Trump’s threat to label Antifa terrorist group triggers row in Germany

a reply to: Breakthestreak

IDK, warren finally got a big crowd. Now, she may have done what hillary did and got some star power to show up in order to achieve it, IDK. But it's a little worrisome if that loon starts drawing crowds.

a reply to: DBCowboy

here in MA the Communist Party is officially designated a subversive group and it is a crime to rent a space to them

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Geez those numbers just keep getting higher and higher.

Got any other arguments besides socialism and communism in the 20th century were high jacked by ruthless dictators?

Funny how the only person who had somewhat of a grasp of what communism was is Lenin, and he was leading a bloody revolution, war.
As I said earlier, ideologies evolve, socialist ideas are grasped by pretty much every modern western society today. Unless you reject post modernism, socialism is here to stay, and will integrate into a fully functioning society whether you like it or not. And please, don't come back with "bu-but those are social programs" meme, it's over used.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Warren has the backing of the unions so when she needs a crowd they can create one, complete with preprinted signs. She will be this years Democrat nominee, I would wager on it. Trump of course is prepared to do a number on that fraudulent squaw.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm not sure I follow. What is worth? How is it defined? Dollars? What is the difference between worth and capital in the above sentence?

To define capital is basically just wealth in general.
But if we dig deeper into where wealth comes from it will all boil down to one simple fact, there is labor somewhere down the line to gain such wealth, as little or as big as it can get, someone, somewhere had to put in their time in order for a capitalist to obtain it. Think coffee, a somewhat controlled market, where manipulation of middle men and transport turn a plant and a farmer into a multi billion dollar industry.

The point i was getting as with that sentence is you cannot have any sort of capital wealth, whether it's money, stones, what ever it is. Labor is the why capitalism works.

Who owes me this? Let's take the cooking a meal example. If I cook myself a great meal, who owes me more capital than the labor I put in?

If you grew that food to cook meal, that labor is yours. You cooking that meal, it also means it's yours.

If you bought that food, the agreed upon bartering system whether it's with rocks or advanced economics, labor you put in somewhere else paid for the labor to get that food into your home. But still, you cooking the food is your labor, and it's owed to you.
The point is. Labor theory grasps the concept that if people put in their time for someone else, the time owed should be fair, and a run away capitalist should not reap the majority of the benefits.
If you had say a personal chef, and you gave them just enough cash to buy produce, then cook you the meal, and then pay them less then what the ingredients were worth. What skin is off that chefs back to perform such a skill for your benefit?
If you want blue fin tuna, white truffles, and fresh made pasta, you won't get away with paying a chef 5 dollars an hour, the ingredients would be ruined. Adam Smith put it best that specialization of ones labor should reflect the capital they are owed.

Exactly. It ignores the basic principles of being a person and living in a society. There will be a government of some sort and that government, deriving it's power from the people will really be the controller of all the production. When a government is run by people, it becomes corrupt and the more power it has, the more damage it can do to the people living under it.

Yes, and you conveniently ignored the part where Marx's theory clearly goes into detail that automation will most likely make capital in all sorts basically useless.

Incorrect, in socialist terms you wouldn't have been allowed to store up that much food and if you had, the government would have confiscated it (in the name of the people, of course). When people were to the point of starving, they'd start deciding who would die and who wouldn't based on their own corrupt interests.

Not quite.
I was referring to if society had to literally rebuild itself, as you stated if it were after a massive disaster of the sorts and no such government could exist, and I digress a little, this is where I also mention that communism cannot exist in such a scenario either.
In the scenario where after the nuclear fallout or what ever happens. You either work together, or you basically just become hermits and eventually murder each other for food (in an extreme case) or you just finish your food and move onto the next feed spot.

So what sounds better? Sharing the food and rebuilding society, or just chancing it on your own?

a reply to: strongfp

You either work together, or you basically just become hermits and eventually murder each other for food (in an extreme case) or you just finish your food and move onto the next feed spot.

What rebuilds our cities after a disaster? Capitalism or socialism? You're over simplifying, assuming any combined effort is free of capitalism and purely socialist/communist. Capitalism is what allows people with competing views, who would otherwise want to kill each other, to work together.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Capitalism works, or should work, from the bottom up. Not the top down.

Socialism is inetivble when a strong capitalist society is established, and it becomes overwhelming. Meaning, its turned upside down. Trickle down. That's when ideas like socialism come into play to correct it.

My opinion, building a society from scratch the invisible hand of capitalism works best, but as society becomes more complex so does the ideaolgies involved.

originally posted by: strongfp

Geez those numbers just keep getting higher and higher.

Because we are talking about more than just communism...
According to the following website communism itself has murdered 110 million people...

...
In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.
...

www.hawaii.edu...

Add to that the murders by socialism such as Hitler, Mussolini, and the murders in "red Terrors" all around the world. You should be glad because I am not adding the murders sanctioned by governments in socialist Muslim countries.

originally posted by: strongfp
Got any other arguments besides socialism and communism in the 20th century were high jacked by ruthless dictators?

Meanwhile your argument is to claim "socialism and communism really haven't been tried"? Only the most ignorant of people make such a claim because you are willing to deny the fact that socialism and communism bring nothing but death, and suffering...

originally posted by: strongfp
Funny how the only person who had somewhat of a grasp of what communism was is Lenin, and he was leading a bloody revolution, war.

I guess you find it funnier how Lenin's vision began the starvation and death of 5 million people... Since then every communist regime has brought nothing but starvation, suffering, imprisonment and death...

