It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There's two types of Communism, the one that is forced upon the people, and the one that is chosen by the people.
Originally posted by PunksNotDead
... Communism is not bad by itself , Stalin and his boys made the way people see communism today ...
but I most agree that the 20th century communism was big mistake but so is capitalism and biggest mistake was fascism
If there would be communism with total equality , solidarity , media liberty and all that # that would be the perfect system
Originally posted by gdeed
There is only one kind of communism and it is hateful, vengeful, ugly, greedy and once your in it you never can leave unless they kill you.
Originally posted by rizla
Glad to see so many people are aware of the difference between Communism and Stalinism / Dictatorship. Obviously I don't mean the OP.
Originally posted by donhuangenaro
Originally posted by gdeed
There is only one kind of communism and it is hateful, vengeful, ugly, greedy and once your in it you never can leave unless they kill you.
this can also be a definition of 'democracy' based on capitalism...
Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
reply to post by OzWeatherman
And then they have enough THC in their system to kill an ox.
Originally posted by '___'eviant
There is not enough. There are too many of us. We either need to spread to other planets to maintain capitalism long term, or we are morally obligated, in my opinion, to switch to a system that allows us to ensure that people aren't suffering needlessly while other people, who are no different aside from having been born into resources, have a standard of living higher than what others can even potentially attain.
Originally posted by Klavier
There has never been a Pure Communist country in this world.
There will probably never be a purely Communist country.
Nothing "evil" In pure Communism.
Oh I forgot, most people don't want Communism as their egos are too big for that, they want to feel they are "above" someone.
Originally posted by gdeed
Originally posted by donhuangenaro
Originally posted by gdeed
There is only one kind of communism and it is hateful, vengeful, ugly, greedy and once your in it you never can leave unless they kill you.
this can also be a definition of 'democracy' based on capitalism...
No its not. Communism is hate of others, depravity, greed in it's purest and vilest form sugar coated for easy consumption. Millions of people have fallen for Communism in the past and many more are falling for it now.
Originally posted by gdeed
... tend to get a big head when given power to make decisions over the sheeple placed under their care. No matter how well meaning communism may start out it always ends with tyranny over the masses.
Originally posted by gdeed
The world is repeating the huge mestakes it made during the early part of the 20th century by going left. It seems humans never learn.
By 1815, Weishaupt's ambassadors had begun to extend their influence into many parts of the world beyond Bavaria and France. Among the personages and organizations responsible for extending the Illuminati's infiltration and power throughout Europe were Filippo Michele Buonarroti and his Sublimes Maitres Parfaits (Sublime Perfect Masters), and Louis Auguste Blanqui and the Societe des Saisons (Society of the Seasons). Those two branches of the Illuminati formed the source of the League of the Just, which commissioned Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Following publication of the Manifesto, the League of the Just changed its name to the Communist League. The Illuminists provided the unseen hand behind the staged communist revolts of 1848, which convulsed France, Austria-Hungary, and Russia. This inaugurated the era of communist subversion, infiltration, and control of governments across the globe--an era which has not ended, contrary to "polite" opinion.
“Now, as for myself, I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society”.