of your money since you want "communism". Why take away the rights of others to try to be successful? You can go dirt poor by just giving all that money you are earning which you don't seem to like.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am now thinking the problem here boils down to definition of modern terms. You have provided many examples of what "socialism" is on many occasions now, to completely closed ears.

I think Kali really does have a valid system of beliefs (that I don't agree with) but it really needs to be labeled what it currently is differently with totally different words attached to it because the words in modern terms completely contradict themselves. That is where the confusion is coming from, when it comes to her example.

Her wiki article uses Socialism and Libertarianism to equal Anarchy. You know it makes no sense. I know it too, but it DOES have a meaning in all fairness, but it has GOT to be called something else.

I am a very passionate about my own Libertarian ideals (albeit slightly more right leaning than left on most issues), and I'll be dammed if someone tries to equate it with Socialism or Anarchy.

Kali's definition of socialism is not the widely know definition that you and I know, (and you have sourced multiple times now) and of course agree on. Hers somehow doesn't involve government ran socialism. It's something different entirely with the same word attached. Just like modern Libertarianism and limited government, and free market capitalism has somehow now been equated with Anarchy.

It's a word game. That's what it boils down too. Someone, somewhere has skewed the modern meanings and made them into something else.

This brings me to a far more sinister theory. I remember when Chomsky was sucking the college libertarians in to liberalism under the guise of something else during Ron Paul's liberty movement. They bought it hook, line and sinker. It became a trend. It took a while, but they finally just admitted to completely converting to "Liberals" modern ones, not Liberals in the classic sense. (Not all, mostly the college aged ones)

It seems intentional and reminiscent of powerful brainwashing to me, and it's relevant to this thread. Those passionate Paul supporters became hardcore socialists and SJW's and Obama supporters pretty quickly. Perhaps this is part of the indoctrination we have been witnessing, and perhaps this new wave of teaching Communism is related with the skewing of words and modern meanings of words.

For all we know, the college professors have written entire books with skewed meanings for years now. Maybe this is why it appears to be so incredibly difficult to explain your point of what actual socialism is. Maybe we will again have to do the same when it comes to Communism. Somehow they have both been fluffed up to seem totally trendy and cool.

I'm sure I didn't explain that quite right, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

a reply to: Wookiep

These aren't my definitions of terms they are the original ones. Your predecessors are the thieves.

Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard was influenced by the work of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists, themselves influenced by classical liberalism.[27] However, he thought they had a faulty understanding of economics: they accepted the labor theory of value as influenced by the classical economists, but Rothbard was a student of neoclassical economics which does not agree with the labor theory of value.[citation needed] Rothbard sought to meld 19th-century American individualists' advocacy of free markets and private defense with the principles of Austrian economics: "There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics,' a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung".[28]

wiki

Sorry to keep using wiki but I only have so much energy. It's quick.

This brings me to a far more sinister theory. I remember when Chomsky was sucking the college libertarians in to liberalism under the guise of something else during Ron Paul's liberty movement. They bought it hook, line and sinker. It became a trend. It took a while, but they finally just admitted to completely converting to "Liberals" modern ones, not Liberals in the classic sense. (Not all, mostly the college aged ones) 

Chomsky has been saying the same things for decades so, no... there's no sinister plot going on. Not from this side anyway.

For all we know, the college professors have written entire books with skewed meanings for years now. Maybe this is why it appears to be so incredibly difficult to explain your point of what actual socialism is. 

Our terminology. Stolen and co-opted into Capitalism by those who admired free market socialism but were too greedy to place value on labor.

If you're confused, start poking around the end of the feudal era, how Libertarian Socialism came to America and what happened to it when it did.

a reply to: Kali74

I actually pointed out that it could have been going on for decades. Whatever the case, Electrics many examples of socialism is the same as the version I grew up learning about and it has noting to do with what you are talking about. Same with Libertarianism (it is NOT anarchy OR socialism by any stretch). I don't care if the name of my version of those things has to change, if so then so be it. It's not worth the deception and confusion, trying to mix completely different meanings into the same words.

a reply to: Wookiep

Your definitions are what I was taught too. It was all lies.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Bone75

Why take away the rights of others to try to be successful?

By successful I'm assuming you mean financially secure?