...
In 1918, shortly after the Bolsheviks came to power, Lenin decided to abolish private property. His decision's most important result was the nationalization of land once owned by villagers. Bolshevik militants, Cheka police agents, and Red Army units forced their way into farms all over Russia and, under threat of arms, confiscated the produce that was the only source of food for villagers already living in harsh conditions. A quota was established that every farmer had to give to the Bolsheviks, but in order to fill it, most farmers had to surrender all the produce they had. Villagers who resisted were silenced by the most brutal methods.
...

Lenin's Policy of Deliberate Starvation

originally posted by: strongfp
As I said earlier, ideologies evolve, socialist ideas are grasped by pretty much every modern western society today. Unless you reject post modernism, socialism is here to stay, and will integrate into a fully functioning society whether you like it or not. And please, don't come back with "bu-but those are social programs" meme, it's over used.

Socialism and communism haven't evolved... Or do you forget that in Venezuela "socialism of the 21st century" was implemented?...

In Cuba even with Obama's open policies towards Cuba the regular people were still and are still to this day starving, as in there are days that the only food available is a piece of stale bread and maybe some mayonnaise, meanwhile rich tourists get the best meals...

It is harder than ever to find food for regular Cubans, and I should know as half of my family is still there...

Again, you only show willing ignorance, and the deliberately denying of facts when it comes to socialism and communism...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You're making knee jerk arguments based 9n emotions. Think critically here and research why those deaths happened, and grasp how for one, communism has never ever been achieved, and socialism osnt responsible for peoples deaths.

If you wanted to go down that road capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, and America alone have litterally countless, deaths on their hands. Countless, unfathomed death toll.
Point, is people kill for what ever reason. The ideaology isnt the killer.

a reply to: strongfp

Nope, I am stating facts. Colonialism no longer exists, and even though atrocities were caused by colonialism it has nothing on socialism and communism which have caused more death than colonialism has ever caused... You are ignoring and denying that to this day socialism and communism seek to silence political adversaries, or put them in mental institutions, or even kill them. To this day those are the same goals of the radical left which is now a majority in the left.

Look at your left-wing media and politicians not only labeling conservative and independent news as "fake news" but actively trying to shut down all independent and conservative media meanwhile the left-wing media continues with fake news about "Trump colluding with Russia" and claiming "Trump is a racist that must be put in a mental institution as per LIBERAL scholars."

At the same time the left, including your politicians, keep attacking everyone in the right, claiming we are all nazis and that it is okay for violent left-wing groups like Antifa to violently attack people in the right simply for not agreeing with your politics...

Your side HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL. Socialism/communism will continue to bring nothing but suffering, death, and imprisonment for a majority of people simply for disagreeing with your political views...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Your only argument against socialism is people die. And its 'my side'. Like it's a sports team.

Ok got it.

You guys are constantly redefining things and look for new precedent to be the new standard until you replace it with something else.
Terrorism is the spread of fear through violence and is often politically motivated. By actively organizing together to cause harm to others, they are self-defining as a terror group. Simply having an ideology doesn't make them a terrorist group, it is their organized violent actions, which are increasing in frequency and scope.

The "but ideology!" arguement might appeal to some sympathizer of the cause, but falls short of honestly discussing this issue.
a reply to: DBCowboy

Is people dying not a good reason to dislike socialism? Are you pro people dying?

Got it.
... see how that works?
The arguement is socialism has yet to have a successful model in the real world, all attempts ultimately lead to authoritarianism, and you know the death stuff.


a reply to: strongfp

a reply to: Rob808

Nope. People die. It's a fact of life.

But when you have people who are tunnel visioned towards an evolving ideaology and focus on the places it obviously failed yet ignore the places that learned from the mistakes, that's where the discussion ends.

Label them and prosecute them.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Your only argument against socialism is people die. And its 'my side'. Like it's a sports team.

Ok got it.

I have no fantasies about capitalism, but it is the one system that has helped people and to this day helps people get out of poverty. Under socialism and communism the majority become poor and suffer more than under capitalism. People like you are the ones whom keep ignoring the facts of socialism and communism. It is people like you whom dabble in fantasies that will never come true.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Rob808

Nope. People die. It's a fact of life.

But when you have people who are tunnel visioned towards an evolving ideaology and focus on the places it obviously failed yet ignore the places that learned from the mistakes, that's where the discussion ends.

Under socialism and communism more people die and more people suffer, which you keep on ignoring. There is no system that has learned from socialism or communism and works.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Look up the east india trade company and see what happens when capitalism goes unchecked.

I think you should read up on your Adam Smith to understand the full grasp of why ideaolgies like socialism exists.

It's not about ruthless dictators taking philosophies out of context, it's about what works in the end.

Whether you like it or not, communism is a fake enemy, a boogeyman, something to basically hate on because of what it represents. It's never come to fruition ever, and cant without certain aspects of a society come and go, if you accept its foundations or makes sense.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TGunner

If you make Antifa a terrorist group, then you are making an ideology a terrorist group.

Antifa is an ideology.

Mostly communist, but we never did make communism a terrorist group.

I disagree. Not in context, but in fact.

Anti-fascism is an ideology. Antifa may call itself whatever it wants but its actions are terrorist 101.

Or, if you like, white supremacy is an ideology but no one has a problem calling the kkk, or any other variation on that theme, a terrorist group.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Is the kkk a terrorist group?