"Communism for Kids":Published by MIT Press

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That's been debunked several times. Jane bought the house with the money she got from selling an inherited property.

There's no proof of that. It's just another fairy tale story.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

They are still anecdotal and can be skewed by the personal experience.

If my family lost everything because of Castro he would seem one way to me. If they ascended within the Communist Party to become wealthy I might see him differently. ElectricUniverse admits that both of those experiences exist in Cuba.

I've personally heard both types of anecdotes as well. I tend to give both equal credence. Then there is hyperbole.

Huh, so if the point is that the people under communism are all considered equal and hold everything in equal measure ... then your example of a family who "ascended" because they rose within the communist party of a nation while another family lost everything because the same party came to power would seem to belie that stated original premise that everyone so loves about the idea of communism.

It is the "first among equals" paradox of a system that pisses on your leg and tells you its raining. If the system were truly all it promises, no familes would lose and none would likewise gain. All would be perfectly the same in outcome in every way.

Hence your example, is not true communism as its defenders so often claim when its detractors use this very same point as a reason why communism sucks -- party favorites get the best of everything and the common people are forced to share the scraps equally while the party enemies are often brutally sacrificed in gulags for the "greater good."

It is a nice attempt at turning one of communism's least attractive features into a positive for your own supporting purposes though.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
That seems to be what you believe.

it is the truth of the matter. But I was re reading the Communist Manifesto last night and Marx did spend a lot of effort trying to convince people that there's some kind of difference between taxing the bourgeois and the proletariat. And that it's only the bourgeois family they are trying to abolish.
Maybe it's just a hairline difference how cultural Marxists redefine things like the meaning of family.
In any case please try to explain to me how Soviet communism preserved individual expression????
Oh yes before I forget ...it was Mussolini who coined the term Totalitarianism" to denote how the state takes total control of all society. That is a left wing ideology.
It destroys individualism. I stand by my word on it.
You might read Jonah Goldberg book Liberal Fascism.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Wookiep
So either you're just someone who likes to argue a lot as a form of entertainment, or you are a troll. And by troll, I mean a socialist one.

This is ATS. Denying ignorance used to mean something.

Can you show me where I have defended socialism?

FYI, I'm Guatemalan. I hear stories of how bad US backed right wing gov treated the population in their hunt against communists. I could go all ElectricUniverse with that but I think both sides exaggerate. So no I'm not a socialist troll and I will call BS out whenever I see it.

Well you do expend a lot if energy defending the communist/socialist/Marxist agenda and ideology to the death with all of its propagandist untruths so I call bs

a reply to: ketsuko

It's actually something ElectricUniverse brought up in a thread long ago.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The truth to you but you can be wrong.

Here is a link. You'll notice that not everyone dressed the same. That should be enough to question the OP:
USSR 60s

a reply to: Wookiep

Perhaps you can point out exactly what is Socialist about Venezuela since Chavez died? Even under Chavez it wasn't Socialist. It was slightly more Socialist, he took the oil from the tycoons and nationalized it but he was still a dictator. After he died though everything he did, fell apart.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Irony.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Well you do expend a lot if energy defending the communist/socialist/Marxist agenda and ideology to the death with all of its propagandist untruths so I call bs

I'm not defending. If you can't tell the difference then that is on you.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Wookiep

Perhaps you can point out exactly what is Socialist about Venezuela since Chavez died? Even under Chavez it wasn't Socialist. It was slightly more Socialist, he took the oil from the tycoons and nationalized it but he was still a dictator. After he died though everything he did, fell apart.

All right every time an example comes up of how communism and socialism has failed and badly, you take the convenient cop out that "it wasn't really communism/socialism." What I want then is for those of your who think you know the real thing to get together, pool all your resources and create a small, self-sufficient communist commune.

Show us "the real thing" so all of our eyes can be opened. Then maybe you can win some converts.

a reply to: ketsuko

This is a funny post. First off here is a link to some "successful communes"

That being said, I don't see how these are going to convert anyone that it can work on a national level. It doesn't convince me despite being accused of being pro-socialist.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why is it that communists keep trying to push for this destructive ideology alongside those who propose for nations and people to embrace socialist ideals, when time after time socialism/communism has shown it to be the most oppressive and criminal ideologies that have ever been thought of?

Misinformed dogmatism solidified by indoctrination and propaganda would be my answer. They do not teach the opposing views in school, even despite them being far superior in argument and evidence.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not a Communist so, no. I'm a Socialist... that doesn't make me automatically collectivist. Socialism is an economic system that can embrace both individualism and collectivism.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's just flat out nonsense. I only ever learned that Socialism and Communism were bad when I was in school.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's just flat out nonsense. I only ever learned that Socialism and Communism were bad when I was in school.

Then you had good teachers. Did you go to college?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I learned of free market capitalism in school.

I learned of the manipulation of markets from conspiracy theorists.

Things seem to have changed.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes but nothing to do with politics, economic systems or ideologies.

ETA: What were you taught about Socialism in school? Where did you go to school and did you go to college?

I dont know why socialists or communists dont move to a country that is more in line with their beliefs. Not like love it or leave it BS... but seriously, why live in a place which is not and will not be what you want or how you want to raise your family and etc. You might be more happy and productive than living a place you arent at home in, fight against in all futility, and doesnt represent your beliefs.

a reply to: Kali74

Yes but nothing to do with politics, economic systems or ideologies.

ETA: What were you taught about Socialism in school? Where did you go to school and did you go to college?

I was never taught socialism. I never found out how bad it was until I self-educated. I went to university, yes.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Maybe I misunderstood what you were implying then. Can you clarify this statement?

They do not teach the opposing views in school, even despite them being far superior in argument and evidence.